Yesterday, can you hear me okay? All my troubles seem so far away. Now it looks as though they've come to stay. So I want to make myself comfortable. Let me again remind you that that's the first thing. First thing, make yourself comfortable. And I'd like to say something about what I sometimes observe in the bodies and minds of the monks, the yogis, during sesshin. I share with you this observation that I made with my eyes and my ears and my hands, my eyes, my ears and my hands.

[01:11]

In one sense, what I see is that when the session starts, some of the people or most of the people in the session are impressed by the experience of the sitting and the schedule. One person, as a matter of fact, in this session told me that the transition from the daily schedule to this one he found to be rather brutal. kind of a brutal change. But then he remembered the instruction to make himself comfortable. So he tried, he took care of himself and made himself comfortable with this experience, which at first he called brutal. And then by relating to this phenomena of his body and following the schedule, he found a more comfortable way to care for himself and started to settle.

[02:23]

And other people too, when they start sitting a lot, when they are sitting a lot more than they usually do, they sometimes are impressed by the experience, it's a very strong experience, and they have to learn how to take care of themselves under the circumstances. They have to learn how to be patient with the experience of the body sitting a lot and not moving much. And in the beginning of this session, I think my feeling is that people are somewhat resistant to the experience. Kind of like you know, let's have a little less of this, you know, or how can I get this to be less of this, or something like that. Resistance, anyway, usually, manifests in some of the people.

[03:26]

And when I first adjust people's postures at the beginning of session, sometimes I touch some people's back, and the back's very hard. The back kind of says, the message I get from the back is, I got enough problems. You know, don't expect me to, like, incorporate this suggestion, too. I can barely get through this period, and you want me to try to sit like that? No. I don't even know what it is you're going to suggest, but I'm not moving. This back is going to stay in this position, so go away, mister. You know, like, I got enough problems. Don't touch me. Even if, you know, like I got enough problems, even if the touch is kindness, I can't take any kindness on top of all this. Whatever, anyway. At the beginning, sometimes people are like, this is enough, isn't it? But as the people take care of themselves during the sesshin, they become more, you know, relaxed with this body.

[04:29]

And they say, well, it's difficult, but you know, it's difficult. So, yeah, you want to give me something else to deal with? Fine. Fine. You want to make a suggestion? I'll try it. Maybe I can't carry through, but I'll give it a try because, you know, really, things couldn't be much worse. You know? And I'm dealing okay with it, so, you know, why not ask me to do five other things in my posture besides all the stuff I'm overwhelmed with now? So I also sometimes have the feeling like in terms of speaking to people in the talks, at the beginning of sesshin, it's like the earth, you know, of the minds of the people is dry to some extent. And if I pour the water onto the surface of the yogis, it tends to run off, which makes a mess all around, you know, and

[05:32]

erosion and it's kind of like not that pleasant in some ways because partly they kind of want the water and they see it running off them and say oh you know isn't it bad you know i got enough problems i'm all dry and crusty and now you're pouring water on me and i can't even drink it so it seems to be even worse you know so none so it's kind of nice just to do a little spray you know on it that's just a moistening that's you know that's that's fine yeah okay the problem is if i wait till the last day of sashin to pour the water on it's like some kinds of teachings, it's hard to do all in the last day. Even though whatever I teach in the last day, almost all just goes right in. Because people have moistened themselves just by their own experience. So whatever I say on the last day, it just goes right in. But I sometimes hesitate to give really important teachings at the beginning because It upsets people because it just runs off in a sense.

[06:39]

So yesterday I gave a real important teaching and it kind of ran off, I think, somewhere and I felt kind of bad about it. And I wanted to say I felt kind of bad that it was kind of like a real strong and difficult content to offer on the second day. I offered the same thing on the fifth day. No problem. The problem is I want to start, I wanted to start yesterday so that by the fifth day, you know, you'd be more familiar and then it'll really go in, I think. And, you know, so it was a little bit rough yesterday and I'm sorry. I took a risk to introduce something which was not that easy at any point. but particularly second day I think is hard when you're just barely able to get your seat and then this guy comes in and starts talking about the three characteristics of all phenomena and points out that independence on not strongly adhering

[07:52]

to the imputational character as the other-dependent character, one comes to know the thoroughly established character of all phenomena. That kind of expression, it's like, would you do that a few more times, a few more weeks? But anyway, I said it, and I said it again today, and maybe by the end of the week it'll be kind of a familiar teaching to you. but I need you to make yourself comfortable with your moment to moment experience, that you're practicing patience in the midst of this challenging experience. And then these words that come, sometimes difficult, you know how to make yourself comfortable with difficult teachings, challenging teachings. So you don't just get fed up, you know, and say, oh, it's too hard, you know.

[08:57]

Say, oh, it's so hard, it's so hard, oh, so difficult, oh, you know. And yet I'm still here, you know. Give me another hit. So just a little bit of review and a little bit of new introduction, and then there's a whole bunch of questions left over from yesterday. So the review is that whenever anything happens, whenever anything happens, that's what we call the worldly truth. In the world... In the world, things happen. In the world, as a matter of fact, in the world, things happen in moments. Like this moment.

[09:59]

And that one went away. And then this moment. In the conventional world, experiences come in little packages. Moment, moment, moment. It's kind of convenient. We've agreed to have them be that way. So they are. And Any experience, any phenomena, according to this sutra on unlocking the mysteries, the Buddha says any experience has three characteristics or three natures. It has a merely conventional, conceptual, imputational character. In other words, just a word or a concept. And it also has a dependently co-arisen nature. In other words, any phenomena is a dependent co-arising.

[11:04]

It depends on other things, and other things depend on it. Because of it, there's something else. Because of something else, there's it. And also it has a thoroughly established character, which is suchness. And in fact, that suchness is when the dependently co-arisen quality or nature of a phenomena is not strongly adhered to as the imputational. The thoroughly established character of any phenomena, its suchness, is simply when the dependently coerced nature of whatever is happening is not held to as the concept which arises with it.

[12:08]

Or we sometimes say that when the dependent co-arising quality or nature of a thing is there in the absence of the imputational or the conceptual, that is the thoroughly established quality of that phenomena, which is the suchness of that phenomena, which is the ultimate truth of that phenomena. or at least it implies the ultimate truth. The ultimate truth of that phenomena is that it also is empty. Now, the new material is... Before the new material, one more review thing. Independence on... conventional designations or conceptions which are connected to signs, you can know the imputational.

[13:23]

So, for example, in the phenomena we call the sound of the stream, there is the word stream or sound of the stream. That language, in connection with some signs, is how you know what we mean by the computational. It's pretty simple. That's it. The dependent core arising of the stream is the fact that because of the dependent core arising, of this dependent core arising, there's other things. Like, there's me hearing it. There's a stream. There's a mountain valley. There's leaves getting moved around. There's many things which exist because of that sound. That's the Dependent Core Rising.

