I seem to remember that yesterday, in the Dharma talk, there was a discussion about what Dogen Zenji calls the essential art of zazen, which is, the way he puts it is, after settling into a steady, unmoving, sitting posture, think of not thinking. How do you think of not thinking? Non-thinking. This is the essential art of zazen. And then he says, the zazen that I'm talking about, or the zazen that I'm teaching, is

[01:07]

not learning concentration, is not learning tranquility, is not learning dhyana. It is the Dharmagate of repose and bliss. It is immediate realization. Traps and snares can never reach it. Once its heart is grasped, you're like a dragon entering the water, like a tiger returning to the mountains. Although he says that this practice that he's talking about, the essential art, he's teaching the essential art of zazen, this is not learning

[02:09]

concentration still, my sense is that it's good to practice tranquility, to train in tranquility, which is, in a sense, what he was saying by settle into a steady, immobile, sitting position. So he does recommend settling into a steady, immobile, sitting position. And again, that doesn't mean settle into a steady, immobile, sitting position, but inwardly you're drowsy or agitated or upset. It means body and mind settled, that's what I think. So, although he's not emphasizing this part about settling into the steady, immobile, sitting position, he does mention it, and so that's why I started the retreat by giving

[03:21]

some encouragement to you to practice on an ongoing basis, taking care of your body and mind so that you're in this, in the moment, that you're quiet and still and calm. Enough so that you can start studying thinking of not thinking, which is the essential art. I also wanted to set the context for the essential art of Zazen within great compassion, so I talked about that too. And part of great compassion, part of the way to take care of

[04:25]

compassion is to settle into a steady, upright, relaxed state of body and mind. That's part of compassion. And again, this compassionate practice and other compassionate practices set the stage for the challenging work of learning the essential art of Zazen, of learning how to think of not thinking. In other words, how to learn deep wisdom. So the essential art of Zazen is profound wisdom. It is profound wisdom, which is the dharmagate of repose

[05:29]

and bliss. It is profound wisdom, which is immediate realization. Wisdom is not so much wisdom and then realization. Wisdom is immediate realization. The practice of wisdom is realization. And someone said to me that it was difficult to see the connection between great wisdom and Zazen practice, excuse me, the connection between great compassion and Zazen practice. What's the relationship between great compassion and this thinking of not thinking? And the person made a gesture of, it seems like Zazen is like thinking, [...]

[06:33]

in other words, with the hands pushing, cutting through thinking, giving up thinking, giving up thinking, giving up thinking, letting go of thinking, thinking about getting rid of thinking. In a sense, that is kind of a gesture towards thinking of not thinking. Thinking of not thinking, not thinking, not thinking, not thinking. Okay? What's the relationship between not thinking, not thinking, not thinking, or anyway, thinking of not thinking, thinking of not thinking, thinking of not thinking. What's the relationship between that and great compassion? The relationship is that the Buddha's mind is giving up thinking. And the Buddha's mind is giving up thinking. It's the absence of all thinking in the midst of what's happening.

[07:35]

It's the emptiness of all of our ideas about reality in what's happening. In other words, emptiness means that any idea you have about what's going on is absent in the way things are. And the Buddha mind is that emptiness, but at the center of that emptiness is great compassion. Great compassion in the Buddha mind is totally at the center of this Zazen, of this practice which gives up and sees the absence of any imputation of imagination in our life, which sees the emptiness of any ideas of essence in our life. In the Zazen

[08:48]

Diamond Sutra it says that the Bodhisattvas vow to save all kinds of beings, to carry them across the sea of suffering, to freedom from suffering. And yet, those Bodhisattvas who vow to save all beings do not have any idea of all beings. There's no beings that they actually carry across. In other words, they have no idea of these beings who they're saving. And the miracle of the Mahayana, the miracle of the Bodhisattvas is that they commit to save beings and work to save beings while giving up any idea of beings that they're

[09:52]

trying to save. So all their ideas of the beings they see are absent in the beings. And this is necessary to see in order to save the beings. And only those who see that there's no beings in the beings, there are beings, but there's no beings in the beings. Only those who see that there's no beings in the beings can save the beings. Other people can try to help the beings and can be somewhat helpful, but to save them means to save beings from thinking that there's a being in the beings. Thinking that there's a being in the beings or that there's an emptiness in emptiness or that there's a you in you. That is the problem. So I don't know if that was clear, but how for the Bodhisattva, for those who are trying

[11:04]

to develop great compassion and realize it, they need this wisdom which understands that there's no thinking. And this scripture that you've been chanting in service, the Samadhi Nirmocana Sutra, I think is about the same practice of learning to think of not thinking. How do you think of not thinking? Non-thinking. This is the essential art of this scripture too. And again, I waited until yesterday, or I guess the three days you've been chanting it, but I waited to start talking about it until I felt you had a chance to get settled. And I'd like to try to somewhat tie together the practice of Zazen as taught by Dogen and

[12:12]

the practice of wisdom as taught in the Samadhi Nirmocana Sutra. I've been trying to work on this with people for a few years and it looks like, you know, maybe more work needs to be done because not everybody completely understands the sutra yet. So the Bodhisattva Gunakara asked the Buddha, how are Bodhisattvas, how are these beings of great compassion wise with respect to the character of phenomena? And the Buddha says,

