In the first five hundred years of the Buddhist tradition, monk scholars came up with an overview of the path to personal liberation, and they envisioned the path as having five stages or being five paths. And these paths were called, in Sanskrit, sambharamarga, which means the path of equipment, or path of preparation; prayogamarga, the path of concerted effort; darshanamarga, the path of vision; bhavanamarga, the path of meditation, or the path of becoming what was seen, in the path of vision; and finally, ashaikshamarga, the path beyond training. And later as the Mahayana developed, monk scholars and lay scholars, also came up with the same five paths, which they applied to the bodhisattva path, the path to universal liberation. And I feel that we’re now, in a sense, in terms of these wisdom teachings we are in the, what we might call, the path of equipment, or the path of preparation. We’re building a foundation for the wisdom practice. And particularly the wisdom practice of studying these teachings of the nature of phenomena in the Mahayana tradition. As part of that, I’d like to give you some more vocabulary, to help you work with these three natures. And first to tell you these three natures in Sanskrit. The first one is called parikalpita. And, so, it can be translated as the imputational character, or the imputational nature. It can be translated as conceptual clinging, or mere conceptual grasping, or the characteristic pattern of clinging to what is entirely imagined. Or, simply the imagined. The second nature, in Sanskrit… Oh, by the way, the word parikalpita, I think, is the past participle of parikalpa. And parikalpa means imagination. So the past participle of that parikalpita has also the connotation of clinging to what is imagined. And the second character, in Sanskrit, is paratantra, which literally means – para means “other”, and tantra in this case means “power” – so it means other-powered, powered by other, by another, or other-dependent. And translated as other-dependent, other-powered, dependent origination, the pattern of other-dependency. And the third character, in Sanskrit, is parinishpanna, which can be translated as the thoroughly established character, or the perfected character of reality, or the pattern of full perfection. Or the consummated character, consummated nature.
During our last practice period one of the people in the practice period came up with calling the first character maybe “the dream”; the second character “the mystery”; and the character, I think, “the reality.” But today I would suggest using – that’s pretty good – but I would say “the dream”, “the mystery”, and “the absence of dreaming in the mystery”. That’s the three characters.
Everything in our life, really, is another dependent phenomenon; is a dependent co-arising; is something which dependently arises, for us. And as you just read; I think it said, um –what did it say [long pause] – something like, um: because of tendencies towards conventional designations – remember that part? [Luminous Owl commenting?] Huh? It’s at the top of the second page? Yeah, good. So, “Gunakara, for example, you should see that in the same way that a very clear crystal comes in contact with a color, the other-dependent character comes in contact with a predisposition for conventional designations that are the imputational character.” So, part of what’s going on here is that, because we are predisposed to making conventional designations about what’s happening in our life, we impute or project, an image, or an imagined thing upon our life, so that we can talk about it. So we falsely imagine some phenomena, some phenomena, some event, something happens for us and then because of a predisposition towards making conventional designation about what happens to us, we project a false imagination upon the event. And then we attach to it. And then the reality, or the way the thing exists, becomes veiled or negated by this projection. So in that way this - the imagination itself is false, but useful. It’s false particularly because it is an imagination – uh, how does it say at the beginning? it says: It’s something that’s imputed to what’s happening, and it’s imputed to what’s happening because of predispositions. And in particular it’s imputed to what’s happening because of predispositions to make conventional designations. So, it is imputed to phenomena as a name or a symbol. But it isn’t the name or the symbol that’s the imputational. It’s something that’s imputed as a name or a symbol, to events. So that we can’t, so in order to make conventional designations. [transcriber: I don’t understand this last sentence.] and it’s imputed to events as words and symbols, in terms of essences and attributes. And those essences and attributes are purely imagined; they’re not actually in the phenomena. And by projecting these onto the things, and then attaching to them, we…the things become obscured. Maybe like almost always, living beings are projecting this false imagination onto the other-dependent character. Projecting the false imagination onto our dependently co-arising life. Now this event that’s happening right now, and this event that’s happening right now, this dependent co-arising that’s happening right now, in each moment what’s happening right now, you could say is originally free from these projections which make it possible for us to talk about the thing. You could say it’s originally free, but actually you could say really it’s always free. And yet, once we project onto it, it doesn’t seem to be free of these projections anymore. It seems to be defiled by them. So in a sense, the actual world of dependent co-arising gets apparently changed, covered, and defiled by these imaginations. Defiled, believed in, and attached to. And because of this covering, believing and attaching, the suffering of the world arises. The way things actually are, the way things actually are happening, is actually beyond these projections. Projections don’t actually