[14:29]

The Dependent Core Rising is not the word, the concept. but for it to be an experience for us, we need the word. And we've got it. Without the word, there would be no phenomena. But also, there's no, like, dependent co-arising without the word. It turns out that phenomena don't come up without their dependent co-arising, just with the word, just with the concept. That doesn't count. We can talk about that more later, but anyway... You don't have a phenomenon just by having the concept of it. You also have to have its dependently co-arisen nature for it to count. However, you can't know the dependent co-arisen nature directly because it's not really, you know, there's nothing really there other than Dependence it's actually what it's the nature that the thing depends on other it's called the other dependent There's not really something there.

[15:37]

You can know the only way you know it is by this error of Adhering to dependent co-arising as being the imputation as being the conceptual then you can know it It's not really it it's it adhered to as something else, or it's something else adhered to it, then you can know it. It's clear by itself, but when you overlay it with a concept, you got it in a package, and you can know it as a packaged dependent co-arising. Dependent co-arising is the Buddha's teaching. If you see dependent co-arising, if you see it, you can't know it, but if you see it and you understand it, you see Dharma, you see Buddha Dharma. But if you know it, you only know it by overlaying it with a concept. And that's not dependent co-arising. That's knowing dependent co-arising by misapprehension.

[16:42]

That's not the actual dependent co-arising which you can't really know. It is a mystery. So part of what this teaching is about is unlocking that mystery and facing the mystery of dependent co-arising which can't be known but can be understood and can be realized. The way you know the thoroughly established quality is to see the dependent core arising separate from the imputational. to understand it in separation, then you know the suchness of any phenomena. So that's what this is all coming from, as the Buddha said, in the scene there will be just the scene.

[17:47]

And that means that in the color there is a dependent co-arising of the phenomena of color. And there's also the dependent co-arising of the imputation of the color. And to be able to let the color just be the dependent co-arising of the color without strongly adhering to the color as the word for the color, that's letting the scene just be the scene. And when you let the scene just be the scene, you see the suchness. You realize that you know the suchness of the color. You know the suchness of the sound. And when you know the suchness of things, you understand that there's no way to identify with things, and so on.

[18:52]

So, the new material is that in the same scripture, A bodhisattva asked the Buddha, he says, I was sitting in meditation one day and I thought to myself about all the things the Buddha taught. And he says, I thought the Buddha has taught in innumerable ways about the aggregates, the skandhas, has taught in innumerable ways about the doors of consciousness, the ayatanas, has taught in innumerable ways about the dhatus, the fields of consciousness. you know, object, organ and consciousness arising and so on and so forth. He's taught in innumerable ways about the Four Noble Truths. He's taught in innumerable ways about the Eightfold Path and about the Seven Wings of Enlightenment and about the Four Psychic Powers and went through a long list of all the things the Buddha taught.

[19:55]

And he said, and the Buddha also said that all phenomena lack own being. And they have no origination and no passing away. That they're fundamentally quiet and inherently nirvanic. All phenomena are basically don't happen. He said, I heard the Buddha teach that too. And He didn't say this, but I guess he didn't have a question about all the teachings the Buddha gave. He just wanted to talk about this last point, and that is all phenomena lack own being and are fundamentally quiet and nirvanic. In other words, don't happen.

[20:57]

Fundamentally, they don't happen. He says, I was wondering, what were you thinking about when you said that? And the Buddha said... Well, first of all, he said, good, good. And every time a bodhisattva asks the Buddha a question in the scripture, the Buddha says, good, good. He said, the reason why you ask this question is because you want to aid beings. You want to foster enlightenment. Out of compassion and love for all beings, that's why you ask that. Every time a bodhisattva has a question, the Buddha says, good. And he tells the bodhisattva wonderful reasons why they ask this question. Of course, they know the answer. but they're asking for their love for other beings to help other beings. So he said, listen carefully, I'll tell you now the reason, what I was thinking about when I talk like that. So, I will explain to you what I was thinking when I said all phenomena are

[22:10]

without own being. All phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent, and from the start naturally in a state of nirvana. What I was thinking about was the three types of lack of own being. The lack of own being in terms of character, the lack of own beings in terms of production, and the ultimate lack of own being. The lack of own being in terms of character is the lack of own being of the first characteristic of all phenomena. Namely, the imputational or the conceptual. The conceptual lacks own being in a particular way. Namely, it lacks own being because it's just a word. That's all it is. It's entirely... I mean, it's got nothing to do with anything, really.

[23:13]

Tree, key, bomb, you know, those are words for what? Anyway, they're words, right? They have nothing to them at all. That's the emptiness in terms of character, which is the emptiness which goes with the first quality, the first nature of all phenomena, namely the conceptual, the merely conceptual, the imputational, the conceptions we impute to phenomena. Once again, without which there wouldn't be any phenomena. So once again, we're not going to get rid of this. But this thing lacks own being. The next kind of lack of own being is the lack of own being of the dependently co-arisen quality of all phenomena. There's nothing to dependent co-arising of something. There's no way you can get a hold of it. It has no own being.

[24:17]

It is simply the fact that the thing depends on everything else, whatever it is. I say thing, but the phenomena, the appearance of this phenomena, which doesn't really appear, he said the phenomena don't really happen. So the reason why I said that is because he's thinking, well, all phenomena have these three characteristics and that's it. And one of the characteristics is they're just a word that doesn't count. And now the other characteristic is that they dependently co-arise and there's nothing to that either. There's nothing like, no core to that. And the third kind of lack of own being is a lack of own being, the ultimate lack of own being, which is a lack of own being of, and this is the hard one, It's the lack of own being of, again, the lack of own being. The lack of own being of dependent core arising has two levels. of lack of own being.

[25:21]

One is that it's just dependence on other things, and the other one is an ultimate lack of own being, which is the same ultimate lack of own being as the ultimate lack of own being of suchness. Suchness also does not have an own being. It is also insubstantial and essenceless. It doesn't have an essence. Thomas clearly uses the term essencelessness, which is possible to read, but not good to say. Lack of one being is long, but I think more accurate. Emptiness is okay to use as a substitute. But emptiness, I think, sometimes people refrain from it because it sounds like it's empty. But really what it means is there's no essence, there's no core, there's no inherent, unique quality to anything. They're just named. It's dependent co-arising, which is how it depends on other things.

[26:23]

And it's suchness. I don't think it's time yet for anybody for me to talk about these two kinds of ultimate emptiness. I want to introduce them today. So there's three natures or three characters or characteristics of all phenomena. And all phenomena also have three types of essencelessness, or three types of lack of own being. Lack of own being of character, which is lack of own being of the first characteristic of mere conception. Lack of... lack of own being related to dependent core arising and lack of own being in the ultimate sense, which applies to the ultimate sense in which dependent core arising lacks essence. And also it's the same as a lack of essence of suchness. The lack of essence of emptiness.