[13:15]

okay, listen well and I will describe to you, or for you, how Bodhisattvas are wise with the character of phenomena. And then he says, Gunakara, there are three characteristics. So how are they wise with respect to the character of phenomena? Well, I'm going to tell you about three characteristics so you'll understand about how they're wise, because they're wise about these three characteristics of phenomena. They know about these three characteristics. So I'm going to tell you about what they know about. And what are these three characteristics of all phenomena? They are the imputational character, the other dependent character, and the thoroughly established character. And what is the imputational character of phenomena? Another translation is, what is

[14:25]

the imaginary nature of phenomena? What is the imaginary nature of phenomena? What is the merely imagined nature of phenomena? What is the character of conceptual grasping in phenomena? These are different ways of saying it. And then the Buddha says, it is that which is imputed. The imputational is that which is imputed. It's not the imputation, it's what's imputed as a name or symbol in terms of own being or attributes of phenomena. So if I look at Hali, the imputational character is that which is imputed. Which I impute to her in terms of the name Hali, excuse me, not in terms of, as the name,

[15:31]

it's what I impute to her as the name Hali in terms of an own being or attributes of her. The imputation is not the name Hali, but I impute something to her as the name Hali in terms of an own being, in terms of a self, in terms of a substantial independent existence in order to subsequently designate any convention whatsoever. So, the imputational is that which I impute to you or to anything or to myself as a name or a symbol, a name or a symbol, a name or an image, I impute to you in terms of a name

[16:40]

or a symbol, in terms of an independent existence or an attribute in order to talk about you, or talk about it, or talk about me. That's the imputational character. And it says all phenomena have these three characteristics. And what is the other dependent character phenomena? It is simply the dependent origination of phenomena. It is like this. Because this exists, that exists. Because this is produced, that is produced. So it's saying everything has a character of because of this, there's that. Because of this, there's you. Because this is produced, you're produced. You have that character.

[17:44]

You don't produce yourself. Nothing produces itself. Everything exists in dependence on something else. Nothing produces itself. Everything exists in dependence on other things. You exist not because of yourself, but because of your history. Your history is not you, but you exist because of your history. You exist because of all your past actions. Your past actions aren't you. They're gone. But in dependence on them, you arise. You exist in dependence on many, many things that aren't you. That's your other dependent nature. You arise dependently, and the things that you arise in dependence on, they also arise in dependence on you. It's mutual, interdependent origination. Everything has this nature, and anything that doesn't have this nature doesn't exist. Everything that exists has this nature. Everything that doesn't is non-existent. And then, what is a thoroughly established

[18:54]

character of phenomena? It is the suchness of phenomena. It is the way phenomena really, finally, truly are. The most profound way that things are. That's the suchness, that's later in the chapter, it tells you a little bit more about thoroughly established character, but at this point it just tells you it's the suchness. And it then goes on to say that through diligence, to make it short, through diligence, bodhisattvas cultivate realization of suchness. Bodhisattvas study the imputational character, bodhisattvas study the other dependent

[19:58]

character, but it is through diligent cultivation of realization of the thoroughly established of suchness that the bodhisattvas actually evolve to Buddhahood. Or another way to put it is, through this diligence and cultivation of realization of suchness, of the realization of the thoroughly established, they wish, they wish the intention to live for the welfare of all beings, that intention, that great compassion, it evolves to Buddhahood. That wish which we share for the welfare of the world, when it's connected to this cultivation and realization of suchness, this wish evolves to perfect, purified, great compassion of

[21:06]

Buddhahood. You don't have to make it personal. And it isn't. Suchness, thoroughly established, emptiness are synonyms. And in the Heart Sutra it says, in emptiness, or in the context of emptiness, there's no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. You can substitute, in the context of the thoroughly established, there's no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. In the context of suchness, there's no eyes, no ears, no tongue, no body, no... so on. When you think of suchness, you're thinking of a situation where there's no eyes, no ears,

[22:18]

no nose. When you're thinking of the thoroughly established, you're thinking of where there's no thinking. There's no thinking in emptiness. There's no concepts there. If you look at a concept, the thoroughly established nature of a concept is, there's no concepts in it. It's empty of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind, and all concepts. Meditating on this emptiness, there's a re-realization of liberation. This realization of suchness, which is the realization of thinking, which is thinking of not thinking, that is the Bodhisattva's realization, which the Bodhisattva needs in

[23:23]

order to unite wisdom with compassion. And this is what we call Zazen, the essential art. The thoroughly established character is sometimes called the perfected character of phenomena, and sometimes called the consummate, consummate character of phenomena, in the sense that in order to realize, when it says consummate or perfected, it's almost like, well, this thoroughly established character is the character by which our mind is consummated, or our mind is perfected. When you meditate on emptiness or meditate on suchness, it purifies your body and mind of all obstructions to Buddha's

[24:27]

wisdom. Meditating on suchness is wisdom meditation, and the more you meditate on suchness, the more you meditate on the thoroughly established, the more your body and mind are purified, are cleared of the obstructions to perfect understanding. So it's not essentially meditating on suchness, it's meditating on the thoroughly established and on the interdependence of any thought that arises, any concept that arises. I see that as a concept, as an imputation. I may think of that thought that I have, but I see the interdependence, the emptiness of that thought.