reach the thing. But by interposing the projection, the world seems defiled. So we’re suffering sort of at a distance from the world, because of our veiling of it and relating to it in a dream. Someone said in the koan class, we’re studying a case which takes place in a dream. We’re studying a case of a Zen master’s dream. And after class someone said, “Aren’t you worried about people misunderstanding this teaching?” and I said, “I don’t actually, I’m not into worry.” I don’t want people to misunderstand, and they might misunderstand. So one of the ways that people might misunderstand is to say, “Well, life’s a dream, so it doesn’t matter. So, doesn’t matter what you do.” Right? Is that one possible way that people get in trouble? When they hear that we’re living in a dream? That teaching might be then, lead someone to say then, “Well, it’s just a dream that I’m punching you in the nose, so. Or it’s just a dream that we’re going to war. So, who cares? But another way to see the dream is: if you’re dreaming, you might actually drive off the road. Because you’re dreaming that there’s a road where there isn’t a road. Or, you’re dreaming that there’s a door where there’s a wall. Or you’re dreaming that someone wants you to touch them when they don’t. So, actually recognizing the dream-like projection on everything, one would then become suspicious of one’s beliefs. And one might find a more appropriate way to relate to what one sees. The world of dependent co-arising, or the dependently co-arising world, or the other-dependent character of phenomena, when there’s no, when there’s understanding of there being no projections on it, could be said to be nirvana. In the sense that the events now are purified of the projections, which means they’re purified of the beliefs which lead to attachment. So it’s the world just as it always has been, but with no attachment. So no suffering. Same world that’s always been, just no suffering, just liberation. So it’s the world of liberation. [Microphone noise, long pause, growing laughter]. Guess it’s better to do it like this. How does that work? [laughter] How, how is that? Okay for you, guess what, it’s painful for me. Painful, but I’m not suffering, I’m having a good time, but it’s painful. [laughter] Augghhh! Oooooh! Oooh! [laughter][sharp mike noise] Aaaah. I’m not going to go to sleep during this talk. [laughter] You think this is funny, eh? [comments from audience, “Reminds me of Charles Chaplin” and other unintelligible][loud laughter] Well, I think that’s enough for tonight. [laughter]
There’s one point that’s really subtle, and that is, some very, very, I would say brilliant Buddhist scholars have the opinion that the world of dependent co-arising, or the world of how things are actually happening, when it’s purified of the projection of false imaginations, and the attachment and so on, when things are purified of that, I agree that that’s nirvana, but they sometimes think that that is the thoroughly established character. And I’m not going to be absolute about this, but I’m more of the opinion, from reading the sutra, that the thoroughly establish character phenomena is not that they’re purified, the thoroughly established character is the absence, it’s not the phenomena of being free, it’s not the phenomena in the absence of the projection, it is the freedom, or the absence, or the emptiness of the projection. So the other-dependent character, I mean the thoroughly established character, or the perfected character, of every phenomena, the thoroughly established character of this world is that, which, when you look at it, and meditate on it, looking at that will purify your vision of seeing the projections on the world. When you look at the thoroughly established character, you will see that the world has never been touched by the dream. So you look at the absence of the dream, and then see that the world is free of the dream. By looking at the absence, you see the world of nirvana. By looking at the presence of the imputational, by looking at the presence of conceptual clinging, and taking conceptual clinging as real, and attaching to it, you’re looking at the world of samsara, you’re looking at the world of suffering. So when we look at what’s happening but taking it for what we imagine it to be, we have affliction. When we look at what’s happening and as we look at what’s happening we actually see the absence of our fantasies, then we get to see freedom, a world of freedom. So the thoroughly established is not really the purified other-dependent character. It is not the dependently co-arisen world, or dependently co-arisen events, in the absence of conceptual clinging, in the absence of being defiled and contaminated by false imaginations. Rather, it is the thing we look at, to realize the world, the uncontaminated world. And the Buddha teaches that all things that are contaminated by false imaginations are suffering. So as I mentioned to the practice period the other night, in the beginning of that book, The Road Less Traveled, is that what it’s called? It says, I think the first thing it says is that “life is difficult “, and there’s an asterisk and down at the bottom it says, “This is a great truth; and as a matter of fact the buddha taught the Four Noble Truths, and the first truth is that life is suffering.” But really what he said was, “contaminated life is suffering”. Life contaminated by false imaginations is suffering. But life in the absence of contamination is the cessation of suffering. But as you see from reading this chapter, in order to see the absence of the contaminating false imaginations, you have to understand the false imaginations. Because they’re operating all the time already, so you have to, like, notice what you’re already up to, to notice that what you’re already up to is not really registering on what’s happening. Even though it’s not, you think it is. And it’s so natural for you to think it is, that you don’t even notice what you’re thinking it is.
