Tassajara Class

Audio loading...

Welcome! You can log in or create an account to save favorites, edit keywords, transcripts, and more.


AI Suggested Keywords:

AI Summary: 



There's one thing, there's one part in chapter one that seems to be a real problem with the It's like, no, I don't want to go to the movies. You're not saying, no, not I don't want to go to the movies. You're just saying I don't want to go to the movies. Another translation of this, which means the same thing, I think, is, however, if a non-existent effect arises from these conditions, why does it not arise from non-conditions? The non-existent effect is larger. Or, let's see, if only non-existent effects arise from these conditions, why is it not possible that the effects arise from non-conditions?


If that effect, a non-existent in conditions, were to proceed from the conditions, why does it not proceed from non-conditions? If that effect, a non-existent in conditions, were to proceed from the conditions, why does it not proceed from non-conditions? So they're saying, if the effect isn't caused in the conditions, but it's caused in the conditions, why is it not caused in non-conditions?


So why does it not arise from non-conditions? Or, another one, if the non-real would result from those conditioning causes, why then would not a product proceed from a non-cause? A non-cause. If then, then if, even though non-existing in them, that effect proceeds from those conditions, why does the effect not proceed from non-conditions too? So, what I'm doing is, I'm using, what I'm doing is, I'm using the statement that things come from conditions that have that thing in them.


So he's saying, if a non-existent thing, if some effect being non-existent in the conditions, were to proceed from those conditions, then why does it not proceed from non-conditions? Because it's one of the things that can exist in conditions too? No, no, because other people are saying that things do exist, and they come from things that do exist, and they exist in conditions that they come from. So he's saying, if something doesn't arise, if something doesn't, if something that doesn't exist should proceed from conditions, then why did it not proceed from non-conditions? Now, after all that, you might want to feel more comfortable hearing the original translation. Why then, if non-entity arises from conditions, relational conditions, why is it not possible that the effect cannot arise from the non-relational conditions?


In other words, is it not possible that the effect can arise from non-relational conditions? So I don't think I want to go through and scratch out all those secret arts, but I think actually that means the same thing as the other one. You just said that it could, but not why it's not possible. I rephrased it. Why isn't it possible that the effect could arise from non-relational conditions? I don't know what that means. That's the way I read it. But I realize it doesn't look like that. But all the other ones are saying that, that if an effect, if an effect that doesn't really exist, can come from some conditions, then why are those conditions, why could you call them non-conditions? I know writing is very bad writing.


Unless there's a point. Yeah, there's a point to that. And I guess the point is, to graciously uproot the publication. Of making bad writing. More than just bad writing. Are you aware that Kalupahana has a different kind of interpretation on this paradigm? His interpretation is different than what seems to be different to me. Kalupahana says that so far, most of the arguments were directed against self-causation and the substantial existence of the effect in the conditions that give rise to it. Well... The present verse is a direct reputation of the view that the effect is different from the conditions.


That is, the basic premise of the theory of eternal causation. As implied by Narada Guna, in such a context, the term condition loses its meaning. For, if the cause and effect were sharply distinguished, one could maintain that anything can come from anything. In fact, contrary to the substantialist view, nothing comes out of nothing. In the substantialist view, nothing comes out of nothing. So, that's a good concept, right? What do I want to say? I've got you ready. Well, it seems to me what you're saying is, you're interpreting it as, there's the essence and the cause which produces the effect.


But, it seems to me that he's talking about, at least Kalupahana is talking about something different that, by the way he translated it, he says that that effect being non-existent in the condition. See, that being non-existent, he translates it a little different. It seems to me that there's no essence that's being transferred between the cause and the effect. Why is that? Do you think he's reading it as, that effect being not presently, not existing in the condition, proceeds from the condition. Then, why can't... So then, that effect would be, it's even for something, where there's nothing of the effect in the condition. Right. So, why couldn't it proceed from the non-condition? Right. Yes. In the first or second part, you said that characters 11-13 were an objection to another unit, which could be another reading of this one.


If you say conditions produce a non-existent... It's a mixture of Nagarjuna anticipating or bringing up objections, but also answering them. Does he have to do it? No, what I'm saying is, the reading from that standpoint, if there was somebody trying to create Nagarjuna's mode, and I'm saying, well, if you're saying the effect that comes out of conditions is non-existent, well, how come you can't have something that's really existent come out of non-condition? That's, you know, following that line, that it was the, that was one of the ways that I would do it, you know, if it was an opponent giving, you know, giving him a hard time, it could come out of something else. It's more or less done in the other translation. Repeat. What you did was, how can an effect exist which repeats? Why is it not possible that effects arise from non-condition?


If only non-existent effects arise from the condition. As implied by Nagarjuna in the context of the term condition, it would be, for if the cause and effect were sharply distinguished, one could maintain that anything could come out of anything. It is, in fact, the contrary to the substantialist view. Nothing comes out of nothing. So, I guess we've moved that part of the way.


It's been a long, long, long time. I can deal with it. Great. Now we're going to have one, two, and four. We've skipped over quite a few chapters here, and a lot of stuff has happened. We've kind of gone to the, in some sense, the climax of the whole argument. And I think we might be talking a little while, even though we've skipped over a lot. I just want to mention that one scholar said that Mahayana is, he said,


it is emptiness. So, now, the first four, the first six characters, the first six verses of the whole chapter, are the opponent's understanding of emptiness. So, the opponent's not going to tell you the six verses, but perhaps you understand the consequences of emptiness. First, if everything is empty, there will be neither production nor destruction.