[25:27]

Seeing the emptiness of the thought is meditating on the suchness. And the emptiness of the thought of food, or the emptiness of the food, when you look at the food, the emptiness of it, is the absence of your ideas about the food in the food. That's the thoroughly established, that's the emptiness. Now I'll say this to you, and it may not mean too much right now, but I'll say it perhaps more than once, that the obstructions, in terms of perfect knowledge, the obstruction to all-knowing wisdom that exists in our body and mind, are what we call the signs of compounded phenomena. The signs. And the other dependent

[26:38]

character actually has the signs of compounded phenomena. These signs are conceptually imagined substantial existences of things. And these imagined selves, these imagined own beings, these imagined essences, are in our body and mind. And they obstruct us from seeing perfectly, clearly. By meditating on suchness, these signs are removed, these obstructions are removed. And I'll just also mention that in chapter 8 of the scripture, there is the discussion which starts off by saying, what is wisdom

[27:45]

practice, or what is insight practice? It is mental attention to signs of phenomena. It is mental attention to signs. It is mental attention to the mental signs of phenomena. And by attending to the suchness of phenomena, the signs are removed. When the signs are removed, the obstructions to wisdom are removed. These are just imaginations of things which don't actually exist. But when these images of things that don't exist appear, they obstruct us from seeing how things really are. So to some extent, learning to think of not thinking is to learn to think in such a way that you see the other thoroughly established and remove

[28:50]

the images of self from your body and mind so that you can see perfectly, clearly. Now, in the second part, in the latter part of this chapter 6, the Buddha says to the Bodhisattva Gunakara, in dependence upon names that are connected with signs, the imputational character is known. And in chapter 7, the next chapter, it says that the other dependent character of phenomena is the signs of compounded phenomena. It is the basis of the imputation

[29:54]

character and it is the object of conceptual activity. So if you look again at a person, basically what you're looking at is this impermanent, or perhaps I should say this dependent co-arising, this other dependent being, which because it's other dependent, it's dependent it's impermanent. You're looking at an impermanent other dependent being, or a being which has the character of being other dependent, and this other dependent character of this being you're looking at, it has or is the signs of itself. It has the signs of itself. And these signs are things that the imputational character depends on. The signs are what the

[31:08]

imagination uses to come up with the idea or the image that this other dependent phenomena is not other dependent. So the other dependent phenomena offer the opportunity to the imagination which is not separate from itself, to imagine that this other dependent phenomena is not other dependent. In other words, to create an image of something that's other dependent, which looks not other dependent, and then to impose this image of non-other dependentness on the other dependent, and then to use a name in conjunction with this imputation to designate this thing. But a falseness has been imputed on the other dependent phenomena

[32:12]

in order to grasp it and name it. That's the imputational character, and if you want to find the imputational character, then you look at anything and see how this process arises in dependence on the signs and the names in order to put essences on things. That's how we get to know the imputational character. So part of what the Bodhisattva does is learns to know the imputational character, learns to see how the mind imagines something which is interdependent to be not interdependent. And by watching signs and names, that's part of how you study and see how the imputational character works. Now this next part is a surprising thing. In dependence upon strongly adhering to the

[33:25]

other dependent character as being the imputational character, the other dependent character is known. In a sense, the basic way you know the other dependent character is by adhering to your projection of self on it. So how do we know other dependent phenomena? How do we know things which arise in dependence on other things for their existence? We know them through the image of them being not other dependent. So the basic way we know the other dependent phenomena is falsely, because we know it in a sense as an antithesis of itself. For a normal human being, to look at other dependent phenomena, you have to

[34:26]

without projecting this false appearance upon it, this appearance which is false in the sense of false vis-a-vis it, without projecting it, it's like people wouldn't know things. They would actually be impacted by the experience, but wouldn't really know it, the way we usually as human beings call knowing things. This is a big deal, this point. I see you. I see you. How do you know then independence, independence in the dependence, independence on the absence of strongly adhering to the imputational character

[35:50]

as being the other dependent character, bodhisattvas know the thoroughly established character. That's another big sentence. Independence upon the absence of strong adherence to the other dependent character as being the imputational character, bodhisattvas, excuse me, the thoroughly established character is known. Let's just look at it. Independence upon the absence on not adhering to the imputation of an essence upon things, independence on not strongly adhering to the imputation of an essence upon things that don't have essence. You know the way things truly are. You start to open to the way they are, and the way they are is that

[36:58]

they're not what they aren't. The way other dependent phenomena are is they are not self-dependent. In other words, the way other dependent things are is there's an absence of self-dependence in the other dependent. When you don't adhere to the self-dependence as being other dependence, it doesn't say then you understand other dependence, it says then you know the thoroughly established. So there's two places of study here, well actually three places. One place of study is to learn about what the imputational character is. The other is to realize that your access to the other dependent character phenomena is obstructed because the way you

[37:59]

know it is falsely. And the third thing is to start loosening your belief, to loosen that strong adherence to the appearance of things as independent is really the way things are. Then you start to open your wisdom eye to the thoroughly established, and the more you see the thoroughly established, then the more you can study it, and the more you study it, the more you start to eliminate the thing about the other dependent that gives you a basis to project false appearances upon it. Can you weakly adhere to it? It doesn't say

[39:03]

that you can weakly adhere, it just says, it doesn't say you have the absence of strong adhering and the presence of weak adhering, it just says you have the absence of strong. What you have when you have the absence of strong it doesn't say, but you could have medium to weak adhering, maybe that's there, because it actually says, but it's possible although the sutra doesn't say so, and this is something to check out for the next few lifetimes. It's possible, the sutra says, by strongly adhering to this image of self as being something that's not that selfless, by strongly adhering to the image of self-existence or self-production as being the other produced, then that's how you usually know the other