So this is a kind of hard course of study. And someone brought me an example the other morning. Some of you may not know that in the morning when we first start sitting – and most of you do know - in the morning when we first start sitting, usually one of the people in the community, on behalf of the community, does a little circumambulation of the temple. So he or she goes and offers incense around the temple, for the community. Part of the path of preparation involves, like, preparing a space to meditate in. And part of preparing a space to meditate in is to have a kind of quiet space, and a clean space, and a place that you kind of like make offerings to the buddhas and bodhisattvas, to help us have a nice place to meditate. So, rather than have everybody [laughs] like if we had fifty people here or something rather than have everybody offer incense before we meditate, to reduce the air pollution, we just have one person offer, so just one stick offered in each room rather than fifty. And one person bows, rather than fifty. So anyway, we do that. So after the person comes in here and offers incense and does bows, then that person walks around the hall and does what we call kentan. Walking around the hall, literally, circumambulation literally, in Japanese is called jundo. Just walking around the hall is called jundo. And we sometimes do jundo, which means we walk around the hall. But the person who’s opening the hall does what’s called a kentan. They’re walking around the room, but they’re also doing kentan, which means they’re looking at the tan, which means they’re looking at the people. So one person comes in here and looks at the people. Looks at each person. Ahh. Um-hmm. Yep. Oops, they’re not here. Oops, they’re asleep. Oh! Anyway, somebody’s like looking at you. Every breath you take, we’ll be watching you. That person’s looking at you. Sometimes this person’s your boss, right? This is your guru, coming to see you. Mmmm, huhh. Anyway, it’s dark, so they can’t see too much, but anyway. They have these new glasses that you can wear, so you can see in the dark [laughter]. Very deeply into the mind of the students. So that’s called kentan. So, someone told that, as I was doing the kentan, she was aware of me coming in the room. Somehow, she was aware of this phenomenon of this person. And then there was the phenomenon of the person coming into the room, and then there was the phenomenon of the person doing the bows, and then there was the phenomenon of the person walking around the room. And where the person was in the room, the person felt different, at different positions. So as the person approaches, the person felt different. So as someone comes closer to you, they feel different. They’re a different person, ‘cause they’re not the person they were when they were eighty feet away, now they’re the person that’s two feet away, and one foot away, and now they’re the person right up close to you. So this person was feeling that phenomenon, and feeling the approach of this person, who was me. And feeling sort of an escalation of the experience; was more intense as I was getting closer. But she was also aware that the experience was really having a lot to do with what she was thinking about me. That it wasn’t just that I was getting bigger, as I was approaching, but that her thinking was evolving. That really she was really aware of her thinking, and then when I got to her it was like the maximum fantasy was going on, and then as I moved away things calmed down again, as I got farther away, even though I was still in the room. So she was asking me, “Well, how do you meditate on the other-dependent?” ‘Cause it’s like it’s covered over by all this imagination, all this projection of this person, right? How can you see the other-dependent? And what it says here, you know, in this, what you just recited there, is by adhering to the actual phenomenon of this person - this constantly arising and ceasing phenomenon of this person – by adhering to that person, by imagining that thing; by having an imagination about that thing, and taking that imagination to be that thing, that’s how you know the other-dependent. So there is actually something there, arising and ceasing. How do you know it? By taking it for your imagination of it. And then you can talk about it. So, how do you meditate on the other-dependent? When basically, when you know the other-dependent, what you’re really knowing is, you’re taking it for the imagined. It’s kind of, how do you see under the imagination, in a way? And if you see under the imagination, then this thing would be purified of those things you project so you could talk about it. So if you could see under it, you wouldn’t be able to talk about what you saw. And why wouldn’t you be able to talk about it? Because you would be projecting nothing on to it. No essence or substance by which you could, like, get ahold of it. So when this thing’s coming to you, this person or this, any experience, how do you look at the quality of this thing, this character of this thing, which is that it depends on other things? How do you look at the way that it is powered by something other than itself; how do you meditate on that? Well, one way is you just listen to the teaching whenever anything happens. If you can see it and talk about, then you hear the teaching which says, “If you can see it and talk about, then you have just taken what is happening to be your imagination of it. So partly the teacher’s telling you, “You are looking at a defiled version, a contaminated version of whatever this thing is. Probably, almost all the time, you’re looking at a contaminated version. And then there will be suffering arising from that. So that’s part of what you’re aware of. But that’s actually more meditating on how you know the other-dependent. Knowing the other-dependent’s a little bit different from meditating on the other-dependent. Because knowing the other-dependent means actually you’re taking the other-dependent to be something it’s not. So you’re not really meditating on the other-dependent. But that’s what you’re seeing. Is a misconstruing, a misperception, a mistake. You’re seeing a mistake. And you think it’s real. That’s why you’re suffering. Still, we haven’t gotten to meditating on the other-dependent. But I just mention these teachings which come up to my mind as I’m talking to you about how to meditate on the other-dependent. Now, what is the teaching about the other-dependent? The teaching of the other-dependent is that it’s like a very clear crystal. So when somebody comes to you, can you see the very clear crystal? In other words, a crystal that you cannot, you can’t see, because it’s covered. And a crystal that’s a mystery. What is it? It’s a mystery that actually and always is beyond your dreaming. So when somebody comes to you, what … you know, you’re seeing your projections. What’s there that’s beyond your projection? Can you see it? No. can you look at it, can you look for it? Yes. When somebody comes, you hear the teaching. This thing that’s coming, the actual thing, not your imagination but the actual event, is how it’s dependent on other things, and that it is dependent on other things, and how it’s dependent on other things is the way it really is. And each thing is dependent on other things differently. So you’re looking, you’re listening to the teaching about this thing, but you can’t see it, probably. But you’re still listening to the teaching, and the teaching changes the way you look at the thing. As maybe you’re already changing by hearing this. So you’re not looking at the image, you’re listening to the teaching. And as you listen to the teaching, then you also, you know, think about the teaching as it applies to things. You also understand that this thing, which you have images about, like for example, images that it’s substantial and permanent, you still see it that way. But you’re hearing the teaching that it’s other-dependent, so you start to more and more understand, although you can’t see this yet, that this thing is really unreliable. And not worthy of confidence. And then, this is what it is like to meditate on the other-dependent. And there’s also an other-dependent phenomenon of being aware of…there’s the other-dependent phenomenon of imagining. That’s another thing you can be aware of. But there too, you have images of how you’re imagining. But there’s also, really is an imagining going on. Any hands coming up in the air? Yes? See I can say, “Hands coming up in the air”, because I imagine something so I can make the conventional designation, “hands”. Yes?