According to your assertion, it will follow that the Aryan fourfold truths are non-existent. The true knowledge, relinquishing, practice, and confirmation will not be possible because of the non-existence of the Aryan fourfold truths. As these are non-existent, the Aryan fourfold truths, the Aryan fourfold fruits, that is, spiritual attainments, are also non-existent. As the fruits are non-existent, there will be no one who enjoys the fruits for their delision.


For if the eight aspirations of man do not exist, there will be no sangha. From the non-existence of the Aryan truths, the true dharma also will not exist. Without dharma and sangha, how could there be Buddha? Consequently, what you assert also destroys the treasures. Sixth, delving in shunyata, you will destroy the reality of the fruit for attainment, the proper and improper acts and all the everyday practices relative to the empirical world.


That's the basic point. And rather than... I have restrained myself from commenting on what's going on, so, you know, if you didn't hear what I have to say, now you'll hear what another human has to say. We'll start right off by saying... Let us interpret here, let us interrupt here, to point out that you do not know the real purpose of shunyata, and so that should not be. Therefore, there is only frustration and ignorance of your understanding. Now, this translation isn't so literal. The word shunyata appears three times in the original. So it's a more literal translation.


Your misunderstanding of yours of emptiness, of the purpose of emptiness and the significance of emptiness is incorrect. As a consequence, you are harmed by it. You say that you do not comprehend the purpose of emptiness. As such, you are tormented by emptiness and the meaning of emptiness. You are tormented by emptiness and the meaning of emptiness. Excuse me, could you distinguish between shunyata and sunyata? The shunyata... So, I'll write the shunyata. shunyata shunyata means empty, and shunyata is emptiness.


And emptiness is referred to in this part. Parallel instructions would be like anicca [...] So, anicca means impermanent, and anicca is impermanence. So, shunyata, empty, is something that you can actually experience. You can experience it, and that's the main answer to emptiness.


You know, like a teaching, an impermanence, impermanent, [...] impermanent experience and impermanence. So, uh... I forgot what that... what we were talking about that we were doing in the last one. Did we pass the mic to someone? Do you want to add to it, another... You can experience the... the experience that we had, that we had a private experience. That something's empty. So, I think I appreciate what Guru Mahārāja said there in his commentary, which he considered most important and primary,


the shunyā or shunyapā. And he said the shunyapā primary is starting with... at some point we're going to come up with some nouns. So, we start with shunyapā. We start with the experiential faith, and then we can make... derive shunyapā function. So, shunyapā is a noun that refers to the experiential noun here, this part. Which refers to the actual experience of faith lacking inherent existence. It's based on a wish, a belief in inherent existence or something. And... That's the experience of the empty.


That's the empty experience. And now comes the next part, which is a very important part that Guru Mahārāja used where he says... You know, when they just said... Guru's criticizing, saying that according to his thinking, he would be rejecting worldly conventions by the assertion of emptiness. He's rejecting all ordinary worlds and all ordinary worldly conventions and worldly daily affairs. So now he's just going to turn around and say that the teaching of dharma by various Buddhas is based on two truths. Namely, the relative or worldly truth and the conventional or supreme truth, the ultimate or absolute or supreme truth.


Or another translation is worldly convention and ultimate meaning. And Guru Mahārāja does it as... worldly convention and truth in terms of ultimate truth. And again, sort of a parallel here, you know, sometimes if you look at the Sanskrit in the first chapter, a lot of times they use the word ārtha for the thing that's arisen. Sometimes they use ārtha. So ārtha can also be kind of like a fruit. And so...


So... So paramārtha, in some sense, is the ultimate ārtha, ultimate truth. So, maybe I'll stop here and talk a little bit about the conventional and the conventional. It's interesting, you know, that there's a little bit of confusion in some Sanskrit, or even in English, I think it's up to much, in terms of translation, that they act like they know it.


And there's one word... There's another word... In other words, S-A-N-D-R-T-I and S-A-N-D-R-T-T-I and in some texts they have one, in some texts they have the other. This is the word, in Sanskrit this is the word that's translated as conventional, or worldly. They're both Sanskrit words which have been used in the context of conventional or worldly truth, or worldly meaning. But the roots of the two are different.


One has a root around D-R This one has a root D-R and the second one has a root D-R-T. One's Sanskrit, and the other one's Sanskrit. So kind of a mix of the D-R and the D-R-T. And the D-R means, the D-R-T means to obscure, or hide. So, the one meaning of the word Sanskrit, which is the more pointy, is the more of a convention, or the convention which covers, or hides,


truth, ultimate significance. The other root, root, which manifests or appears, or manifests, actualizes, in the sense of, well, in one sense you can say, well, that worldly truth is in turn, appears. The other meaning is that the conventional meaning, or worldly convention, is is actually an appearance or a manifestation of truth. It's a manifestation, it's a manifestation of revealing truth. And in some way, these two dimensions, one of which might be,