[27:28]

The emptiness of emptiness. So, you're supposed to be making yourself comfortable while I'm saying this, right? So, we had a whole bunch of questions yesterday, which maybe people want to bring up now, or maybe they don't. But if you do, I welcome them, if you can remember. Are they still? Yes? Yesterday I had a question about dharmas. Yes, a question about dharmas. Because here we are meditating on contemplating seeing and seeing and heard and heard. And today maybe my question is a little different because you might just have answered it. Is meditating on the darkness?

[28:30]

How is it when meditating on the darkness? Well, how is it when meditating on dharmas? Okay. Sound or color are dharmas, right? And what's being recommended here by the simple but profound instruction is let the scene, let the color just be the color. So, if you're aware of a color, then you're aware of the color because the color has dependently co-arisen, but also, if it's a phenomena for you, there is also the name of the color. And also, luckily, there is also the thoroughly established quality of that color.

[29:36]

So, mostly what, when you start meditating on color, or the scene, mostly what would be most easy to access would be, if you were able to pay attention to this color, would be its conceptual characteristic, namely the word for the color. And the dependent core arising. Because although you have words like brown and green and so on, you don't have the phenomena of green unless you have both. You don't have the phenomenal event called a green color. You don't have that unless you have both the concept and the dependent core arising. namely, unless you have the concept, plus you with your eyes open, and many things contributing to this phenomena called green.

[30:47]

Those two you could probably identify, and you can identify them because you can tell the difference between thinking of green and the actual phenomena of seeing green. If you actually see the green, you know you not only have the concept, which you have just as well when you aren't seeing the green, but you also have the dependently co-arisen quality of this phenomenon. Now, in addition to this, what we usually are able to see in this case is that these two are compounded. That the green, that when we relate to green, we don't see the dependent co-arising by itself, and we don't see the imputation by itself. We see the imputation adhering strongly to the dependent core arising. That you actually can see, and that's the way you know the dependent core arising, but you're not really knowing the dependent core arising, you're knowing the dependent core arising through adhering something else to it, namely the concept.

[31:53]

That you can observe. This isn't quite yet what Shakyamuni Buddha is asking us to see. Now I'm going to take this away. Many people can actually get in touch with this because you can actually see how you stick the things together. You're not yet ready, you don't yet necessarily understand what it would be like to see and understand dependent core arising in the absence of imputation. But you can see how they're stuck together. And in that, if you can sit there and watch that, and watch it in a state of bringing in now the issue of renunciation, watch it in a state of renunciation, which means you are not trying to get anything out of this. You're just going to watch this. And if you watch this, you're going to see some stuff besides what I told you about.

[32:57]

You're going to see various kinds of afflictions because it isn't free. We don't get to, our mind doesn't do this for free. You get different kinds of affliction because of sticking these things together. We call them outflows or defilements of various types occur around this. That will also help you locate it. There's also, teachings can come to you while you're doing this too. But to make a long story short, if you can sit here and watch this and patiently stay present with this state of misapprehension, I say a miracle can happen. A miracle of vision, where your vision can change from seeing dependent core arising through through its adherence to words, to seeing dependent core arising all by itself in its mysterious, wondrous, radiant, dharmic, you know, reality.

[34:15]

Which is also, when you see it that way, what we call the thoroughly established way of seeing. This miracle of vision is the truth. It also could be a miracle of hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, or a miracle of thinking. A miracle of thinking. Someone said to me yesterday that he resisted the talk because he sounded like very scientific and analytic and I think maybe even said surgical. But there is a kind of surgery there between cutting the adhesion. We could also change it maybe from surgical to how about body work, deep tissue work. You get in there and you don't try to get rid of the adhesion. You just get intimate with this adhesion between these two until the adhesions drop and you have the characteristics of a phenomena.

[35:24]

They aren't independent adhesions. They're interdependent, but they're not the same thing. And when you see them, one in the absence of the others, you have this miracle of vision. And this person who said this, he said, what about music and poetry? I don't know if he said beauty, but I said, that's the point. Because actually, when you understand, when you see dependent core arising, you see beauty. That is beauty. But it is beauty without the word beauty. It's just beautiful. But it doesn't have the word beautiful on it. When you put the word beautiful on it, you kill beauty. When you put the word green on the dependent co-arising of the phenomenon of green, you kill the beauty of green.

[36:26]

Not you kill it, but that imposition kills the beauty of green. It covers the light of the phenomenon of green. And I told this story, some of you have heard this story before, but one of the early talks I heard by Suzuki Raji, he said, when you see a flower... And you say, that's beautiful, that's a sin. And I thought, ooh, this is very strict, little strict guy here. This is the same thing. And so we do this sin all the time. We have the experience, we have experiences, and all the experiences we have are dependent co-risings. And we put words on them, and that is a sin, which we do all the time. Because those words cover the beauty, the unobstructed, ungraspable, intolerable, unworkable, unprofitable beauty.

[37:37]

Which is, you know, the truth, too, by the way. And so what we need to do is make ourselves comfortable so we can stand to, first of all, face phenomena where they're stuck together, glued together so that the conceptual covers the dependent core arising. And because it's covering, also we can't see the suchness. So everything's all squished together in a tight little constricting world. and we feel all afflicted all around there, we have to be comfortable in order to face that. But if we can face that and not wish it were otherwise, and just look at it in renunciation, without greed for discovery of the beauty, the gift will come. But it's hard to study this way.

[38:43]

But you've got the stuff. I think it's not so difficult to get the stuff. It's right nearby. And the stuff you can see now is not a hair's breadth deviation from the stuff you can't see. The suchness... of the situation is right there always with the adhesions which are causing the affliction. It's just kind of like taking a slightly different angle on it, but not moving to get another angle, but somehow you just, something changes slightly and you get this other slant on it. to be upright and present with phenomena in this way and to honestly admit what's going on without any gaining idea, that's studying dharma or dharmas in the sense of studying dharmas in the sense of dharmas as phenomena in this ungreedy, upright way, you will see the dharma in the dharmas.

[40:01]

You'll see the dharma of suchness in the dharmas of phenomena. Do you have any more questions about that? I don't know if this is a question. So, when we see... When we see... When we see... When we really see... Oh, really see. When we really see, okay. You mean when the seeing is just a seeing? Okay. When you really see... No, no. Really seeing is seeing suchness. In other words, when you really see, you see that when you see the truth that sets you free, you see that dependent core arising can and does live

[41:04]

a life free of conceptions and can live free of imputations. Even though, in any phenomenal event, the imputational nature is always there. It doesn't go away. Otherwise, it couldn't be an event. Another way to say this, I was talking to somebody about body and mind dropped away, okay? Body and mind dropped away happens while the body and mind continues to arise and cease. It's not like there's no body and mind anymore. It's that the adhesions have been dropped. So, body and mind dropped away is when the phenomena of the body is just a dependent co-arising of the body without the imputation of body-mind on it. But there still is the phenomenon of rising and falling of body and mind.