Student A: I’m wondering if the different levels are coming out of your imagination, and seeing something that is…
Reb: Did you say, “different levels”?
Student A: Different levels of the…
Reb: Excuse me. Did you say, “different levels of coming out of your imagination”?
Student A: Um-hm.
Reb: What do you mean by, “coming out of your imagination”?
Student A: For example, you’re just thinking, and you might say, spacing out? And then, you suddenly wake up, “Oh, I’m here!” And then everything looks different that it did before. More, more real, so to speak, and I suppose you could say more poetic, in the sense of a whole environment and relationship between things, and things are clearer. But still, in that case you haven’t really dropped subject and object, have you…you haven’t…?
Reb: Doesn’t sound like it. As a matter of fact, it sounds like you’re being mindful of your fantasies, in the case you just gave. Or, before that, you weren’t even noticing of how your fantasy process was going.
Student A: What are we waking up to, then?
Reb: You’re waking up to your, you’re waking up to…what you just said to me sounds to me like you’re becoming aware of, you’re becoming aware of strongly adhering to what’s happening as your fantasies about what’s happening. That’s what you became aware of. You weren’t aware of that teaching, but in fact you were now aware of your fantasies. And before, you were fantasizing, too, but you didn’t even notice what you were fantasizing.
Student A: Right. But that moment that you wake up, and you say, “Oh, I’ve been spacing out, I’ve just been thinking, here”,
Reb: And see, you just said, “I’ve been spacing out.” OK, what’s actually been going on, is beyond the imputation to what you going…what was actually happening, and what is actually happening, but what you say was happening, is beyond the imputation that your mind makes, on what was happening, such that you could make the conventional designation, “I was spaced out.”
Student A: Um-hm. So that’s the level that’s not being addressed, when you just wake up and say, “Oh.”
Reb: You said, “wake up”, but again, you said wake up, but what you did is, you woke up to…what? You woke up to not what was happening, you woke up to the fantasy.
Student A: But you didn’t, what you saying, what you didn’t wake up to the whole process of, you know, the whole base level of imputation, which is harder to understand, harder to see.
Reb: In the story you told, I didn’t hear an explication of understanding, a deep understanding of the process of imputation, I didn’t hear that.
Student A: Um-hm.
Reb: But I’ve heard a waking-up to the way, um…I thought that was a good example of demonstrating the way that you actually thought that you woke up to what was happening. That’s what I thought you were saying.
Student A: I was imputing that I was imputing?
Reb: No, you weren’t imputing. You were imputing that you saw reality. You said “I woke up to”, and I thought you were describing what you thought was true – or more true than usual. But actually, when you woke up and you saw what you saw, is what you think was true, and what you thought was true, and what you were imagining, so you could talk to me about it. And what you really imagined, you know, the words spaced out and so on, that’s…those are just words. But you imagined there was something there, and you put a little essence into it, such that you could use the words, “spaced out”, onto that thing. But the thing actually hasn’t , there’s nothing there to settle the word, “spaced-out”, onto. But once the word, when you put that thing in there, on what was happening, or what is happening, then you can land the word “spaced-out” onto it, and believe that that’s what you saw, and that was more real than when you weren’t even noticing what was happening. So we can fantasize without noticing that we’re fantasizing, and then we can wake up to, “Oh! This is what’s happening.” But when we wake up to, “this is what’s happening”, at that very moment that we say, “This is what’s happening”, we have just contaminated what’s happening. In order to say, “This is what’s happening”, in order to say this is a color, we have to contaminate the color. There is a color there, and the word “color” is fine for it. But in order to get the word “color” onto the color, we have to defile the color by projecting a landing pad of essences and attributes. We need the essence to have something to actually be there, that is there, and then we have attributes to, get the right word, you know, line the word up with the thing. That’s what we think, and this is something that’s developed, in our group here, through eons of talking.
Student A: So, is there some moment, right, is there some split second before the imputation came back again, that maybe there was, a dropping away?
Reb: I didn’t hear about it, about any dropping-away.
Student A: Um-hm. It was just a different…
Reb: Of course, what I was saying was a dropping away. But not what you were saying. [laughter]
Student A: So, I was just experiencing a different level of imputation.
Reb: No, you’re not experiencing a different level of imputation. You’re experiencing – what I heard you say was experiencing some awareness about what’s happening. And what’s happening – what I heard you say was happening was, you were telling me about the way the world looks when it’s contaminated. Namely, “I was spaced out, or I wasn’t. Or I woke up”. This kind of thing, that I hear you describing, as you’re describing, the world of dependent co-arising, when it’s been contaminated, so that we can talk about it. And in order for me to talk to you about what I heard you say, I had to also project onto what I saw in what you said, in order to talk to you about it. But what you – the way you actually were – is beyond my descriptions of what – how you were. But if I believe what I had to do in order to talk to you about what I saw there, then I suffer. Then I’m anxious that this person, covered over by the, you know – by the imputational, that this person is really that way, then I suffer. So how can I point out to this person, this dysfunction I see, without getting caught by it myself while I’m talking to her? Yes.
Student B: Is thinking in language imputational?