who knows, it might be a mist, a mislighting, but actually, those two meanings give a better sense of what conventional truth is, and what conventional truth does, in a sense, hide, cover, but it also manifests, shows, some of it. The ultimate, and in that world, in the world of conventionality, I'm going to touch stories, and stories, and we're subject to that, we're subject to it, and we're minded on it, it's quite distinguished, that's the conventional world, and there's suffering, and there's causes of suffering, and there's liberation from suffering, and there's


this path. It works. It's mindless. And, in fact, whatever, whatever story we tell about what's happening, is a verbal expression. And the stories we tell, and just stories we tell, means that there's a greater worth. And if you say there's more than worth, then you fall into the story, I'm sure there's an essence to the story, an essence to the word, but if you just say, well, Dependent Coordination is just a story,


a reasonable story, it's not a conventional story, it's not an important story, you realize that Dependent Coordination is accomplished in the form of music. Dependent Coordination has the, has the music to describe what's happening, it's verbal. And this is, this is the world of convention. Without, so far making any more of it. The ultimate truth, I don't think I'm going to make something out of this, the ultimate truth, is that we're going to change the basis of this world of convention, by realizing that the world of convention is the world of convention, how it works, and what it means. The ultimate meaning, the ultimate meaning is, that there, there is no suffering, there is no cause, there is no attainment, there is no path. There are no words. Could you repeat the beginning? Could you repeat that again? That's right. Dependent Coordination comes from words,


and it's verbal, and that ultimate truth is, ultimate truth, well I skipped the next, I skipped two cards in the pen, and it's told me that ultimate truth, is based on, is conventional truth, or you know, not based on, but you have, you have, there's a reliance, there's a dependence there, actually, between ultimate truth and conventional truth. So based on, or in reliance on, a conventional truth, you can teach, or present, the ultimate truth, the ultimate truth is, that there, it's not a denial of conventional truth, it's the ultimate meaning of conventional truth, to say it is, there is no suffering, there is no cause, there is no attainment, there is no path. That's not to say there is no, path, and so on and so forth, but there isn't.


It's just to say the ultimate meaning, of the path, is that there is, not that there isn't, but that's the ultimate, that's the point of view of the fruit of all this. But the fruit has to be based, not on rejecting the existence of the existence, emptiness doesn't mean that we reject the existence of the existence, emptiness is, what is revealed, what reveals the ultimate meaning of the truth. It doesn't limit it. Because the ultimate meaning depends, on the reliance, on this conventional reality. You think if a Buddha had children, and there being an active parent, that he or she would be able to teach language to that child, in such a way, as to avoid all the difficulties? No, I don't think so. I don't think they would be able to because, the child would develop, would develop a self, if it was a healthy child, would develop a sense of self. And,


if a Buddha, if a Buddha talked incorporeally to the child, the child would make up its own language, like these kids, like these kids in the video. And maybe they wouldn't be able to make up their own language, if the Buddha was the only one around, that was talking coherently to the kid. Because some kids can grow up, like out in the woods or something, or some kids can grow up in closets, in the interior, you know, like crazy parents, like they're in the closet, you don't talk to them. Without verbal stimulation, and so on, in some coherent way, you're going to get brain damage. So I don't know if a child, without any verbal stimulation, could come up with a coherent language. But children do have languages in them, they try, you tell them not to use that, they've got stuff inside of them. But basically, if the Buddha talked an ordinary way, no matter how, if he did it, the child would project stealth onto what he was saying,


and, you know, it would make conventional growth, something that had substance, and so on, in the end, it was problems. If you think like there's a sense of self, that there's a sense of self, outside of language, that gets put in the language, or the language is, you know, I'm just wondering if I can blame it all on my parents, or, you know, on that child. The teachers, my, they are, well, I think there's plenty of teachers, very smart. Can you see Roberta with the microphone? Yeah, my understanding of the research is that, if you lock a child up, without any human contact, no, it's interesting, without any human contact, up until I think,


the age of 12, or something, however, if you lock two children up, without any contact, they make up their own language, and there are phenomena, where this is happening, they'll make up their own grammar, and everything. So, I mean, I think that language is such, you know, you can't get a language that's assumption free. It's really interesting to see the different assumptions that people have. But, but also, we're hardwired. You know, we make, we can see the damage of those, and we want to be silent, we can't decide. So that's why, if you don't stimulate the child with language, you can actually see that some part of the brain, doesn't develop, it's shaped, the brain is shaped differently. And children, even, children, with other children, parents, you see that they actually try certain things,


which are foreign, that they, that they never heard in the environment, that they have acquired, and they try various things, which are appropriate for some other language. And you can see them casting out various other, various linguistic operations, which the parents, may not want them to do, may not want them to do. But they have it available, they try it. And then there's this, they have a wire, that they go up, and it's probably the only thing, that they can reactivate. As long as you don't, kill that whole area, by not stimulating it at all, there's other parts that can be reactivated later, by language. And that's why it feels so good, in so many foreign languages, because you can feel, your brain, kind of like, standing up and saying, yeah, yeah. It's like, you know, one thing we could do, and you feel like another part of your brain, and you're like, oh, great! You can do more exercise there. Turn everything around, the other way. I have the same,


everything the same, two different ways. So, the basic thing here, current. I'm going to show you some pictures, of what we're talking about. One, there's this, these days, story, that people will get, in their head. And so, what we're talking about, is the mythological, apprehension, of the spirit, of the spirit. And there's everything, including the presence, of the spirit. The mythological apprehension, of the spirit. As well, I think that's, in terms of translation, you know, in each way, the effort he was saying, to think mythologically, is to do that, is to contribute to, you know, the powerful essence, to the causal processes,


to just put, some essence, and this would be, to show, a clear understanding, that it's not, that, in this moment, it's not going to, happen. As we understand this, we understand that, the stories of, legends, and stuff like that, in this, present reality, can also be, a myth. Which is, I guess, a question about, in a sense. Because, what kind of question is this, you know, being here right now, and talking about this, is that, if we attribute, absolute existence to it, and the gods exist, you know, it would be, a good idea. Would you see it as a myth, or something like that? Well, we are, we are anyway. I mean, see it as a myth. I don't know. Can you say that? Well, are we gods or not? I don't know.