[42:09]

So what you see is you see the dropped off quality of your body and mind, which is always there. Which is everything. Everything is like that. That's the way everything is. That's why suchness is... you know, permanent, because it's always the same. It is simply, suchness is simply the non-adhesive, non-attachment of all phenomena to their designations. And all phenomena have a designated conventional name. So, you know, Sometimes they drop off body and mind and people think that's something you should do or can do. Dropped off body and mind is another word for the thoroughly established nature of phenomena.

[43:13]

Dropped off body and mind is thoroughly established. Dropped off body and mind is the state of affairs. That's what's actually going on all the time. You don't make that happen. You see it and you know it when you can see your body, the phenomena of your body, and when you can see your mind, the phenomena of your mind, as a dependent co-arising in the absence of the imputation body-mind. Will the other people be able to understand it? Well, let's see. Let's see. Let's see. Okey-doke. You know the model the opposite of the bone vase?

[44:22]

Of the? The bone vase. You know that model. It's yours. The what? You know the model that Chandra Kirti offers of the bone vase? The bone vase. Yes. So... Can you hear that? Bone vase? So the guy's looking at the vase, and he has an optical defect. And... He sees hairs on the vials that are not really there. They're a product of this defect. Somebody else sees this going on and they think it's odd this guy is shaking his vial. So, I'm going through this because I'm not direct. So, he asks what the problem is. So, he said, well, I'm trying to get the hairs off this vial. Now, the man who is asking the question has good sight. Good, good. This is where I start to get into trouble with this. He doesn't see the hairs. This is in translation, of course.

[45:26]

John Curtin suggests that the man is then, as they put it, moved to tell him that no hairs exist on a vase. He then goes on to say that the man with good sight is able to see the reality of the hairs, yet a man with the optical defects cannot. Now my problem rests with the fact that surely if the man with good sight has already stated that the hairs that the man sees do not exist, surely he is himself imputing the existence of the hairs while in all existence. Okay. Okay. So this is a... This is a... It's relevant, okay? Now, the seeing the hairs on the vase is... What do you think that is in terms of what I was just talking about?

[46:33]

What does that sound like? Huh? But what... What variety? Huh? It's the way dependent co-arising looks... when you know it through the imputational. It puts hairs on things. They often use that image, mats of hair over things. The other kind of thing of the way you put, what do you call it, the way you misconstrue and give reality to the imputational, to say that that was really there, That's almost like being blind. It's more like occluded. Everything's very milky and cloudy. But when you see the dependent core arising with adhesions of the imputational, they obviously say it's got hair over it. Now, the question is, is the one who can see, in other words, the one who can see the vase without the hair, should he be talking that way to this guy?

[47:43]

Can I just add something? Yeah. See, Chandrakirti makes the statement that a man with good sight sees the reality it behaves. Now that puzzles me because... Well, first of all, he sees the reality of the hairs, and also, second of all, he sees the reality of the hairs. First, he sees the vase without the hairs. Right. Okay? But he sees the reality of the hairs, namely, he sees that the hairs are, the reality of the hairs is the hairs are the way the vase looks when you do imputation to it. He understands that. Yeah, he understands the nature of the other way of imputation. Yes. But why does he then affirm it? Affirm what? Affirm that imputation by stating it's a paratronic system. Yeah, I don't... I... I think that's not such a good teaching method. I think it would be better for him to say, let's look at the hair. Tell me about the hair. Let's, like, get intimate with the hair over this vase. If you try to get rid of the hair, you know, you know,

[48:51]

That's just, you know, not going to work. It's worse. It's not good. It's better to, like, patiently look at the hair on the vase. If you keep looking at it, I say that you will get a gift called a change in vision, and then you'll understand. But to tell people that beforehand, to get them to try to look at it that way, I'm telling you about that, but I don't want you to try to see that. And I'm not going to tell you it's not there. I'm just saying... That hair is because of this. Not that it isn't there, it's that it is there because of this. So I don't like that way of teaching that that guy used. Is this the kind of thing that's led to an analytical criticism of John McCarthy in that? Because if you notice, this teaching carries quite a lot of criticism. Is that why? Because he's hungry. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

[49:52]

That he's suggesting to this other guy that there is no hair. But then Chandrakirti says that a man sees the reality of the hair. It's really so scary. Are you listening? Well, let's meditate on that for a little while, shall we? I think we got the picture. Let's just deal with this. Let's take care of ourselves and be comfortable with this for a while, okay? It is relevant to this, definitely. But over there was the west side had all the questions. Did they go away? Yes? Martha? I was actually going to ask about the flower scene yesterday. Yes, the flower. Yes? Yes? that actually, isn't there some... Is the first characteristic of imputation some grounding in conventional reality?

[50:57]

Say it again, isn't what? Is this first characteristic of imputation? Yes. Is it possible to use it to ground ourselves in conventional reality? Yes. Yes, the answer is yes. Being aware of the imputational quality of phenomena is part of the way to ground yourself in conventional reality. It's good to be able to know this quality of phenomena because phenomena have this quality. Conventional phenomena have this quality. Phenomena that rise up and go away have this quality. Moments of experience that come and go have the imputational quality. So if you can be aware of the imputational quality... you're becoming familiar with conventional truth, conventional worldly truth. Yes.

[51:59]

Are the people done over there? Should I stop looking for those hands? They're gone? OK. Bye bye. You want to wait for a second? OK. Now to the east. Yes. Yehuda? You say the word flower. You say the word flower, yes. A baby doesn't see a picture of a flower in its mind. Does that mean that... Within its mind, I mean, I can understand independent co-arising in nature, because the river wouldn't be there without the mountain and the tree. But in the mind of the baby, there is no dependent co-arising, as I understand it. No dependent co-arising of what?

[53:02]

Of the flower. It doesn't have a concept. If you say the word flower to a baby, the baby does not see a flower. If you say the word flower to a baby, the baby does not see a flower. In other words, the baby does not see the concept of a flower. I agree. Probably wouldn't. But the baby still can have a phenomenal impression At a certain age, anyway, they have a phenomenal impression. You can tell if you hold up what we call a flower to a baby, the baby will have a response to that thing. So it is for them a dependent co-arising of a phenomena. And they have also a concept for it. They just don't have the word flower yet. They have some other kind of imputation that they do to it. And then gradually we talk them into speaking Hebrew or English. And they sort of go along with it if we feed them and stuff like that.

[54:04]

And then they switch over and lose track of maybe their pre-conventional designation. But they have some non-conventional thing they're doing. Then they switch over to conventional. a conventional designation, and then they're sucked into the pattern. But they are having some kind of experience before that. I just want to say something before I respond to this question. The funny thing is, kind of funny in a way, that there isn't another truth out there for us, some nice special truth. that's not completely embedded in the setup of the other two qualities of experience. These two qualities of experience of dependent co-arising and imputational, which are so prone by habit to become associated strongly and therefore give rise to defilement, that's where suchness lives, is in that world.