[40:06]

produced. So it's possible that when you don't strongly adhere, which maybe means you weakly adhere or lightly adhere to the image of substance as being that which doesn't have substance, it may be that when you loosely or lightly adhere to it, then you don't know it. So lightly adhering or weakly adhering doesn't sound too bad, right? But it may be that as you start to weakly adhere, you also don't know it, which is a big shock. So the weakly adhering is like, oh yeah, okay, weakly adhering, fine, but then I don't get to know things anymore? Wait a minute. So it may be weakly adhering, but strongly scary. Okay, that's enough on that. I wanted to go back to what you said about signs, that the mind uses signs to impute them. Say it again?

[41:16]

You mentioned the signs the mind uses to create, I would say now, in other words, an image or a being or any kind of self. Now the signs, are they imputed too? They're part of the, I don't know, the challenge of life, that other dependent phenomena have signs and sort of the way things have worked out in this universe is that we have at least human existence and probably other living beings too, that the way that they're dependently co-arising is they arise with these actual, I would say, part of our body is to offer some basis, some physical basis upon which we can create images, some of which are really false. Some images are not as false as this one because we don't put the image of cow

[42:28]

on everything, but everything offers us the image, not the image, but the sign upon which we can project a sense of independence upon it. And so the other dependent character, part of what it, see it's upon the other dependent character that the imputational rests. It doesn't get into the other dependent, but it's based on it. And all conceptual activity is based on this actual dependent co-arising. But then other key ingredient of the other dependent is it offers signs and these signs are what we use, the imputational character needs the signs. So the imputational depends on the other dependent and in particular, they're mentioning in particular, not only does the imputational character depend on the other dependent, but in particular it depends on the signs and the other dependent

[43:31]

gives them. If it doesn't give them, then the imputational character can't function and then things can't be known in such a way as to create conventional reality. So the sign is a key ingredient in creating conventional world and the sign is a key ingredient to be removed so that you can realize ultimate truth as your body. Before you actually remove all the signs, you can see suchness, you can see emptiness before removing all the signs, because it says that you use meditation on emptiness or you use meditation on suchness or you use meditation on the thoroughly established in order to remove the signs from compounded phenomena or from the other dependent. Okay? No, the signs do exist like everything else, they exist in other dependent way, but non-other

[44:47]

dependence doesn't exist. Only ideas of non-other dependence exist. Selves don't exist, but ideas of self exist. Signs are not the idea. Signs are not, what do you call it, a self, they're just what you use to create the image of a self. There is no self. Signs are not independent existences, they're actually like physical basis for dreaming it up. And we have a physical proclivity. Now somebody says, is it genetic? Now where is it in the body? But there's a physical basis in the human body and other animals too it seems, and some plants it seems, a physical basis for the imagination of a self. So that's part

[45:53]

of what the signs are. So the signs exist dependently like other things, but the sign isn't the idea of a self, but you use the sign and you interpret the sign as referring to something, so then if the sign refers to something, now you've got an idea of a self, which is meaningful, which is another reason why it's hard to wean yourself from this process when you see a sign, because when you see a sign or when you're impacted by a sign, if you don't interpret it as a self, then what you're impacted by or what you're immediately experiencing isn't meaningful. So loosening your grip on the projection of self upon things means you loosen your grip on knowing things. Another way to put it is by loosening your interpretation of signs as being something, rather than just signs, that frees you from

[47:00]

strongly adhering. Oh, and there's one other point which is very important to make, I forgot, and that is in Chapter 7 it says, when you strongly adhere to the other dependent, when you strongly adhere to the imputational as being the other dependent, but you could also say when you strongly adhere to the other dependent as being the imputational, but in some sense it's more like you adhere to the superimposed thing as being the thing it's superimposed on, because you can't see the other dependent anymore, so you can't adhere to it, so it's really, I think, more accurate that you strongly adhere to the imposition upon the thing as being the thing. When you do that, there is the arising of all the varieties of affliction. This is the source of the arising of afflictions in our life, is this adherence. That's why it's so important. So by loosening this adherence, you start to see the thoroughly

[48:12]

established, and by seeing the thoroughly established, you actually will eventually remove the basis for the projection, and then this is the end of this, of affliction. So I see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Yes? Speak a little louder, please. So first of all, you said the knowing and not knowing, so knowing and not knowing would be like just not knowing. Being aware of not knowing? Yes, okay. The existence of the non-existence of the appearance of the imputation. Okay. Well, weakly adhering is the beginning of being able to see the absence

[49:20]

of the imputational. We don't know that, though. It just says, in the absence of strong adherence, in that situation where you are not strongly adhering, you can know the absence of the imputational. But it doesn't say, although it's implied, perhaps, it doesn't say that when you don't, in the absence of strongly adhering to the projection of self upon things, you see the thoroughly established. It doesn't say that if you weakly attend to it, you will see the absence. But, anyway, if you start to be suspicious and start to not strongly adhere to the projection of self upon things as being those things, this opens the door to start to see the absence of the projection in the things. But it doesn't say, it's not