I can't see it. I can't hear it. What do you think? Actually, it's just, when we think of everything, we think about the, reality being a description, and, and it's the, use of description, as we, stop the world, from building our language, actually, to talk to another person, with one description, in a, typical way, and that's, today, so, I don't know. If I step back, I don't want to, talk this way, because you, you make this, sequence, and I would say, it's just, at the same time, you stop in the moment. I think that, yeah, because, I think you form a certain, you develop a certain, kind of self, in a certain language. And the language, you learn as a child. I think that,


the language that, if you teach the language, and maybe it does, start to appear, at the same time, as it develops, a sense of self, but it may not be a language, that anybody can recognize, as having a, cultural language. They may come up, at the same time, hardwired, to develop a sense of self, unless they're wired, and you're hardwired, to come up with words, at the same time. But again, words may not be, just like the self, that we come up with, may not be a self, that we can culturally approve. The words we come up with, may not be recognizable, by our, by the regular culture. But I think, it may be the case that, in the sense of self, the potential to come up with, a feeling for self, is, there's lots of ways, to do that in our, in our sort of, what we call, alive language.


And, part of how to do that, is to develop something, up out of a lockout. And you get a sense of, something reflective, and then you get a kernel, the sense of self arises. The sense of self, again, is, something which is, just another concept. And we have all those possible concepts, available to us, by our, by our development, of human beings. And the sense of self, is that, I think we deal really, at the same time, with, what I want to say, is only that, you learn a language, without, the word, I. The language, that doesn't have, the word, I, in itself. I guess, that you learn a language, without the word, self. Well, I think, before you learn a language, that didn't have an I, you would already have, some kind of a word, for I, in your sense, in yourself, otherwise, you would already feel, some identity, you would already,


like, have a word, some kind of, like, verbal expression, you can make some verbal, child can make some verbal, expression, for that, which is critical, for their ability, to know you. But how can you say, that there's an I? Well, that's different, from an I. A sense, it's a sense of identity, it's a sense of, it's a sense of separate, of a being, that's separate, from the object, it's a sense of, there's something over here, which is aware, of something over there. And there's some, and the coordination of this, of this awareness, of something external, the coordination of that, that the mind, the fact that the mind can, that the mind can coordinate, this separation, this reflection, in the separation, the locus, of this, sense of identity, is on this ability, to, split the mind, that's, that's what it means, that we chose, to make the locus, because, that's what happens, if you take that away, the sense of self,


doesn't arise, it means, but if you put that in, that's the first thing, that you put in, the sense of being able, to split, the mind, in parts, to take the mind, and reflect it, at the moment of reflection, the sense of, of how individual, or identity, of self, can arise. And as soon as it does arise, these four afflictions arise, as we talked about before, self-love, self-view, self-esteem, and self-ignorance, they arise with, it means, that you see everything, within the self, so then you project the self, on all kinds of things, every kind of story you hear, you project self on it, and you project the self, on the things, where it's true or false. Do you think that ability, is pre-linguistic? What I'm saying is that, no, in this conversation, I'm saying it's simultaneous, with time. But in human development, do you have that develop,


do you have that ability, to create a self, before you have the ability, to be blind? I think that the word, the word, you know, meaningful, expression, you know, within, within a sound, it wasn't an inferable, vocal, vocal utterance, is not word, it's not vocal, it's not verbal, verbal is when, it comes together, it's repetitive, the sense of self, is what it takes, to make a word, so word and self, are very closely related, they're probably, the sense of origin, at the same time, is just the, of the little, the word, and the self, at the same time, that's why self and word, are virtually the same, that's what I mean. I can't see one before the other, because I can't say, I have a word before a self, as soon as you have a self, there's, that's the word, that's the source of the word, it's a limitable, entity,


in the whole, you know, state, kind of continuum. Martin Luther, mentions that, creative languages, seem to lack a lot, of self-reference, the word, does not mean, referring to me, the self, and he says, in those cultures, the person, is more like, not fully independent, but it's kind of, raised up, in that sense, it sounds similar, to what little I know, is really, from the situation, that eventually, we develop, a stronger sense, of where, that kind of, the thought, and then hope, that you can integrate, into this, one. So, so, the word, don't, have to be, necessarily, I mean, from that, I can't yet, reify it, but, necessarily, reify a sense of self, when language first, occurs. I don't think, the word reifies, the sense of self, well, the sense of self, doesn't mean, the repetition, does not. I mean,