[55:11]

Suchness is right in there, in the in the midst of the ingredients that are put together to cause trouble for us. That's where it is. So, I think that's kind of funny, don't you? So, I think it's Adam. Who's next? Yeah, I have a question about anxiety. Yes? Either in the context of sitting meditation or in the context of action, say, Reiki or... Is it accurate to say that if someone is practicing in this way that you're talking about, and has teased out the imputational from the pinnacle horizon, that there is a feeling always or usually of ease and spaciousness? There is definitely, that's part of it is that there is ease. it is relieving to see suchness. It is a big relief.

[56:15]

And not only is it a big relief, but at the beginning it's a relief, and then it becomes an ongoing source for development as a bodhisattva. So it's difficult. What's difficult? The practice. The practice is difficult, yeah. Well, life is difficult. Actually, life is difficult unless, you know, we've already seen the truth. Life is difficult. All right? And then we try to make ourselves comfortable with our difficult life. And then if we're comfortable with it, we can take on the additional responsibility of like looking at it. which is very subtle. The looking process is something that takes a lot of discussion and study. But in the context of our difficult life, we see that it's going to make it actually easier and more, not easier, but more comfortable to study deeper. That's the rationale for taking on this additional study over basic practices of patience and so on.

[57:19]

Yeah, that makes sense. But I guess this is the other half of my question. feeling of anxiety or worry or hurry or incompleteness, do those always happen in the context of confusing the imputational with the dependent co-arising, or could they also happen in the context of practice, or are they almost always a sign of, say, no? Okay, you said, do they always happen in the context of this confusion? Yes. And then you said, or can they happen in the context of practice? Practice is to find this life in the middle of this confusion. So it's not like there or in practice. If you aren't practicing and you're making this confusion, you'll be anxious. If you are practicing and you're making this confusion, you'll be anxious. But if you are practicing and you're making yourself comfortable with your circumstances,

[58:21]

you have a chance to look at this anxiety and see its dependent core arising also in relationship to this confusion, to this delusion, to this misapprehension. But until we see this other point of view, until we understand the emptiness of this phenomenon, threefold emptiness, we're still going to be somewhat anxious because we're still going to be holding to this beautiful, ungraspable thing called life. We're going to be holding to it as being the word life or the word Adam or the idea of self or whatever. And that's going to create affliction, anxiety, and so on. And it's going to be there until we clear this up. So part of the practice, this is wisdom practice I'm talking about, but all around this wisdom practice are these practices of love and compassion.

[59:26]

Giving, being careful of everything you do, being patient, being enthusiastic, and being concentrated. And of course being mindful is part of all of those. These practices are the context in which we then start looking at what is this confusion? What is this compounding of the various dimensions of experience such that we're irritated and scared and pulled around by it? Okay? I think Oliver... Huh? Good. I think Oliver's next. It's a big day for the East today. ...still not seeing such things? Or... Yeah, I think it's, I don't think they see it. You have, in order to see suchness, you have to see, you have to like be presented with dependent co-arising and the imputational.

[60:29]

If you don't see the imputational yet, you can't see the separation of the imputational and the dependent co-arising. Is the child's mind just seeing the dependent co-arising? Yeah. At a certain stage, I think children just see dependent co-arising. You know, and what, you know, they can't do anything with it, right? They just go, you know, it's just, it just, everything's beauty, I think. You know, and then gradually things start, gradually this, this imputation will get stronger. and then as soon as it gets strong, the deep habit of human conditioning starts to put them together, and then they're off and running. But there is a time when things are flowing for them, and they don't have a concept of self, but they've got the genetic setup to catch on really well. But that state is different than having both...

[61:31]

Again, it's not having the imputation and separating. It's having the imputation and having dependent core arising, but seeing them as separate. Or seeing beauty without any imputation is different than... With the imputational quality there, and seeing it, and seeing beauty or dependent core arising and not compounding them, that's suchness. When you see that. When you see this in the absence of that, but this is still here. You see suchness. You're in the world, you know, and you're not falling for it. The baby who's not yet in the world doesn't see the truth of what would keep them from falling for the world. As soon as you turn on the seductive quality of the world, namely convention, which is strongly connected to, you know, their mommy and daddy, as soon as you turn that on, they fall for it. So they don't have that wisdom. that when you start introducing conventional to them, they would say, that's just a convention.

[62:36]

I'm not going to compound that with the radiance of dependent core arising. They fall for it. But before it's there, they're just enjoying dependent core arising, which is fine, no problem. But to have the wisdom to not fall for the naming of things, which always comes with them, and without which they wouldn't happen as phenomena, That requires this wisdom, which they don't have. If we could be like babies, we would be wise. But babies are not wise. Because as soon as you give them our equipment, they're just like us. Yes? This is very simplistic. It's OK. Yeah, good. Yes. And I hear the sound.

[63:37]

And then after some time goes by, I'm hearing the sound, but I'm not, like, I don't know what it is anymore. Uh-huh. And then another thing will come in and it's wind. So then I put wind on that sound. And then that kind of floats away and it's nothing. Then air conditioning comes in with all these different therapies. Uh-huh. In between all those different terms is sound. In what you're saying, how does that, where does that fit in here? There's such a thing as a sound which is just called a sound, rather than the sound of the creek. If it's an experience, if it's a phenomenon called sound, then that's perfectly good. Well, I mean, it's like, it's short periods of time where it's not even... I don't say sound, it's just like... well you tell me what tell me what's there what's there what is it what is it is it a sound hmm it sounds like a sound so so what's your question it's a sound and for you it's you call it you call it a sound

[64:59]

Well, you just said... You just said... You used a term. You said sound. That's a word. That's a concept. Sound. Hmm? Right. Except creek isn't a sound. Until you tell me, you know, through what dimension you're getting the creek. Creek is either just an idea... Or it's a taste. It could be a taste. I guess you could smell a creek. It could be a touch. It could be a color. It could be a smell. Or it can be just an idea. Those are the ways that the creek can come to you as a phenomenon. Pardon? When you say, it's sound, what do you mean when it's sound? Sound. Well, no, there's no such thing when the creek is sound. It's the creek sound, or if it isn't creek sound, then it's just sound. Right, okay, when it's just sound.

[66:05]

When there is just sound, yes. In your teaching that you're giving, where does that fall? Is that the penicillin rising? That is a phenomenon called sound. If you think you have a phenomenon like that, it's a phenomenon called sound, which does not have the conceptual elaboration into what it's a sound of. People do have those kinds of phenomena. A sound, and they don't yet know if it's the sound of the creek, if it's the sound of a bird, if it's the sound of an airplane, but they do feel a sound, but that's all they can say is it's a sound. It's possible to have that. People do have that. They hear something, they do not yet identify it as sound of truck, sound of creek, sound of bird. That happens. But that's just what it is. It's that concept called sound.