[50:25]

emphasizing, but I'm warning you and I'm warning me, that as you start to not strongly adhere, that one of the consequences of that might be that you also start to not know things in the usual way. So the appearances of things may get disturbed as you stop strongly adhering to this imputation. But it isn't so much that the absence of the appearance that you're interested in, because that's not much fun at all, actually, necessarily. Some people really hate it when appearances start to weaken and disappear. It's the absence of, not the appearance, but the absence of the self in the things that we need to see. That's the thoroughly established. Because the appearance of things isn't exactly the imputational, which it also says in this chapter. The appearance of things is something that arises from the

[51:28]

combination of the imputation of a self upon what doesn't have a self. The combination of the imputation of essence upon other dependence creates an appearance which you can know and designate. The appearance isn't so bad, right? If appearances aren't so bad, it's the believing that the essence which we put on the thing by which we got the appearance is the thing. That's what causes the affliction. But the price of admission to the world of appearances is a projection of a false existence upon things. So to see the absence of the false existence in the things is a thoroughly established. And in order to create an appearance, a nice sturdy appearance, we have to strongly adhere to the projection of essence upon things.

[52:28]

Otherwise we don't get a nice firm appearance. We get kind of a wimpy one, which we don't like so much. But that might be a consequence of loosening the strong adherence, is that your appearance is very shaky, which is why sometimes people back away from that for a little bit. Does that make any sense? By knowing the appearance, you can see the absence? He's saying by knowing the appearance... Say again? Well first of all, let me just say that normally you see appearances, so seeing appearances doesn't seem to be sufficient for people to understand the thoroughly established.

[53:29]

That doesn't seem to work, because people see appearances all day long. What seems to be necessary is to start doubting the strong adherence to the world of appearances. The adherence to the imputational as being the other dependent. That's what opens the door to vision of suchness. But still, you're seeing things as appearances, but you have to identify, I think to some extent you have to see how you're projecting a self on things in order to get this nice appearance. So usually when we're dealing with phenomena which are other dependent, which is the only kind we have, we do deal with them as appearances, that's how we know them. But in order to know them as appearances, we need to project a falseness on them in order to construct the appearance. The appearance is false, but it's constructed, and the key ingredient in constructing it is to put a

[54:36]

self on what doesn't have a self. So by putting a self on what doesn't have a self, you get an appearance. So the appearance is false, but the appearance is what's constructed. And then the other constructed thing is totally imagined. The appearance, however, is not totally imaginary. There is an appearance, but what is appearing is imaginary. So the appearance isn't imaginary, but what is appearing is imaginary. That's constructed, it's not actually there. If I go by order, I think the next person was Jane, and then I think it's Valerie, and then I think it was Elena, and then I don't know, I don't know about Mike, and is it Elio? Lorenzo? Where's Elio? Isn't there Elio? Lelio. Or Lelio. So Lelio, I know. Are you Italian?

[55:50]

So these are three Italians. Lelio, Lorenzo, and Simona. Those are the Italians. And are you Italian? Okay, what are you? Russian, okay, the Russians? Remove the signs. At this point, I'm suggesting that there is an actual transformation of the physical basis of life by this meditation. That you actually, through this meditation, you transform the other dependent character of your life, so that you actually have situations where your body-mind do not give you any signs anymore. So at the first part of the first big step, which is often used by the example of a magician

[56:55]

creating a magical illusion, the first step, of course, is that the magician, which is your mind, creates this illusion, and uneducated people believe the illusion is real, believe the illusion is actually there, rather than it's something created, constructed upon other things which are other dependent. So the first step is you stop believing the illusion, which the magician who understands the process can see it's an illusion, but the magician still sees the illusion. The next step would be, which is the Buddha, then, would be not to even see the illusion, so that actually the signs which are supporting the projection of self, there's no projection of self is a dependent co-arising, what's projected is the image of something that isn't a dependent co-arising, but that projection, the process

[58:01]

by which we imagine it, is a dependent co-arising. So part of the way we make up a self is physically based. The universe created beings who have the physical wherewithal to imagine something existing independent of the universe. It took a lot of work to make beings alive and then beings who could imagine that they were independent of the rest of the universe, but we've done it. We, the universe, have accomplished these beings who can imagine that, but it's based on the body. In order to not be able to do that, you have to change your body, and removing the signs is actually removing the physical basis, because we need a physical basis to imagine these false existences, and that physical basis is transformed. The other dependent nature, which usually has the signs of compounded phenomena, doesn't have the signs of compounded

[59:05]

phenomena anymore. They are cleansed from the other dependent. So at that point, the body is not thoroughly established. So the body actually becomes emptiness. But miraculously, this empty body is totally based on compassion. So it still relates, but it's actually, it's so in this body then there's no appearances, there's no obstructions, there's just perfect, unobstructed understanding. But part of the miracle of compassion is that the Buddha still can enter the world simultaneously, can still enter the world of imagining substances, so

[60:09]

that the Buddha can talk to people. The Buddha can still see the conventional world, even though the Buddha has totally manifested ultimate reality, where there's no appearances. In the meantime, the big step is to see suchness, which you may not want to see after you hear this. So the Buddha can still see the conventional world, even though the Buddha has totally manifested ultimate reality. I think Valerie was next, maybe. Yes, it's actually one of the names, so one of the names for thoroughly established is ultimate truth or highest truth, but another translation is ultimate meaning. The ultimate meaning comes when you give up these non-ultimate meanings. Regular meaning has to be like given up in order to see the ultimate meaning of events. Sometimes thoroughly established is