the sense of self, is a form, but not, I'm not saying, reify the sense of self, just having, the sense of self, is enough, for repetition. So, the, the sense of self, I'm just saying, that when the sense of self, comes up at the same time, as the word, the word doesn't, make the sense of self, any more, substantial. It's that, it's just that, for some reason, when we're, connecting speech, with the sense of self, and this word, and we're, we're speaking beings, and we have, again, this thing, I don't want, I can't, I can't, I can't conceive, that we're involved, by conception, self is by conception, word is by conception, so we're talking about, the realm, in which we create, self, other, and word, is by conception, word. When you said,


the locus, that, that we choose, is that, in the self, is it, that, is that, in the self, what we, would that be birthed? Well, if I remember, Kalupa Hama, was discussing that, he refers to the, uh, Nikaya's, and whenever Buddha, talks about the so-called, chain of causation, he goes through, several theories, in the beginning, referring to transformations, of consciousness, and then, after contact, we come up with perception, and, uh, it's there, that the sense of self, arises first, and then it actually, before, it emerges, and that's way before, the arising of, um, you know, birth, or even craving, or other, things like that. Well, uh, contact, follows, there's,


uh, craving, there's contact, there's feeling, there's craving, and there's pain. That's the beginning, of that. What was the, interception after feeling? There's, I don't know if I'm coming, I don't know, but there's that perception. Perception's not the end of it, but there's that perception. Maybe I'm just confused. Clinging, clinging, then becoming, and then birth. Clinging, becoming, would that be, as the word, and the, and the, what is, what is feeling like for you, is that, that would be like, as the word, and sense of self is arising, and having arisen, being the other, you've got birth, or am I in the wrong place, on this earth? I don't know, let's do it the other way, so you can understand. The arising, of feeling, you have, contact, and you have, um, pain, and you have pain,


and you have pain, and you, we go that far actually, and then after the feeling, you have, either, say, birth, or craving, after you have the feeling. And those all can exist Right so those all can exist, being a child and a mom, uh, who has not had a sense of self. Right? Um, I think that maybe, as soon as you have the craving of something, sort of arises, you have contact, that doesn't create a sense of self, because you can have contact in sense consciousness. Then you have thirst, feeling that feeling. So at that point, I think all of you have a sense of self. But when you have thirst, you must be making that terminal. I'm not sure about that. I think that in the mother-child dyad, you can have a sense of


wanting milk and have cravings for milk without a sense of separation between the infant and the mother. They're separated physically, but in terms of the psychological world of the infant, separation is an ongoing process, there's not a distinct point. What I'm saying before is, as soon as you make whatever it is external, that's going to self-inform. Right. But my sense about that is, as soon as you're inflected and have some reflection going on, at what point does a child do that? Doesn't Nama Rupa, I mean the term used there, name and form together, doesn't that imply that they're already, that they're both together already? I don't think so. What does Nama Rupa mean? What he means is, Nama is the four standards, and Rupa is the fifth standard.


Well, if they're together, then you've already got conceptualization. Is that conceptual already? Maybe so, maybe it's not already. But, maybe there's self-adaptation. I haven't seen an analysis of at what point in that process a sense of self arises. I haven't heard anybody say that that's what traditional thinking in the 12 links, say that that's what a sense of self arises. I haven't seen that. More, I would have to ask referring to, you know, Dr. Baum's presentation on Twitter when he says, the point at which a sense of self arises, is that that's where we inflect something, we make our minds reflect on something. This is the self-independent world. So, I, again, don't understand what birth means, you know, if it doesn't mean a sense


of self. So, it doesn't come in. And, if you're suggesting that it's that, I'm not sure. And, what is birth? Well, I kind of feel like, if you'd like me to do it, I'd like to postpone the discussion on the 12 links of collaboration a little later and just sort of concentrate on what is the conventional truth at this point. Okay. Your theory first. Right now, he's working with this basic thing of these two levels of, two perspectives on the situation. And, he's just been pretty acute in saying that if you see the emptiness in the situation, if you experience that thing of emptiness, it doesn't qualify for the conventional reality. He's saying, well, actually, I definitely want to learn what good is in the future, and that's why I'm not talking about conventional reality.


And, later on, we'll get more into the philosophy of these 12 links as well. With mere concept, would that be synonymous with a pure convention? Mere concept is when we realize mere concept is like a convention. You see how he said, and that is the ultimate. And, as Vasubandhu said, if you make that an ultimate, then that's mere concept too. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Well, then, mere concept, mere concept implies a psychological basis. It seems to. And, convention seems to imply a social basis.


With that, I'm not just, well, it's social and psychological, but maybe the mere concept is more purely psychological. This is more, this is also psychological. The psychological conventions either, but also, it also involves, you know, worldly, communal things, but also, concept is not something that's, it's psychological, but concept is not something you can make up by yourself. You know, concepts are something, we can talk about concepts. We make concepts together. That's how, that's one of the reasons why concepts are just concepts, and there's nothing to them, because they're communities, and we want to derive that. So, although it's, although it's kind of psychological in the sense of, it's wordy in the mind, but in the end, they don't belong together. And we want to derive that concept by ourselves. Otherwise, we're going to be able to discuss them, and we can't.


