Good night. I thought we'd spend another week on Case 67. As you can see, some new people have come to the class tonight, and they are people who are here at Green Gulch at what's called Elder Hostel, and usually they haven't come into the con classes, but this one I thought, because the case is a sutra, it might It might work for you to come tonight and look at this text.

[01:06]

And does anybody need a text? There's a few copies here. Does everybody have it? Do people get the text? So most people have one. Need a few more? There's one there. And the people who have borrowed texts of the Book of Serenity, would you return them after your class tonight? And you can have them again at the beginning of the next class, if you take the next class. How many people have Green Gulch copies? So I'm going to return them after class. So let's just read the main case again. The flower ornament scripture says, Now I see all sentient beings everywhere fully possess the wisdom and virtues of the enlightened ones, but because of false conceptions and attachments, they do not realize it.

[02:24]

So that's the case. And this is the vision of the Buddha. But the Buddha sees that every single living being, every single human, but also all other sentient beings fully possess the wisdom and the virtues of the Buddha. So the Buddha sees that. But the Buddha also sees that beings can also simultaneously see that beings have attachments and attachments and false conceptions, so they don't realize it.

[03:46]

The Buddha can even see the way that beings see, such that they don't realize it. And this vision of the Buddha is the most well-known part of the very large scripture called Flower Adornment Scripture. This particular statement and also the paragraph or so in which it appears are the most well-known and some people consider to be the most important part of teaching of this vast scripture.

[04:55]

So there is an expression, there is a verbal expression of the Buddha's vision, which we can hear and think about and meditate on as a door is a door to Buddha's vision. So, in one sense you might say, we might try to be able to see this, see if you can see that everybody fully possesses the wisdom and the virtue of the Buddhas, and see if you can see that people have attachments Therefore, of course, if we have attachments, we can't see that we have the wisdom and the virtues of the Buddhas because the Buddhas don't have any attachments.

[06:18]

And if we see that we have false conceptions, then we see that we don't realize Buddha's wisdom because Buddha's wisdom doesn't have false conceptions. And also in this part of the scripture, as it says in the commentary, the scripture says that there is a scripture which is as extensive as the universe.

[07:25]

That it teaches the full extent of everything in the universe. And that that scripture is inside of a particle of dust. And it is inside of every dust particle. And that bodhisattvas, enlightening beings who have perfect wisdom, see this exhaustive teaching in a particle of dust, but they also understand that this teaching which is in a particle of dust is not useful to people unless they break the particle of dust open and bring out this

[08:32]

this universally exhaustive teaching and show it to people. So they do that. They pull the scripture that is coextensive with the universe out of each particle of dust to show it to beings. The Buddha also sees this scripture in every particle of dust and wants to teach beings about it. But it doesn't say in the scripture that the Buddha breaks the particle of dust to pull it out.

[09:38]

At least I didn't see that part of the sutra. One of the masters of the flower adornment scripture said that sentient beings contain natural virtue as their substance and have the ocean of knowledge as their source. This is similar to saying sentient beings have natural virtue as their source and ocean of wisdom as their as their no excuse me they have natural virtue as their substance and ocean of wisdom as their source so so this is the same as what the Buddha saw that

[10:54]

seeing a sentient being, the Buddha sees that wisdom is our source. We actually come from wisdom. And therefore our virtue is natural. Our virtue is what we are. And then it says, but... When forms change, bodies differ. When feelings arise, knowledge is blocked. Now, to bring about knowledge of mind and unity with substance, to bring about knowledge of our source wisdom and unity with our natural virtue, arrival at the source and forgetting feelings,

[11:56]

I discuss this scripture with illustrations and indications. So this commentator, which we don't have his discussions and his, we don't have his explanations and his, oh, excuse me, we don't have his illustrations and indications, but apparently he made these illustrations and indications in order to help people reunite with what they lose. We have a little bit of explanation. He says, this includes the explanation of the source of beings, illusion about reality. It is like a man with the appearance befitting one full of virtue and wisdom who sees himself as poor, sick and suffering in a dream. This is change in form. He doesn't see his original body. This is differing in body.

[13:00]

He takes it to be his own body. This is feelings arise. He doesn't believe his own body is handsome and blessed with good qualities. This is blocked knowledge, for knowledge is blocked. This includes the explanation of the source of beings' illusions about reality. It is like a man with appearance befitting one full of virtue and wisdom who sees himself as poor. This is change of form. So, um, In other words, we see ourselves in some way.

[14:04]

We don't necessarily see ourselves as poor, sick, and suffering. We don't necessarily see ourselves that way, do we? Sometimes we do, but we don't always see ourselves that way, right? But sometimes we do. And this is called change in form. Sometimes we don't see our original body, right? We don't necessarily know we don't see our original body. So what's our original body? According to the scripture. It's virtue. It's virtue. It's natural virtue, we don't necessarily see it that way. This is differing in body. And then we also sometimes take it to be our own body.