[67:06]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the phenomena called sound, the mental imputation is the concept sound. But like right now, I can sit here and not be concerned with what I'm hearing, but just think of sound. Or I can close my eyes and think of a color, okay? But I don't think, actually, that the color I think of with my eyes shut, I don't think that's a color. Why? Because I can see it's just a mental imputation. It's just a concept of color. I can close my eyes and think of blue. And I can even have an image of blue in my head, but that's not seeing blue. In order for me to have the phenomenon of blue, I have to have the dependent core rising in blue, along with the idea of blue. But if there's a dependent core rising in blue without the idea of blue, without the concept of blue, it's not a phenomenon either. And that's all fine so far.

[68:18]

The problem is that I confuse, and I am confused about, and to whatever extent I'm confused about, the word blue, and the dependent core rising in blue. That confusion is pointed to. And the Buddha is saying, try to learn how to just let the scene be the scene. Try to figure out what that is. Well, What I suggested earlier was that most people, what they're into is when they hear something, they don't let the herd just be the herd. What they do is they have the herd, and what the herd is, is it's a phenomenon that has these three qualities, and they compound the first two. And because they compound the first two, they have affliction. Now, you may not notice the affliction, but it's there. You're anxious because of the way you hear the sound because you compound these first two.

[69:25]

If you can notice that you compound these two and you can be aware that you're doing that all the time, you've got the two ingredients and when you see them as unstuck together, you'll see the truth. Well, since you're compounding the first two, in terms of disappearing the three, can you put it in What are the first two? The first two are that you have the idea for creek, which you carry around with you all the time. You also have the idea of sound of a creek, which you carry around. You've got that at your disposal, right? Okay? Now, you don't apply that unless something else happens called the dependent co-arising of the sound of the creek. Certain things have to happen for you to apply that concept to what's happening to you.

[70:27]

But if those things are happening, you can say whatever you want about them. You've got to be careful, but anyway, you can say, hillside, water, rocks, air, you know, ear, life, all those things, add all those things together, and those ingredients are required for you and me to have phenomena of hearing the sound of the creek. But in addition to that, what is necessary for that to happen is I have to pull the word up, sound of the creek, for it to be the sound of the creek. Otherwise, before I pull that word out, before I pull that word out and impute it to the situation, I do not have the sound of the creek. I have all the ingredients for sound, but not yet the sound of the creek.

[71:35]

I have all the ingredients for the sound of the creek, namely the dependent co-arising of it, but I have to apply that word for the phenomena called sound of the creek. And all phenomena... or calls something for us. In the conventional world, we have beginnings and endings, we have arisings and ceasings, and all that depends on words. Otherwise, these things don't happen as such. And in fact, the sound of the Cree is going on, perhaps, as far as we know, all day long. But you do not apply the word to it all day long. And when you don't apply the word to it, it's not happening for you. You know, sometimes, I enjoy sometimes, I don't have a clock here in Hetasahara, but in Green Gulch, I have this little clock.

[72:37]

I used to have this clock, anyway, in the Doksan room. And I would sit there waiting for people to come in, and the clock's going tick, [...] right? People come in and start talking to me, And the ticking stops. Then they leave and it starts going tick, tick, tick, tick. Does it just tick when they're not in the room? If I leave the room, does it keep ticking? My mind is making the phenomena of their words, so there's no ticking. Even though the dependent core is rising for the ticking, is mostly there, but there's some things missing. One of the things that's missing for the phenomena of hearing the tick of the clock is there's no mental imputation of ticking, so it doesn't happen. Now, that's the way it has to be. You have to have both, but you don't have to compound them, even though that's our habit. But since that is our habit, check it out and you'll find that is the habit and you'll find, if you have trouble finding the habit, find your anxiety, find all your afflictions and at the core of the afflictions is this adhesion.

[73:47]

But I think it's getting kind of late in a sense, conventionally speaking. So anybody who hasn't asked a question that want to ask one? Do you want to hand them? You said it's our need to name everything? Well, you know, you can say need, but anyway, the first characteristic is that things have this imputational quality, this conventional designation. It wouldn't be outside of your experience if you said that weird thing. Yeah, which is a perfectly good name called, would you say that weird thing?

[74:54]

Like I said yesterday, something happens when you get old, you just say that thing, you know, that category, that's the word used for all the things that you forgot the word for. But it still works. Now, when you don't have a word that works for anything, you're not going to have any phenomenal experience anymore. No phenomenal experience when you don't have a word anymore. No phenomenal experience when you don't have a word anymore. How about that? Would that be death? Maybe it's Alzheimer's. No. Alzheimer's, they're talking away to themselves. It's just all, you know, chaotically mixed up. Maybe I could say this. You know that story I told you about... Maybe I'll tell the story tomorrow about wake up. It's introducing too much at this point.

[75:55]

But anyway, if there's a phenomenal experience, there is the mental imputation. You've got to have it. If you take away that, you have dependent core arising, but it's not an experience for you. It's not a phenomenon. You could be alive and looking at dependent core arising, but if it's an experience, there's an imputation there. It's just that the imputation is not reaching it. But when you say, if you're confronting beauty, and you don't know what to do with it, if you say weird thing, you've just done something with it. If you say flower, if you say lovely, you've done something with it. If you don't have any kind of specific word for it, if you come up with anything you dredge up to say, okay, for now, I'll just do this.

[76:58]

You've got it under control, you've got it categorized, you're safe from beauty. You protected yourself from truth, you're miserable. Congratulations. No. We don't always categorize everything we experience, but there's always a categorization in the experience. Always categorization there, but sometimes you can have an experience and the categorization or the imputation is there, but you don't adhere the wonderful creativity of the event, the dependent co-arising, you don't adhere that and construe that as the conventional designation. You don't say, that wonderful thing. You just say, I could call that a wonderful thing, but I don't. I just put my hands together and say, thank you.

[78:02]

I know I have some alternatives here of things I could put onto this, but I'm going to pass and just say, thank you. Thank you. I could call it pain. I'm going to pass. You say, but what if I don't call it pain? What will happen to me? I don't know. I'm going to pass. Pain is one of the possibilities for this. Fear is another one. Happiness is another one. Really? Yeah. Bliss is another one. No kidding. But if I take bliss and put it onto it, I'm going to be miserable. If I take happiness and put it onto it, I'll be miserable. If I take pain and put it onto it, if I put green onto it, anything I put onto it, I'll be unhappy. I have a lot of alternatives here at any given time to put onto what is happening. what seems to be arising, which is really nothing at all. Olives? And if I take the wrong, something that's unconventional, put it on, then things get screwed up.

[79:07]

So I don't usually do that. So usually I try to cooperate and use the conventional thing for this, relatively speaking. But whatever I use to put it on there, I do it out of the ongoing habit, which is, you know, based on this confusion, of promoting... the protection of the merely imaginary to control the beautiful, the truth. So people are into that, so you can find this if you want to, but again, you're not going to be able to face this unless you're comfortable, so you've got to get comfortable. And then you can see this And then if you can face it, you can see there's another way to look at it. It will be given to you. And then you're all set.