[61:14]

sometimes called the ultimate meaning of events. The conventional meaning of events comes by interpreting signs as referring to something. So events do occur, but they don't come with meaning. Signs do arise every moment as part of the dependent co-arising, but they don't mean anything. But the signs as they directly, as they immediately are for us, they aren't meaningful. They don't have content, they're just signs. They're just material that you can use as a point of departure to make an interpretation that this material refers to something. It's related, but the sign isn't actually the thing, but we say it is and then that's meaningful. That meaning has to be like, again, not strongly adhered to in order to, you have to give that up in order to go into this deeper realization. But that's part

[62:16]

of what's scary is that it might seem like, well then ultimately there will be no meaning. And part of our, one type, one form of our anxiety in this life is the anxiety of meaninglessness. So that anxiety and meaninglessness, or that fear of meaninglessness is part of what keeps us addicted to the process of creating meaning out of events that don't come with meaning. So we have to like, that's part of the reason why we need to be calm in order to go through the process of giving up meaning and then stay calm when the fear and anxiety about meaninglessness arise and we say, I've heard about this, I've been warned about this, but I'm supposed to stay relaxed as this fear of meaninglessness arises. And then even let the warning sign of meaninglessness, you know, let that calm down and just continue along this path even though I'm losing ordinary meaning. To open on to this other meaning, which when I see

[63:18]

that meaning, that will remove the basis for all this false imagination. So it's really kind of a tough course. The Sutra doesn't tell you how tough it is. Because it's trying to get you this basic message across and then later somebody can tell you, this is actually hard discourse. So I think you're next, and then Lorenzo, and then Mike, and then Grace, and then Elena's next, that's right. Yes. Yes. Yes. Could I say something at that point? In the Sutra it says that when you get to the place

[64:19]

where your body and mind have been thoroughly cleansed of all signs, when the Bodhisattva reaches that stage, the Bodhisattva is born into the lineage of the Tathagata. The Bodhisattva is now a Buddha at that point. So although you lose all this regular stuff, you get to be a Buddha. Yes? Yes. Yes, the Buddha then will have perfectly omniscient imagination. However, the Buddha also can live, if the Buddha then uses imagination to imagine now a universe where things are providing signs, and in that world where things are providing signs, you can then create meaning

[65:20]

and have conventional designations. You can do that in order to help people, and Buddha can do that for that purpose. Simultaneously, they're in a world where there's no appearances, where the imagination is not coming up with any appearances. So in that realm, the Buddha is using the imagination to imagine a universe where there's no imputation or character being imputed on the other dependent. Yes, but it can involve a great deal. It's very excellent and wonderful imagination to be able to like imagine the thoroughly established, and then actually to like imagine it so much that you feel like you're seeing the thoroughly established, like you're seeing the absence of the imputational. That's pretty highly developed imagination. But it's not completely perfected yet, because you're still subjected to the signs of compounded phenomena.

[66:23]

And then next I think was, I think April was next, I'm not sure. And then people back away from that and flip, and you can see it all the way, you know, it's just very good. Completely, you know, self-enlightenment, and I've seen no appearances without seeing a self. Can you see appearances without seeing a self?

[67:35]

I don't... Can you see the signs without... Appearances? Can you see signs without seeing a self? I think you can see signs without seeing a self. The signs? Are you talking about signs? Are you talking about signs? The signs do start to be removed or abandoned. Do they come back? Actually, no. A particular sign, once you bring the thoroughly established to a certain sign, you actually can eliminate that sign. There's a variety of signs, and you can actually eliminate many

[68:37]

signs by bringing the thoroughly established to the sign. You can eliminate them. But another question you asked was, can you see appearances without projecting? And I think the answer is no. If you don't project essence upon other dependent phenomena, I would suggest to you that they do not appear. That's what it says in the Heart Sutra. In emptiness, in other words, in the context of the absence of the imputational, if you don't project, superimpose the imputational upon things, there will be no appearances, which we call no eyes, no ears, no nose. There really are eyes, ears, nose, it just is no appearances of them. I mean, you're still alive and well, but there's no appearances. Then the question is, well, how can you function in that case? What you're doing, the way you're functioning is you're sitting in meditation, thinking of not thinking. That's how you're functioning. You say, what if the bell rings? In emptiness there's no bells, there's no sounds.

[69:42]

So, in that case, how are you going to respond to the bell? And, well, we'll see. That's one of the nice things about practicing together, is when the bell rings and people don't get up from their seat, we sometimes go to them and we say, are you okay? And then they go, oh, I actually didn't hear that sound. But even though you don't hear the sound, it still has an impact on you. And even though the appearance of it may not be there because you're looking at the absence of the imputational, when the sound's arising, the sign of the sound may still be there. And if the sign of the sound is there, you still get up. Or, if the bell's at a certain time of day, you salivate. The one before lunch, you know that one?