Reb: Is thinking in language imputational? No. But thinking about something, so that you can talk about it, requires the imputational. So, for example, just sitting in meditation and thinking “blue”, that thought “blue”, you know, is a word, but you’re not saying anything’s blue. Now, if you think, “I’m sitting here thinking ‘blue’”, then you’re like putting that imagination of what you’re doing there onto what’s happening. And that’s, in order to say, “I’m thinking the thought ‘blue’”, in order to do that, you’d have to impute something to who you are, that person that’s sitting there going, “blue, blue, blue”, in order to talk about yourself you’d have to get back into it. But just “blue”, it’s just a dependent co-arising. There’s a lot of things that happen in this world, as you may have noticed. And every single one of them is a dependent co-arising. And every single one of them is actually untouched by anybody’s fantasies or anybody’s dream about what they are. That’s actually the way they are. That’s their thoroughly established character, is that there’s an absence of the fantasy, the imagined, in them. But, because of our predisposition to conventionality, being social animals of the human variety, we project something on to what’s happening. Not just so we can say “blue”, but so we can say “blue” about something. It isn’t just so we can walk around and go, “blue! Green! Red!” It’s, “Blue! That’s blue”, and “that’s green”. And people say, “Eh, its blah, blah, blah”, anyway we work it out, you know. But the thing is, it’s blue about something, that’s where the imputation starts working. That’s where you make your money. You don’t make any money just walking around saying, “Blue, blue, blue.” Make sense? Little bit?
[A student begins to talk]
Reb: No, no, not you. Him. [laughter]
Student C: I have a question about the connection between the wisdom teachings and [unintelligible]
Reb: Yes?
Student C: [unintelligible]
Reb: Excuse me. Could I say something before you go on? You said you had a question about the relationship between wisdom teachings and the chain of dependent co-arising?
Student C: [unintelligible]
Reb: Oh, OK. So you have a question about the wisdom teaching of dependent co-arising and what?
Student C: Wisdom teachings and the Samdhinimocana Sutra.
Reb: Same. We just said it. The other-dependent character of phenomena is simply the dependent co-arising of phenomena. And then it said, what is that? It’s that, when this arises, in dependence on this, this arises. In dependence on this…that’s the basic principle. And then it says, like in depending on ignorance, karmic formations. So, it just said it, that exactly what the other-dependent character is, it’s how everything arises in dependence, and it’s also in particular, they give an example there, of how, depending on ignorance, karmic formations; depending on ignorance…suffering. That’s also…suffering is a dependent co-arisen phenomenon, too. So, the story…the way suffering arises is another teaching of dependent co-arising. It’s basically the same thing. So what questions do you have?
Student C: I have a question about the [unintelligible]
Reb: Yes?
Student C: So, [unintelligible]
Reb: Yes?
Student C: [this student cannot be understood in this recording, and there is a hiss]
Reb: Sometimes that would be. And sometimes it would not be. [student unintelligible] It would be at the wrong time. [laughter] OK? This sutra’s saying that…you first start out saying, positioning yourself at that place, OK, this sutra would say, “Please notice that you are now involved in the imputational. That you’re taking the imputational as though you’re gonna actually be at that stage by talking about it that way. That’s what this sutra would say. However, the sutra could also say, “Maybe that would be a good imputational for you to work with for a while. There is no stage there, is what the sutra’s saying. There is no stage of being at the stage of, you know, what do you call it. Did you say craving? [student unintelligible] Contact, yeah. There is no stage like that. Excuse me, it doesn’t say there is no stage, I take it back. There is a stage like that, but for you to approach that stage, by the way you can talk about that stage, is that you’re actually getting caught and distracted from that stage, and you’re defiling that stage by that approach. That’s what the sutra’s saying. The sutra’s saying, “When you’re ready, you can study, not so much that stage, but you can study how you treat that stage with your imagination in such a way that you defile that stage and cause yourself suffering at that stage. And any stage would be equally good to defile, in that way, and any stage would be equally good for you to catch yourself at defiling. But before you can study that phase, you would say, rather than put yourself at these different phases, study dependent co-arising and realize from the beginning that if you try to study dependent co-arising in any way that you can talk about it, you’re really not studying dependent co-arising, you’re studying the imputational. But you can’t study the imputational until you’re more grounded in the other-dependent meditation. Which means you learn how to meditate on what you can’t see. You can’t see the other-dependent, because you’re constantly dreaming about the other-dependent. So you have to start by confessing that you constantly dreaming of the other-dependent as being your dream. You have to learn how to meditate on the other-dependent before you start trying to actually study your dream, of the other-dependent or phases of the other-dependent. That’s what this sutra’s saying. This sutra’s teaching you how to meditate on the teaching of dependent co-arising in such a way that you don’t confuse what you’re thinking is what’s happening with what’s happening. In other words, you have to learn how to identify that you’re confusing what’s happening with what you’re thinking or dreaming is happening. That’s how you’ll realize what’s happening. But you have to be grounded not in your thinking, first of all, but in listening to the teaching about how what’s happening is happening, which you cannot see. You cannot see how things are other-dependent. You can dream about how things are other-dependent, though. But you can hear the teaching about how things are other-dependent, even though you can’t see it. And hearing that teaching, your relationship with these, with what’s happening, and your relationship with your dreams about what’s happening start to change. And as that becomes more and more developed, you become more and more ready to actually, like, turn around and study the dreams you have, for example some stage in the process of dependent co-arising of suffering. And then it might be good, sometimes, to study a particular stage. But it might not be good to study that stage, because you might not be ready to study that stage without getting more and more confused. In other words, you might study the stage and think, “Oh, now I’m studying that stage”, rather than study that stage and think, “Oh, now I’m dreaming about studying that stage.” But if you already know that basically the only way you, at this point, that you could study those stages would be to study your dreams of the stage, then you probably say that, “Am I ready to study my dreams of the stages.” And I would say, you know, what do you call it? Convince me. That you’re ready. Show me how you’re grounded in meditation on the other-dependent. Rather than grounded in your dreams of the other-dependent. Show me your virtue. Yeah.