What we can't discuss is our attribution of reality to concepts. There's nothing to discuss that, there's nothing to discuss. It's just a rejection of self-understanding. There's no discussion of our own self. And we can discuss concepts, and we can alter concepts through our discussion. We can't alter our sense of self through discussion. There isn't a sense of self, it's just a sense of meaning, whether they've got the same thing, and we suddenly have to go into it, to do the same thing again. We can alter convention, too. We can alter convention, too. Now, these two worlds, also in the world of ultimate, there's no self and other. There's no spiritual mind around us. They're not separate. There's no ultimate meaning to the separation of self and other.


So these two worlds are half-odd. They're half-odd. And yet, without relying on conventional reality, we can't understand what is really a part of the meaning. But it doesn't mean the two worlds don't exist. They don't exist. They coexist, but they can be viewed simultaneously. At least we can see them both simultaneously. And they are, if we didn't see the two worlds. But they don't say the two worlds aren't one and aren't the same. In fact, they are half of each other. But again, Buddha's vision can embrace both simultaneously, and use one as the basis of the other, and also then use the entry into the basis of the other.


So they're integrated in the mind of wisdom. They're not integrated in the meaning. Which is, again, to say that this isn't a reality. It's a matter of vision, these two worlds. The fact that the vision can have a vision of reality. The vision itself is reality. I know that I have some vision. I know that that's what I want. I don't know what you want at all. But I know that that is happening. And that's real. It is real that you have a vision. That's real, yes. But your vision is not real. It's real that you have a vision. That's good.


I'm not going to say this explicitly, but it goes very well with what he's saying, is that it is true, really, that we all have visions. And vision, that's true. There is actually, every moment you have a vision, unless you go unconscious or something, you have vision. There is a constant arising of vision, of seeing things in a certain way, that's happening all the time. But what you see is not what's happening. So there's a constant arising of what doesn't really exist. There's a constant arising of what doesn't really exist, meaning that the vision doesn't really exist. But it is true, a vision. So again, to say that this doesn't exist is not fair. As a matter of fact, there is a constant appearance of things that exist. One of the things that doesn't exist is your vision. But it's true that there is an appearance of this thing, of this vision. And also that vision coexists with the ultimate.


Which is also true. The fact that you have a vision is true, and the fact that it doesn't exist is also true. Those are two truths. The truth that what doesn't really exist appears is true, and suffering appears, your vision appears, the cause of suffering, which is your vision, appears, all that appears, doesn't exist, but it appears. And that's one truth. The other truth is that this stuff is empty. Maybe I misheard you, but it sounded like to say that it's true that you have a vision seems to be affirming the existence of something rather than just saying that there's an appearance. I didn't mean to do that. So I'm saying it's true that there is the appearance of a vision. So I would say it's true you do have a vision. But, you know, you having a vision, you having a vision, I don't mean that your vision really exists. Because if your vision really exists,


if the vision really exists, then maybe what it's a vision of it really exists. Once you say the vision exists, well then you've got a pretty good basis to say that what it's of exists. But if you're not going to let that really exist, then I guess you get into sort of stuff thinking like Nagarjuna now. If I had a vision that didn't really exist, could it be a non-existent vision? Could it be of something that really exists? And some people have said, I guess, yes, you can have a non-existent vision of something that exists. And in fact, they follow that, right? But actually it doesn't make sense to have a non-existent. You can have a non-existent vision of something which you envision as existing. That we do have those. But what they're saying anyway is that there is the appearance of vision all the time. And that is a fact, and that is a reality. That's the dimension of the world. And it's the vision of an object. Mind and object.


That is, there is the appearance of those. And subject and object. And language. That's the world. And we need to rely on that reality in order to understand it. Thank you very much. We're going to be talking about the answer to the question that has to do with Acting 7, and I call it by this name, the real purpose of Sun Yat-Sak. And I wondered what that was. But this is liberation. That's the real purpose. And that purpose is... That's the ultimate purpose of, the real purpose of, of liberation. That's what it's for. And our liberation is based on that. Liberation is based on emptiness. Because of emptiness, we're free. We're free the way we are,


and then we're all open. We just settle with the way we are, and there's nothing more to do. But there's liberation from the way we are because of our emptiness. And liberation means you can really be yourself. You can really dramatically, energetically express yourself because you're empty. And you can get lots of trouble for that. Because you're empty, the world allows you to be in trouble. But you're really beautiful in your self-expression. Because your self-expression is coming from the ultimate meaning. You're open to liberation. Your self-expression is coming from liberation. You're open to liberation. You can try. But neither do you want. Are you going to get in trouble? Yeah. Okay.


I'm kidding. I want to know what healing means for a man who fled. Did they reflect in both worlds? Or did they first have to reflect in the conventional and then make a reflection in the real? Well, the reflection in the real is something that sets up the conventional. But what about like... In the ultimate being, there's no reflection in the real. There's no like mind and object in the ultimate being. So then why are you a biological creature? Say again? Yeah, so you were saying that you're a biological creature and then there are these other human beings. So then why do you stick reflection in the real? Well, the purpose of reflection is that biological... It seems like there's some force in the biological situation to involve beings who can reflect.


And we're it, by coincidence. And our ability to talk is connected to this very thing. The fact that you say you can say this is also connected to this reflection thing. Because the reflection, you see, is what makes possible words. Without reflection, there would be no... All words would be infinitely long, but infinitely short. For beings that can't reflect, the words are infinite. There's no... And they don't need to hear from God. Because they're just, you know, they're the basis. They are God, but they have no awareness of it. They have no awareness of anything. But as soon as you reflect, you can have a sense of this over here and that over there. Are there beings with no awareness? No, they have awareness, but they don't have subject-object awareness where the object is seen as separate from the subject. We're the ones who do that, and therefore we have a sense of self.