[70:45]

Your body gives rise to this response to the sound and then your tongue salivates, or your mouth salivates. But the meditator doesn't see that as an appearance, because the meditator is concentrating on the absence of the imputational in the other dependent phenomena called the sound. So that's how the person would function. But the person may feel like, okay, this is fine, but I can't talk to people unless I switch back to appearances, so they may switch back to appearances. So bodhisattvas who are in this practice flip back and forth between actually going along strongly at hearing, so that they can actually make conventional designations, and then in meditation, exploring a realm where if you get into it, you won't be able to talk anymore. I mean, words will not reach what you're experiencing. And you can tolerate words not being able to reach what... Words can't reach the other dependent character unless you use the imputational,

[71:50]

because it's the imputational as words. So first of all, you have to put the imputational on there, and sometimes it makes a little landing pad, and then you can put the words on there. But without the imputational, you don't know where to put the words. So words don't really reach phenomena unless you put a place to put them, which is the imputational. So in order to talk, you have to switch back to playing with the imputational again. Or if you're completely free of even providing the physical basis for the landing pad, you can imagine a physical basis, because your imagination is a sufficiently good place to put a word. But there is a transition, but the main part, the main difficulty of the transition is to... It's not, what do you do when you don't have meaning, but how can you stand not having meaning? You can actually function pretty well without meaning, especially with some assistance. That's why it's good for these advanced yogis, who usually have attendants and chauffeurs.

[72:54]

And we're willing to take care of them because they've realized this excellent meditation, but they're not so good at driving and stuff like that anymore. We say, well, it's okay, they're really good at this meditation, and they can tell us about what the world of reality is like, so we'll take care of them, even though they're not too good at driving, so it's okay. And actually, they can drive, they just don't want to. I don't know who's next. I think, maybe how about Lorenzo? So just to follow up on the example of driving. Yes. You see a stop sign. Yes. And you see something, you see a phenomenon, and you assign, before the process begins, you assign a meaning to it, which is the stop sign. And then you become meaningfully enlightened, and you realize that all those meanings depend on it.

[73:59]

And the links are all loose links, because they're the links that I am using. And so I drop them. And everything else, again, is loose because of the way I'm using everything else. You understand that? Let's say it does, let's say it self-disappears, okay. So there's no way you can express what you see. No, no way, yeah, that's right, so you would not be able to express, you would not be able to talk about what you see, that's right. Is that the concept of emptiness? The concept of emptiness would be that you look at the thing, and you wouldn't see the idea.

[75:04]

You could see the idea, but you wouldn't see, you couldn't find anything in the phenomena that corresponds to the idea of the essence, you can't find it. However, when you can't find it, then you also don't see the appearance. So the price of admission, you have to be willing to lose the appearance in order to see the absence of the self. You still see something, but according to your usual way of seeing, you don't see anything. That's why they say no eyes, or no color, they say no color, no sound. You don't see the color of the stop sign in the usual way of it being an appearance. You're seeing it, you're actually looking at the yellow or the red, that's what you're looking at. And you can start by looking at something, like looking at a stop sign, and you're looking at the stop sign, and then you see, that when you see the absence of the self in the stop sign, you don't see the stop sign anymore,

[76:08]

and also you can't say really stop sign anymore. It's ridiculous to say stop sign, because you don't see any place to put the word stop sign. There's nothing to express what you see, right? No, you could express what you see, you might say, Gatte, gatte, par, gatte, parasam, gatte, bodhis, paha! You could say that. Yeah, or you say, wow, or jeez, whoa, yikes! You can express a lot of stuff, but you can't name what you're looking at. So you're looking at a stop sign, or you're looking at your lunch, or you're looking at the floor, you can't name it now, because it's ridiculous to name something that doesn't have an appearance. You don't go around naming non-appearances, except you don't really name non-appearances, but you can express your feeling for a non-appearance, like, wow, amazing, a non-appearance. This person I'm looking at is a non-appearance. People are not appearances, and you get to see that,

[77:10]

but then you don't say, well, this is a non-appearance. You can say a lot. You can say, in emptiness, there's no form, you can say that too, but you're not talking about that thing, you're not designating that thing, because you can't make conventional designations unless you put the imputational on things. That's one of the great things about the scriptures, they're telling you that without projecting a falseness on things, without projecting a falseness on the true way things are, you can't talk about them. And we like to talk about things, don't we? Yes, what we do is just say yes. Yes? Right. Well, your mind gives it a name after you project a self on those things.

[78:22]

It may be part of your trip to emptiness, what you're experiencing, that you shift from certain kinds of phenomena to other kinds of phenomena, but these other phenomena, you project, you put the imputational on them, and then you can give them new names called Eddies or... That's what the sutra says. Unless you project a false existence on this meditation experience, you can't talk to me about it. If you're not thinking, then that's fine. If you're not thinking, I don't mind. Yes. Okay. You feel like you need to. That's your habit, that's our habit. We feel like we need to. Because we feel, well, I'd be disorganized if I couldn't name things. So I'll just name... Right.

[79:32]

Well, not with yourself, with the imagination of yourself. You don't have a self. No, no, no. You're relating to things through the idea of an independent skin, independent body. That idea you project on things in order to stay somewhat organized. So if you let go of that projection, you might be afraid that you'd become disorganized. You might, I don't know. That's why it's good to practice in a group, so you won't be so scared of a little disorganization. Where you're having experiences, old experiences and new experiences in meditation. But as you have these experiences, it isn't just the new experiences. The big new experience is that you would dare to not project an essence on things by which you could name them if anybody asked you, well, what experiences are you having?