Student C: [unintelligible]
Reb: Yes.
Student C: [unintelligible]
Reb: Did you say, “Sometimes being aware that this is dreaming up the stage?
Student C: Yes.
Reb: Uh-huh.
Student C: [unintelligible]
Reb: I didn’t understand that last little clause. Isn’t it at that point, what?
Student C: [unintelligible]…at that stage [unintelligible]
Reb: Well, yes, but…
Student C: As you are all the time.
Reb: Yeah, as you are all the time. You always are.
Student C: [unintelligible]…an advantage point.
Reb: Isn’t it an advantage point? No, because every point is an advantage point. You agree?
Student C: [unintelligible]
Reb: Pardon?
Student C: I just understood.
Reb: You just understood. Yeah. You learned something. Amazing, huh? [laughs] Yeah, they’re all…this is like all equally good. Yes.
Student D: So, [unintelligible]
Reb: Yeah. Basically. At the beginning.
Student D: What else?
Reb: You mean, beyond that, what else?
Student D: Yeah.
Reb: Um, well, after you, are well grounded in that teaching, you could turn around and start looking at the imputational. Like for example, you could look at your dream about what stage you’re at.
Student D: What would you mean by [unintelligible]
Reb: Well, probably means in your case, that I tell you you are. [laughter] and then I watch what you do and I tell you. And see if you, like, you know, go for the imputational version you have of what I said. Did you go for it? [laughter]
Student D: You can’t really know [unintelligible].
Reb: You can’t really know you’re meditating on the other-dependent? Well. Doesn’t matter whether you know that you are. What matters is that you are. And that you’re being transformed by the meditation. And as you’re transformed by the meditation you will start to be able to make some inroads into being aware of your dreams. And start understanding your dreams. As dreams. The more you practice meditation on the other-dependent, the more you realize the dream-like quality of your confusion. Of the imputations with the other-dependent. You still can’t see the other-dependent, but you can start to become more aware of your dreams. As a consequence of meditating properly on the other-dependent. So you can know the other-dependent by misconstruing it as your dreams, right? And you start to be aware that’s how you know the other-dependent , and also you become more and more aware, you can become aware of your dreams, because they’re like big, chunky images. Like, “Hey, yeah, this is happening! Ha, ha! Rah, this is like really happening!” Now you know you’re dreaming. But if you don’t practice the virtue enough, you don’t know it’s a dream, you think it’s true, and you’re in trouble and so am I if I’m anywhere near you. But, in fact, whether you know it or not, when you start to practice meditation on the other-dependent, you will start to wake up more and more to how deluded you are. Now you can infer then, accurately, that the more you realize how deluded you are, and how you’re dreaming, and how you muck up everything with your stuff. You can deduce, you can infer, “Hey, maybe I’m practicing, maybe I’m in the meditation of the other-dependent, because I’m starting to see what you can see when you meditate on the other-dependent. You don’t see the other-dependent; you just see more and more how deluded you are. And then, now you’re cooking, now you can start looking at your delusions, now you can start to become really good at them. And as you start to become good at them, you get to see that they’re not really making it. To anything that’s happening. They’re just like, totally, whatever you want to say, politely.
Student D: [unintelligible]
Reb: That’s, that’ll be part of what you come to understand. You can never see the other-dependent, like, you know, in the sense of knowing it as an object, but you can understand it. Because that’s what it says: “When you know the other-dependent as it really is, you know the afflicted quality. You know how things are afflicted. You understand then. See, as you meditate on the other-dependent, you see what a mess you’re making, and you see what mess [unclear] you seek [?]. You understand the afflicted quality. You see, “Oh, yeah, wow, I, this is – not I, but – this is really causing problems, here. This is really causing pain. You can see that, because you’re well grounded in the other-dependent meditation. And then as you get more and more aware of that, you start to, like, discover that there’s something that – you know, actually there’s not really a sticking to the, uh, the superimposition is isn’t really being believed anymore, this overlay, this projection is like, it’s abandoned. And then when you abandon that, you realize the purified nature. And so on. Cool, huh? [laughs] Well, let’s see, it’s getting a little on the late side. Is there really any good questions? [laughter] Ah, there’s a good one! Oh, you have a good one, too! Wow! What’s your delusion? [laughter]
Student E: [mostly unintelligible] Is it a way [unintelligible]…or is it something else?
Reb: Ummm. I’ll think about that. Any other excellent questions? That was very good, thank you. Yes?
Student F: Um. Back to blue…
Reb: Back to blue.
Student F: [unintelligible]
Reb: Yes.
Student F: [unintelligible]
Reb: OK. Just a second, now, OK. Boom! I got a picture of blue. I’m not imputing it to anything. It’s just an image. It’s not the imputational.