And because we have a sense of self, we have words, and therefore God can talk to us. Is reflection grammar, then? Is reflection making subject and object? Grammar arises up out of the wordings of the reflection. Grammar is the usage of the things that are reflected. It's separating things from the subject and object. Yes. Separating things from the subject and object, yes. That's what it's all about. That's why... That's why bodhisattvas have to become, sorry, religious. What? Bodhisattvas have to become linguists. That's one of the sciences you have to learn. Linguistics, you have to learn all kinds of sciences and arts. One of them you have to learn is linguistics. You have to learn about the structure of the linguistic universe. That's part of the conventional world. You're saying that a person who doesn't learn these things, like the migrant farm worker, cannot be a bodhisattva.


I say a migrant farm worker has to learn this stuff. Okay, so he doesn't go to the university. He doesn't necessarily have to go to the university, but he has to study with the best linguists on the planet. What? Nothing. All bodhisattvas have to learn all the arts. He can learn from the best linguists. If you want to be a bodhisattva, you're going to have to take on a lot of learning. Dharma gates are boundless. I vow to enter them. Dharma gates means those gates, you know, those are gates to universities. There's limitless universities. You have to go to all the universities. You have to do all the correspondence courses. You have to do all the computers and learn how you have to become computer literate. Oh no, not that.


But you don't have to do it before you want to. You can wait until you have a CD-ROM on your favorite thing. Okay, I'll let you do this. This is really cool. You mean I can find out how to talk to people? I'll give this and that. There's all the different ways you can turn that computer. Eventually, out of your love of the world, you will enter the world entirely. I read a book before I came about linguistics, and it turns out there are like eight people on the planet now who are studying the origin of languages, and they're all coming up with this utterance that they believe was uttered initially. I don't know exactly how they're doing this. And the utterance is, Tweet. Tweet. Tweet. That's the first word. And they're all saying that this word tweet means one,


that it was used by most groups to mean one. Tweet. Tweet. I want to tweet you. That's what everybody said. You know, somebody said, what was your name? Some guy said, Ah. Ah is the longest bar. Right? But even Ah, we at some point we say, I'm saying that we delimit the sound, and that tweet has a sound too. It doesn't delimit it. It doesn't delimit it. It has a beginning and an end. In other words, it has a self. And, therefore, this by itself, we have that built into us, language, one, identity, community, all that sort of thing. It's part of our history. And biology has caused this to happen.


And more biologists, a lot of biologists, a study published, say that it wasn't inevitable that you got to be a being, but it was inevitable that a being like a being would happen. You can see that it's sort of written into the biological process of beings that would be able to reflect and have a sense of self. And that's been clarified by the process itself. It just turns out we're it. Other beings, other animals, may get used to this. And, very soon, we may have already gotten there. We'll walk in any minute and be like, we're a cool-ass human being. We're getting there. [...] We're getting off the course. We're getting off the course. So we should be careful.


Yes. You thought that? Very thin. What did Wayne Young do after he got thermotransmission? He went and studied all this stuff. He spent 16 years studying and studying until he became a priest. And then after he became a priest, he studied more. And learned all about the precepts and stuff like that. It doesn't mean that you have to learn these sciences in order to be Buddha. You're already Buddha. But in order to save all beings, to realize you're Buddha, you have to learn various things. So Wayne Young learned about the dynasty of Buddha and his boss. He learned about how to work rice.


And he learned a lot of stuff from the farmers and laborers. And then he went into Buddhist studies. He got thermotransmission as a layperson. It's true. Without a lot of book learning. But he later learned and later went to school. And there's quite a few stories. He's in stories. He noted teachers who had great insight. And then that teacher said, Now I'll go to college. Now I'll go to the university. Now I'll go through that dharma leader. And he said, I'm awake. What do I have to go to school for? You need to learn these skills in order to help people. And they have some skills there that will be quite useful. Arts and sciences, which help people, can use what he thought could be used. Now other people can use those arts and sciences to hurt people. And they do sometimes. So he stopped it for that very reason. You have to go in there and learn those things and become good at it. So you don't interact with the beings who are misusing them. Otherwise those beings are just going to keep using them in an improper way.


Now if you could get those beings to drop that stuff and come study Zen, surely without getting involved in it, that would be fine. And then that would be another way to do it. But usually in order to talk to those people, you have to speak their language in order for people to come into the realm of study. And that's how you learn those arts and sciences. And basically you have to be open to learning them all. That's what that verse says. They're boundless. I don't bother. I'm not just one of a few. I'm going to learn all of them. That's your vow. It doesn't mean that in this lifetime necessarily you're going to learn them all. Your spirit should be open. When you run into some difficult areas in life, that's what I think is learning. I'm open to linguistics, but it's really hard. You open a book on physics and chemistry. You open a book on art and music. It's hard to get it. It's mindless. If I was taught some foreign language, you'd have a hard time learning it. Your mind's stuck in it. It weighs out the spirit. It's like, okay, take care of your language. You need to put it into a new master who's done it. And you need to let them too.