[80:36]

And you would say, oops, I can't tell you. I feel so disorganized and unprepared. But, you know, I say, it's okay, it's okay, fine, that's fine. You don't have to tell me. If you don't know how to describe this, fine. Right. And that's fine. That's fine. That there's nothing to talk about. That you temporarily don't have anything to talk about because you're not packaging things so you can talk about them. But I could say to you, although there's nothing to talk about, I am going to say something to you. And that is that you may be starting to open up to see the thoroughly established character. And then I could start talking to you about that. But then when I start talking to you about it, we're going to start imputing false existence to the image of the thoroughly established character so we can talk about it. And after we clarify that, then I say, now forget that and go back to where you can't talk again. It's like walking down a staircase. It's also like walking up a staircase.

[81:39]

It's like a lot of things. Let's see. Mike? Mike Keller? It's kind of hard to express it, yeah. You're right. You didn't mean to be funny? If you think of every phenomenon, Dependent on something else.

[82:49]

It's like a huge power needs to be felt. There's another thing, too. In that relationship with God. In my relationship with God, I have other gods, other dependents. That I'm completely supportive of. That is, if I put my hand over there, that's not my own murder. Or the hand's murder. Now, there's a lot about that. Yeah, I've been saying this since I've come here. You know, you kind of wish that you knew why. Now, one of the reasons I'm saying this is that that was a year and a half ago, but that doesn't come back to me.

[84:00]

Now, I don't talk about it either. It doesn't come back to me. Can you say it doesn't come back to you? It does not come back to you. Is it coming back to you now? Good. Right. Right. Right. You got chipped away a little bit. You got a little release. No. You'd like it to, but it doesn't.

[85:02]

The meditation on impermanent things is also impermanent. That's why we have to, like it says here, it's impermanent. Through diligence and through proper mental application, Bodhisattvas establish realization and cultivate realization of the thoroughly established. Through diligence. Not just one moment of diligence, but diligence so that you develop continuity in this feeling of being lifted up and carried through life by all the causes and conditions. But you keep attending to this teaching, keep listening to this teaching, remember the teaching, listen to the teaching, remember to listen to the teaching, you keep meditating on the other dependent character, ongoingly, and then you gradually start to open up to the thoroughly established,

[86:08]

and then you continue to meditate on the thoroughly established, because meditating on the thoroughly established, more and more you cut the root of the projection of false appearances on things. You remove the signs which the projection of false appearances depends on. So you actually become a different creature. And when you're a different creature, then you don't have to meditate anymore. However, maybe you do, just because it's fun. But you don't have to because you've just transformed yourself, so you no longer produce, habitually or compulsively, you no longer produce the conditions for creating the false appearances. But until then, even when you get a break from the false appearances, and see the thoroughly established character, when you see the thoroughly established character, you have a break, you see the absence of the false appearances. But the conditions for creating false appearances and projecting them

[87:11]

haven't been removed. But finally you got a break. Now you meditate on this break, and then you go back to the false appearances, and meditate on the break and go back to the false appearances. This is what it's like to meditate on suchness, and go back to working with the other two characters, meditating on suchness, until finally you actually transform your actual being. This is the whole course that this sutra is talking about. So, yeah, so thanks for coming back and practicing some more here. That's the fundamental practice, which... That's the first practice, actually, is meditating on the other dependent. So, in terms of wisdom practice, the beginning of wisdom practice is to meditate on the other dependent in this sutra.

[88:14]

And in order to meditate on the other dependent, it's good if you're already practicing compassion in the form of patience, diligence, tranquility, and so on. Because then you feel kind of, okay, I'll practice, I'll study this other dependent. It sounds like fun, you know. And then as you practice that, you get even more ready to move on to meditate on the thoroughly established and the imputational, or vice versa. But always continue meditating on the other dependent, because the thoroughly established and the imputational pertain to the other dependent. One is the projection, is projected upon it, and the other is the absence of the projection. But it's relative to other dependent phenomena that you look at these other two characters. So you always have to stay tuned on the dependent co-arising. That's your fundamental wisdom meditation, is to meditate on dependent co-arising, which means meditate on impermanent,

[89:17]

on the impermanence of impermanent phenomena, to meditate on the other dependence of other dependent phenomena. That's your basic meditation in wisdom class. But in order to even be able to do this meditation, you need quite a bit of grounding in other compassion practices in order to be able to tolerate this hard work. It's hard. It's difficult to change from being involved in the appearance of things and talking about them to shift to the basis of the appearance, and the teachings about the basis of the appearance. It's a big transition. But once you make that transition, you stay on that being, and then based on that, you start to look at the imputational and realize the thoroughly established, which this chapter actually tells you about, and tomorrow I'll go into more detail about that, about how that process goes. Grace, did you have something still?

[90:20]

Yeah, I don't know why this is coming up, but I was trying to figure out for myself where in here rests the precept. And sort of what kept bubbling up was that it feels to me like there's a quality in my own mind that does not want to do this, that wants to resist. This whole process. And because it likes to be in motion, or whatever, it likes to have its own autonomous existence. So what was bubbling up for me was the place of precepts is exactly because it grounds the mind in outside reality enough so that it isn't continually creating

[91:25]

so much distraction that when it can settle a little and begin the wisdom practice and meditation, there's a better chance of settling. Essentially, they're the outside building blocks to make it possible to calm down enough to tolerate the changes. Is that enough for today? We could go a little longer and have lunch. May our intention be the way it can be to help you be in place with the true merit of love's way.

[92:33]

These are the words I vow to say to them. Indulgations are inexhaustible. I vow to render them. Dharma is a compass. I vow to render them. Buddha's way is the most compassible. I vow to become.

[93:10]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