[80:07]

And then the seen is just a seen. And the heard is just a heard, in the way that Buddha means. So in other words, this is the independent arising. Independent arising? Yes, uh-huh. Yeah, somebody happens to be an enlightened person and that person puts up his hand, and this would be ultimate clarity? Well, what you just did of holding up your hand and saying, this is a dependent core arising, and then you took your other hand and put it on top of it and said, that's ultimate reality, That's an example of, I don't know what, that's an example of computing ultimate reality to the dependent core arising, which is, it is that last type of lack of own being that I said was too much for you today.

[81:13]

Because there's a tendency to do what he just did and that is to call this dependent core arising all by itself ultimate reality. Not just in terms of explaining. Well, even in terms of explaining it's tricky because that's exactly what we want to do. We want to explain and we want to explain it by calling it ultimate reality. But we have to have a special kind of lack of own being to protect us from doing that. Because it's not ultimate reality. When you reach a stage where you have an experience but you don't compute anything on it, you can say it can be blissful, it can be love, it can be blissful, it can be that, then you've made some progress, then it goes to speaking. Yes, right. So you want to say that's ultimate reality. Well, you're not attaching anything to what you've experienced. Yeah, so it's so great you want to attach something to it.

[82:18]

No, it's not a matter of wanting to, but not attention something to it. Yeah. Is ultimate reality. Mm-hmm. Even explaining it. I mean, you know, we might as well just be silent. I'm trying to convey to you what I'm understanding. I know, but what the Buddha did in that case is he didn't say it was ultimate reality, even if I said it. That was a mistake. What he said was that that consciousness wonderful thing of having what's happening not attached to anything, that that situation, what he talked about is that that is actually ultimately without anything to it. That's what he said about it. That's those last two varieties of ultimate essencelessness, last two varieties of lack of own being, is the lack of own being of something that happens that we don't attach anything to.

[83:33]

That is ultimately, you know, the ultimate kind of emptiness. The previous kind of emptiness, which is also characteristic of dependent core arising, is that whatever happens, you know, depends on another thing and there's nothing to it by itself. So when there's a phenomena, there's really nothing there because all it is is a word, which is empty, a dependent core arising, which isn't anything, and the awareness that those two are separate. That's all that makes it up. But then that dependent core arising, which is empty because it is dependent core arising and it's empty, it's additionally empty in this other way that it's so special that you really got to empty it. And it's also, the separation of the two is also empty because it's nothing in addition to the separation. It's not like you got this separate from that and that's something. It's just an absence. There's not really anything there. But like I said, that's not for today.

[84:36]

But thanks for bringing it up. You know, it's getting really late. It's almost 11 o'clock, so I think I should only take about five more questions. Yes? So, am I hearing you correctly that you're saying that I could experience... You could experience something, yes. You could experience something. Let's say it's a sound. Let's say it's a sound. I haven't named it except sound. Okay, you haven't named it but sound. And it actually, I could hear this sound. Yes. And not call it a sound. You could hear the sound and not call it a sound? No, you couldn't hear the sound and not call it a sound. No, you couldn't. It wouldn't count as hearing it as a sound if you didn't call it a sound. Okay, so I'm a little unclear then about what happens because it feels like it has to be more than just mental.

[85:46]

That's right. And I say, oh, I'm calling it a sound, but I understand mentally that I'm just calling it a sound. Right. So let's say on a piece of paper, There was some writing, and the writing was a character that looked like S, another one O, then a U and an N and a D, written sort of in a line. And you looked at that, and you have a concept for what that's about, okay? That that scribbling reminds you of this concept, which is in your head. And you can think of that concept any old time you want. You can think of it when you see something on a piece of paper. You can think of that concept, okay? Now let's say you have this experience where that concept is used by you to apply to the experience. The experience sort of comes with that thing called hearing a sound. And you can't have that experience without using that concept, because that concept is part of what defines that experience. So far OK?

[86:49]

But you don't apply that concept when a bright light shine in your face. You don't come up with that concept. That's not the conventional way to use it. You use it for other situations, like when something happens in your ear, you use that concept. So there's a dependent co-arising of your ear, sound waves, or, you know, mechanical ways in the air, and you're here, and your life, and all that, you come up, you reach for, and you take this thing called sound, and you have this experience, this phenomena called sound, or hearing sound. Okay? Let's just say sound. Okay? And that's required that you have the concept and something special so that you apply the concept. You don't apply the concept unless something like that happens. And there's a wide variety of things that you could use that concept sound for.

[87:50]

You might not use it, but you might. You might use sound for what's happening right now with you. Or you might use it, if I stop talking, for what happens with you in the stream. You might use sound for both, but you might not. But anyway, using sound is OK. It's a conventional way to use it. So you have this phenomenal experience of sound. All right? So that's that. Confusing that stuff that happens such that you would apply the word appropriately to whatever was happening, that creative process that you somehow decide to use the convention of the concept of sound for, to confuse that with the word sound is what we do, and that's the problem. So, you know, you got the concept, but you don't use it all the time.

[88:57]

When you use it, something happens for you. And then, so you use it. But what we tend to do is confuse what happened to you, which was not the concept sound, but something else that happened in your body and mind. And then you decided to use the word sound. And you put the word sound, the concept of sound, onto that thing. This is the problem. This creates affliction. So is that in a similar way you're saying when you're talking about confusing the imputation with the dependent core arising? That's exactly what... Yeah, that's it. It's the imputation is the word sound, the dependent core arising is what happens, what happened in the world such that... you decided to use the word sound and did use the sound. That's all a part of the Dependent Core Rising. Dependent Core Rising includes, as something happens, attempts you to use a concept to help this thing happen, and it also includes the use of that concept.

[90:03]

But something else is going on because you don't use that concept all the time. That, in actual experience. But actually, truly, they are never compounded. They're independent, they're interdependent elements of a phenomenal arising. They're always separate. That's always so. We need to see that. Not seeing that is confusing them and it's a source of our misery. Seeing it is a source of our release and our development as bodhisattvas. Okay? Yes? The way that it's afflicted. God, this east is really hot today. What happened to you guys? Because when they're connected, the imputation associated with that word is all these things. Imputation associated with what? No. The word is the imputation. The word is the imputation.

[91:03]

Yeah. And then... things are associated with that, like I'm trying to take the example... Signs are associated with the word. Right, so there's this sensation of pain, and then there's this word... No, there's no association. There's some kind of sign. If you say pain, you've already finished the job. The dependent co-arising. Oh. There's some dependent co-arising, okay? Yeah. All right? And then there's this imputation of pain. Then there's imputation of pain. And with the imputation, it comes, I don't like it. Yeah, that could come. Usually when there's imputation, I don't like it comes with it. Even if it's pleasant, I don't like it comes with it. Because, you know, even if it's imputation and there's some pleasantness with it, you also know, that, you know, might be taken away from you. So you're anxious. And you say, I don't like that. So something I don't like or some dis-ease comes with any imputation that's mapped onto dependent cauterized.