Student F:You define it in thought…
Reb: Unless I say that is blue that I’m seeing there.
Student F: [unintelligible]
Reb: Yeah. Just, just the blue. But the thing is, usually, as soon as you see blue you say, “That is blue”. Before you have a chance, “Oo-hoo, [sound like hand slap] couldn’t get that...” But, anyway, but if you just saw blue but you didn’t say, “it is blue”, then there’d be no imputation.
Student F: [unintelligible]
Reb: Uh, yeah, pretty rare. Pretty rare. The big question is, “Can a buddha talk, without, you know, getting kind of confused. Uh, I’m not so sure. It’s possible, but anyway, it might be. But, basically, whenever you’re doing that…so, let’s get used to admitting that we’re pretty much nonstop imputing, believing, and attaching, and mucking it up. That’s just sort of like… And then, just as an idea, accept that. And then meditate on the other-dependent, and as you’re meditating on the other-dependent, you’ll start to see that that’s so. You’ll catch yourself, in the act of screwing up a perfectly good life. [laughter] And I say, “catch yourself”, it’s not really you that’s doing it, it’s just the predisposition of the mind, to lay out these projections so we can talk to each other, and you know, make a buck. Or make a duck. So, catching yourself at that more and more, the more you meditate on the other-dependent, [laughs] the more you meditate on the other-dependent, the more you’re not, what do you say, the more you meditate on the other-dependent the more you realize you have nothing better to do that to practice meditation. And if you’re just practicing meditation rather than like “getting somewhere”, then you can, like, look at what a jerk you are. And how confused you are. And how deluded you are. No problem, because you…why not, why not study what’s happening? Why not study these teachings? But if you’re not meditating the other-dependent you’re sort of like, more over to like, “What do my delusions say I should be doing?” Like Bernd’s saying, I should probably be at this stage right here, ‘cause then I’ll really make progress. Meditating on the other-dependent, you’re like, “Make progress? Who said that? Where’d that come from? Hoo! Suspicion. This is, like, really a good practice over here.” Meditating on the other-dependent is when you think it’s good to meditate on the other-dependent you realize, “Oh, there’s the imputational again. I’m not meditating on the other-dependent. I’m meditating on a good way to meditate on the other-dependent. This is the fantasy, again. Meditating on the other-dependent, you don’t know what you’re doing. [laughter] You don’t know what you’re doing, and you don’t know what you’re looking at. [laughter] Now, you are looking…what you are looking at is a fantasy. But you don’t know what you are actually looking at. And you kind of recognize that. And recognizing that, you’re meditating on the other-dependent. Sort of. [laughter] OK? All right?
Student G: Is there an antithesis to false imagining?
Reb: Is there an antithesis, and/or an antidote to false imaginations? Is that what you said?
Student G: You mentioned false imaginations.
Reb: Yes. And you said is there a…
Student G: [unintelligible] false.
Reb: False, yeah.
Student G: So, are there true imaginations?
Reb: Are there true imaginations? Not that I know of.
Student G: So all imaginations are false.
Reb: Well, basically, yes. I mean they’re false, in that they would apply to anything. Images are not false, it’s just false to apply them to anything. That’s all. The false part is like to say, to think that an image, or an idea, or a concept, like, actually belonged on something. That’s the false part. The false imagination, like blue is not false, but to think, to project the blue onto something, that’s the false part. And what’s true, what the antidote, to false imagination, is to actually understand that these imaginations aren’t actually ever making it. That really the way things are is actually, completely free of this, and there is an absence of these things. That balances, that antidotes it. But that takes quite a bit of work to see that because you have to, like, really become familiar with false imagination. But again, just to sort of dive into false imagination land is pretty hard unless you’re already grounded in the other-dependent. Because otherwise, as you dive into the studying false imagination, you might think that you’re actually seeing your false imagination correctly. Which of course you can’t do. But as you’re grounded in the other-dependent, the virtue you develop, you have the ability somehow, to start to come to see the falseness of your imagination. And then to be able to see that actually there’s some place where you can’t find it, and you’re sure you can’t find it, and then things start getting cleared up. Then you actually find and realize that the world is actually free of these overlays. You start to actually see the way the world is, without the obscuring and contaminating confusion of our imagination with what’s happening. You see, you know, the peaceful world of liberation, through seeing the absence of this contamination.
Student H: [unintelligible]
Reb: Um, I, ah, I don’t know if I said…what’d you say? That there’ll be a true imagination?
Student H: Yeah, that there’re certain things that are real that can only be apprehended through imagination, um, space [unintelligible] I heard that, I don’t know if that’s what you said, but I thought you said that.