But also, part of mastering these dharma games is to give up the one you can't work on right now. So in this lifetime, I've given up learning Sanskrit and Tibetan. I'm still trying Chinese and Japanese. I thought a little bit about Mongolian music. But anyway, I've given up college pretty much too. I've given up learning those things. I may learn them, but I've given up learning them. Because I just think it's unrelevant to my time at this point. But it doesn't mean I'm not hoping to have meaning in learning in order to help people. Certain people, as you know, have learned so-and-so went to learn a German to study Nietzsche, so-and-so went to learn Italian to study Dante. This is not professional college. Some of them wanted to learn Dante, they wanted to learn Nietzsche.


And people do that kind of thing, and they want to learn something. You learn all this stuff to help people. So that part of your open heart that you want to learn, but also, as I said, once again, practice is teaching. You have to put certain things aside right now in order to study what's on your plate. So right now, you're studying other women, so in some sense you can't study similar things in order to learn something good. Do you study according to pre-determined history? I think to a great extent, study what you love. That's what I would say. And then sometimes you can get encouraged by somebody to do something, but through that love relationship, you sort of start to love it. Like, I didn't love Angelo when I first started studying him, but because of beings I loved recommended him,


I kind of loved him. And now I love him. But I tried to study him many times, and my energy was not there for it, so I stopped. And I tried again, and my energy was not there for it, so I stopped. I tried again, and my energy was not there for it, so I stopped. Again and again. But then finally, one day, it was the day. It's like I tried to read the Olympics, the end of the Olympics. And then after you had to do it so hard, I tried to do it, I thought, I got a few ideas. And then one day off, by 9 a.m. or 8 a.m., you have to be up by 9 a.m. or 8 a.m., you have to be up. And I was like, I was like the beginning of a Hollywood movie. All the great stars in the world, and I was like, I was trying to turn to gold,


and I was riding across the sky, and I was like, I could feel the sky was thundering. It just came alive. It wasn't time. And I could read all the lists of all the stuff that they had in the ships. And it was the Lotus suit show. You read the lists of Bodhisattvas, and all the characters, and all the contractors, and you made a list of all the different kinds of Nadas, and Nadas kings, and different kinds of Nadas kings, and Garuda kings, and Noda-Raga kings, and Ashura kings, and Gandharva kings and queens, and stuff like that. And then all the offerings, you know, the flowers, and the oceans, and these kinds of offerings, and sandalwood, and lotuses, and different kinds of Bodhisattvas, all these different variations. You read that stuff, and you can read it, because it's time. And so studying Nagarjuna, I've been trying to do a study of Nagarjuna for years, and now finally here it is. We've studied him.


We've studied him. It's time. The time came. I didn't know if it would come, but I was ready to investigate. I said I was, and nobody said, don't do it. So here we are. We're studying him. We're actually studying Nagarjuna. In our way. And we're having a hard time, you know, because not everybody knows exactly when it's exactly the right moment to come on earth. But there may be some time during this practice period where you open it up and let it go on. And instead of letting it go on, maybe, maybe not. But some people have that. And with the help of all of us together, encouraging each other, this could happen. And now we're studying the true truth. Which is because we haven't spent a lot of time on it in my place, it's a fundamental thing. These two truths are the keystone of the middle way philosophy of modern history.


Yes? Well, I came up with this asking, since you're on the subject. I said I can't resist asking this right now. What is the guideline to say that it's possible that you should be novel if you're a distraction? It seems to me that in reading a great novel, when you're reading a novel, it's a little similar to a novel in a fashion that you're reading. So I'm just... I was one of the people, I think, who said not to talk sort of like I saw the point of that in a reading novel. But some people you know, actually, they are reading novels when they're reading novels they're reading. So if you want to check out a new novel you're reading, there are some novels I would recommend. For example, I would approve Bruce. Because he's already done it. In a very cultural way. I would approve I would approve Moby Dick. Oh, the Subway of Hearts? Yeah.


Bill Maher. So, there are certain there are certain novels that I feel are are like are mine to me. William is not a novel. He is a novel. He is the Western mind. He is Hollywood. He's Dr. Seuss. Dr. Seuss is not a novel by all your standards, but, you know, he is Jennifer's mind. He is not a distraction. Remember to meditate on Dr. Seuss. She is she is practicing the backward step. She's reviewing the conventional reality. But you see,


he's saying anyway, I don't respect the futurists. As a matter of fact, I will now defend the fundamental futurists. Rev, is there something you'd recommend to read otherwise? Well, do you have a reading book? Did I give you a reading book? Yes. And, so, that book that book by McGow is very good. In fact, McGow, the fundamental standpoint of modern literature is not only the past, but the [...] kind of what I call So we have emptiness yoga, dependent co-arising, mutual causality of the mind and the body.


And we don't have it here. We have it in London. That's it. You can put that on your mailing list. There's two books by Nagada. One is the Fundamental Standpoint of Mahatma Madhyamaka Philosophy. It's a yellow cover, I mean an orange cover. And the other one is Madhyamaka and Yogacara. It's a really good one. It's a good article. And the second one is still by us. And it's a very good article. The second one is about the great Karaka, 1819 to 1724. And Guru Bahana's treatment is not argued too. We talked about it in retrospect here. I've got the blue one.


I have the blue one, so I'll give it to you. I have to memorize that book too. But you have plenty of time. Because you've been here long enough. So I'll give this to you. No? Can I just say it?