[92:05]

And this whole string of things comes out of other imputations. Yeah, the whole string, the whole string, you know, all this stuff comes flying, just goes like an instant crystal, you know, the whole universe goes... full of all kinds of misery, right out of that basic little thing. All right, so all that stuff can be going, can have the sort of potential. All what stuff? That string. That's happening from this little imputation of the word pain. Not imputation. It's apprehending, dependent, co-arising as the imputation. It's not imputation. Imputation... If you've got an experience, it's going to be imputation. You can't not have imputation, otherwise you don't have a phenomenon. It's just when the imputation is stuck onto dependent core arising, you take the dharma of dependent core arising and you put an imputation on it, then the whole string of massive ill goes... blooms from that, sticking together of a mere concept onto dependent core arising.

[93:18]

The thing which is happening, we then put it in a box called beautiful, and then we suffer. But in order to have experience, you've got to have the word beautiful, or ugly, or paint, or Charlie, or whatever. You've got to have a word. Otherwise, you don't have a phenomenon. You have to have a conventional designation. It's the tendency to compound what's happened, the dependent core arising with that, that's the problem. But once again, the Buddha says, even though we have this strong tendency, actually, we also have this wonderful truth sitting there. So he's telling you about these three things that come up, two of which we confuse and cause ourselves trouble from that confusion. But he's also telling you the truth comes with every single phenomenon. The truth of suchness comes with every single phenomenon. So every phenomenon is dangerous in the sense that it's offering you three things, two of which, if you compound, you get in trouble, and you probably will, the third of which is your source of release.

[94:31]

Every phenomenon offers you a source of release. That's why... They say, whatever comes, it is the Buddhadharma. Buddhadharma is coming to you. Every phenomena delivers Buddhadharma. It says, these things are happening. If you stick these together, you're going to get trouble. If you see them as separate, you're released. It's all there in every phenomenon. Buddhism in a nutshell, constantly delivered to you. Can you see it? And the answer is, well, no, I can't. But if you can see how you don't, you're starting to see it. Because you're seeing exactly what the Buddha said would happen to you if you stuck those two together. Did you get trouble and say, I got trouble, and you say, are they stuck together? Yep. This is Dharma. Now, if you can keep facing that, you're going to start to see, hmm, the place where they're stuck is also the place where they're not together. Wow. Hey. I can be Bodhisattva now. Thank you. Ah, he's a comeback from the West.

[95:33]

Susan. Is the tendency to confound the invitation with the plant arising driven by the self-affirmation with that? Well, it's hard to know what it's called. Samsara is beginningless, right? From beginningless greed, hate and delusion. We don't know whether the... whether the thing for self-affirmation grew up out of this, or whether this grew up out of self-affirmation. I think maybe self-affirmation was, in the origin of the species, maybe self-affirmation was the first breakthrough in delusion. And then this is like what he called the microchip that was put in place to make sure we never forget. So that whatever comes up, we've always got like, I've got designations here. You give me something, I'll designate it. And I'm going to stick them together because it's more powerful for me. So I don't know which happened first. I think maybe first is the idea of self. But if you think about it, it's basically a version of the same thing.

[96:40]

So I don't know which is first. I'll meditate on that. Yes? You mentioned the term cutting the mind early. Same thing. The mind road is the road, is the bridge, is the path between designation and how things are happening. Stick them together, the mind runs back and forth on that thing, keeps, maintains that connection all the time. Right. That's a mind road. But really the mind road, you know, the Buddha is saying, actually the mind road isn't really there. the designation isn't really there, the dependent core arising isn't there, and the adhesion between them isn't really there. When you understand that, you're released from the defilements which come from this misapprehension of dependent core arising as a word. Yes and yes?

[97:42]

Yes. When we create ourselves by, maybe there's a way that we kind of experience the world and experience the designations, but as soon as... Pass. Justin? Can you use relative and conventional? Are you using pretty much the same? Yeah, relative and conventional. They're sort of the same thing. Yes?

[98:43]

So is the beneficial practice to do, like, when we have an experience and then we call it pain, to just watch, like, how that produces anxiety for us, or to watch the experience and, as much as we can, the way we're treating our pathology? That sounds good. In the background is this kind of like simple but very deep practice of saying, in the pain there will be just a pain. So if you get to the place where in the pain there's just a pain, then there's a standard you can check. If in the pain there's just a pain, then there won't be an identification with it. So if you have pain and there's some identification, you haven't got to. In the pain, there's just a pain. If there's pain and anxiety, then there's pain in me. And what's going to happen to me in terms of this pain?

[99:46]

So I'm scared. I feel threatened by the pain. But when the pain is just the pain, there's no me and the pain. So there's not me here and the pain over there. So all of this pain, there's an end of suffering right on the pain being the pain. And if there's anxiety, then probably there's still me in the pain, which means also there's probably the dependent core arising of the pain and the adhesion of the word pain or the concept of pain or the identifier of pain or the imputation of pain onto whatever is the source of me deciding to apply it in this case. Namely, the dependent core arising of pain, which is It sounds like somehow the imputation is connected with some idea of me. When there's just the pain and the pain, that could include both the dependent core arising and the imputation.

[100:51]

I think that the idea of me, although it hasn't been mentioned, is there because what often happens is there's a dependent core arising, then we choose to impute the designation of pain to it, And then we think the pain is for me. I'm getting afflicted by it. We don't think other people are necessarily getting afflicted by it. I'm getting afflicted by it. So, in fact, the me does pop up there. But me doesn't have to be mentioned so far until the me comes into play once the adhesion takes place because I'm the recipient of this stickiness, of the pain of that stickiness, of the affliction. Multidimensional affliction comes to me. On the other hand, when the adhesion stops happening, the release doesn't come to me. Because there's no coming and going anyway from me. Because there's no over there of the release or over there of the pain. So me drops out of the picture when this adhesion stops happening.

[101:53]

Except as a conventional designation keeps floating along there. So just try to practice in the pain, there's just a pain. And if you think you've got it, then check, is there any anxiety? Is there any identification or disidentification? Is there any here and there about it? Then you haven't got there yet. And probably at the core of how you haven't got there yet is this confusion of whatever's happening, whatever seems to be happening, this thing that seems to be happening, which is entirely depending on something other than itself, that's happening all the time, in any event, plus there's imputation. And are they stuck together? They probably are, if there's any kind of sense of self and other, or if there's any kind of sense of here or there, or any anxiety. So, then you look and you see, yep, there it is. Now you're looking at the very place where you can see the other point of view.

[102:57]

Because where things stick, if two things are sticking, they must be separate. Right where they're sticking is where they're separate. If you can become intimate with their sticking, you're intimate with where they're separate. Well, I guess, you know, some people are really kind of like, getting stressed out physically, I think. Maybe I'm one of them. So maybe we should stop and have a little meditation stress to trade for this kind of stress. Unless Galen wants to ask a question. So none of this can be, this is all personal experience. None of this can be used to describe anything that's not happening wherever you are. Correct. Red eyes, tiny shoulders.

[104:07]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_86.21