Reb: I can imagine how you thought I said that, um, [laughter] but I, I’m not saying that space is real. I’m not saying space is real. I would say space exists, and that it’s permanent, you know, but it’s a phenomenon. But the, but using imagination to apprehend space, seems to me, would be again to obscure the dependent co-arising of that phenomenon. But space is an imaginary thing, but we don’t project “space” onto “blue”. That’s not the reason why we’re suffering, that we’re projecting the concept of space onto blue. But to project the image of space onto space, so we can talk about space, that’s the same process. But the concept “space”, that’s fine. There is such a thing as space. And we have a concept for it. But to think that the word, you know, that the thing that we put on the phenomenon of space, in order to get ahold of it, that that was the space, that would be a mistake. But the projection that we have the problem about is, is the projection of essences onto all phenomenon, so that we can make conventional designations. That’s the one that’s causing us suffering. Projecting of essences, and then believing them and attaching to them. But again, I’m not strongly encouraging you to start looking at this stuff yet. I’m more encouraging you…I’m talking about this to get you ready for this teaching. But I’m actually encouraging you to meditate on the teaching of dependent co-arising a phenomenon of the other-dependent character. I’m encouraging you to get better at that now. Before you actually intensively start looking at the imputational. Try to find that and examine that. We will get to that later, and maybe we actually are already getting to it. And I’ll keep talking about it, but I’m not actually suggesting you meditate on it. I’m suggesting you learn about it at this phase, by talking to me about it. And learn more and more before you start pondering it. I don’t think we’re, generally speaking as a group, ready for that. But, prove me wrong, if you want. You know, I’m not sure. Some of you may be further along in this meditation than I know. That enough for tonight? How’s it going, this wisdom teaching thing? Is it going really well, according to your imagination? [laughter] What’s your imagination of this process [audience murmuring]. It’s false, he says! Yeah, so you see, I don’t know how it’s going. I don’t know how it’s going. What? [voice from audience] It seems that there’s something to get. Yeah. I know what you mean. It’s kind of frightening.
Student: It seems like a koan.
Reb: It seems like a koan. Yeah. Yes?
Student I: [unintelligible]
Reb: Pardon?
Student I: Same with the thought.
Reb: Did you say, “Same with the thought?”
Student I: Yes.
Reb: Yeah, right.
Student I: Same with a [unintelligible].
Reb: Yeah, uh-huh.
Student I: So, I’m finding that [unintelligible].
Reb: Good.
Student I: Well, I mean [laughter]. Anyway, I wanted to say that you asked how it’s going.
Reb: Yeah, you asked how it’s going and you said, and somehow even though we don’t know what’s going on, sometimes we get, we start feeling happy. Even though that’s not really what’s going on, that we’re happy, we still do kind of feel happy. You know, and we can talk about it. Now that’s not really what’s happening, but we are talking about being happy. And kind of like “OK!” And we feel kind of enthusiastic, and loving of people. And stuff like that. That’s not really what’s happening, but we like it. You know, we want to study more, we want to learn more, we like pay more attention, we want to practice mindfulness. We want to be generous, we want to not…we want to practice the precepts. All this stuff happens, you know, and… We feel kind of more or less afraid and more relaxed and less attached. And that’s not really what’s going on, but somehow this is what we’re…this is what is dependently co-arising and we’re having these thoughts. And this is like, getting ready for…the next…start looking at how deluded we are when we’re thinking that way. [laughter] But if you’re really feeling miserable, you’re not in very good position to look at the delusion that you’re having about that you’re miserable. So, feeling happy, thinking that you’re happy, feeling happy, thinking things are going well, feeling enthusiastic, thinking that dharma study is great, you know, all this stuff…that’s not really what’s happening. But, those conditions are the ones that make you more ready to consider that this is all just a dream, and you’re totally deluded. ‘Cause you’re happy! When you’re happy you kind of feel like, “Okay, I’m willing to consider that I’m totally deluded. I mean, I’m happy enough to consider that. I mean, as a matter of fact that I’m considering it is not depressing me. Matter of fact, I even feel better now! Just like it says I would in the scriptures. And I can see I have a lot more work to do, and I feel good about that. And, that’s not what’s happening either, but again, I’m sort of understanding that what I think is happening is not so. I’m starting to not believe quite so much in what I think is happening. Wow! And that’s not happening either, but somehow I’m thinking that. And it feels really good to think that, and I’m dreaming that, and then that might be a dream, too, and that’s good, too, you know?” And so you start to get more…you start to manifest less and less attachment. Even though that’s not really what’s happening. Somehow, you know…and then you say, “So maybe I should get somebody to test me or something. This could be a whole dream that I’m not attached.” And you go and see somebody and they catch you, and you go, “Oh, wow, it was a dream. I am attached! And that’s cool, too! That I was totally dreaming that I wasn’t attached; I was even more attached than usual! But I’m still feeling good!” This is studying, this is studying the imputational. And you feel good about it. Because you haven’t been grounding in the other-dependent meditation. And that’s how you are, you seem to be almost ready to deal with this…you see more and more because you’re meditating on the other-dependent; you ‘re more and more ready to face how deluded human beings are. Aren’t you! [laughter] And some of you are not, because you’re not grounded enough in the other-dependent. So you’re still resisting this obnoxious teaching because you kind of want to think, “Well, actually I do know what’s going on. Actually. I mean, I do. And I’m right. It’s not that I’m deluded, I’m…he’s deluded, I’m not. [laughter] Some of these other people are, but I’m not. I’m actually not.” And that’s what we think and that’s our delusion. Right? And if you’re depressed, you don’t want to, like, “I’m depressed. I’m not going to be depressed and deluded!” [laughter] But if you’re happy, because you’re practicing meditation on the other-dependent, then you can tolerate a little, or quite a bit, of confession that you are one, you are one deluded being, and you actually do think, that what you think is happening is what’s happening.

[End of recording]