[15:14]

Yeah, what do you think it is? Take it to be our own body. It's ours. We think it's ours. We possess it. But what it's? Just our regular body? Reality. Reality. The illusion about reality. We take it to be our body? The body who sees in the dream. The body who sees in the dream takes it to see. So this is feelings arise. He doesn't believe his own body is handsome and blessed with good qualities. This is knowledge's block. So, you know, without digging too deeply, does that make some sense? These processes are the processes of attachment and false conception by which we don't understand that the virtue and wisdom of Buddhas is our source and our substance. The wisdom and virtues of Buddha is our source and our substance.

[16:28]

We don't see it because of reacting to forms in this way. But the Buddha, you know, it isn't that the Buddha doesn't see some forms appearing. It's just that Buddha sees that these forms, these living beings, are fully possessing the virtue and wisdom of the Buddhas. Maybe so.

[17:30]

I think that might be right. But I didn't see it before. So then later, a Zen monk asked a Zen teacher about When feelings arise, knowledge is blocked. When forms change, body differs. So this Zen monk had been reading commentary on the sutra. And so he goes to a Zen teacher and quotes the commentary. And then he quotes the sutra and he says, how is it before feelings arise And the Zen teacher says, blocked. And the commentator says, nobody knows where this comes from.

[18:38]

Most think forms are concepts and understanding it and understand it in these terms. What's that about? You ready for that? I didn't have names for things. I think it's a little different. It's like language comes in. You didn't have names for things? I didn't have a name for tree, and I would look at that. I would look at it differently, because tree is a concept. But the form itself... Would there be any things if you didn't have concepts? Yeah. What would there be? Well, reality. What is. Whatever is. But would you be able to see it? Without language?

[19:41]

Without concepts? Would you be able to see anything? Isn't that kind of where we're trying to go? To get underneath the concepts? To get underneath the concepts? That is super-reality, isn't it? Pardon? Not seeing the concept as reality. Not thinking about the concept as reality. Let's see. Or is this closest? Well, the one teaching is that whenever there's a thing, whenever there's something, any experience you have, whenever there's a phenomenal event, it has three qualities. but three characteristics. One is a conceptual characteristic. Another is the fact that it depends on other things. And the third is it has a thorough nature or a...

[20:47]

No, I'm not talking about impermanence yet. But phenomena are impermanent. So any phenomena, any impermanent phenomena, and also actually, there are some permanent phenomena too, by the way. Emptiness is permanent. It's also a phenomena. But it's permanent. But even emptiness has these three qualities, which I didn't tell you the third one. Third one is thoroughness, or a thoroughly established suchness, right? But it's not that this level of suchness of an experience is that there's no conceptuality or conceptualization. It's that the conceptualization is not confused with the other dependence of the phenomena.

[21:51]

The conceptualization is not confused with the fact that all phenomena depend on other things. And that's the thorough quality of a phenomena. Could you just repeat that? the suchness or the thoroughness of any event, the thoroughly established quality of any event, the suchness of it, is not that there isn't any conceptualization, but rather the conceptualization isn't laminated to the other dependent nature of the phenomenon. That's suchness. And all phenomena have this thorough quality. In other words, all phenomena are actually, when you're not confused, when there's no confusion, you see that the conceptualization of something is separate from all those things which make something possible.

[22:54]

So, in another venue I've been talking to people about this, So I've been using the example of a cup. Get down there, get down there, get down there. And for example, I have a concept of a cup. Do you? Okay. I have a concept of a cup, but I don't have a cup. Can you see? We've got the concept of cup though, don't we? Now, watch. Something's going to happen now. What happened? A cup happened. What's the difference between this happening and the concept of the cup? Something else was supplied such that we now have a phenomena called a cup, right? What else was supplied? Thoroughness. Well, thoroughness, yes.

[23:59]

Form, and the form depends on other things. The other dependent or interdependent quality of this phenomena arrived. But the concept was there too. But the concept isn't enough. But also the other dependent isn't enough. What it takes to make a cup isn't enough for a cup to happen. You've got to also have a concept of it. And the fact that these aren't confused, the fact that what it was that came up, the quality that was supplied in this phenomenal event, those things, all the relationships that make this possible, minus the concept of it, that's not the same as the concept. In other words, all the things that the cup is besides the concept are not the concept of the cup.

[25:02]

Without the concept, there would be no cup. Without the concept, there would be no name cup. There would be no experience cup either. There would be no phenomena. Try to have an experience without a concept. The teaching is that there's no experience, there's no phenomena, there's no thing that doesn't have a conceptual component. Now, the other thing is, though, remember... The main important thing is, aside from that philosophical statement, is that the cup also has a non-confused, thorough nature, and everything has that. That the cup has actually a thoroughly established nature that is never disturbed and always has it. But there also can be confusion, and often is confusion, that the cup is what we think it is. But what we think the cup is, because the concept we have of the cup is not the cup.

[26:07]

Because if it was, you could think of something and it would be there. But we actually think, even though that doesn't make sense, that you could think, even though we know you can't think of something and make it appear, in fact, when things appear, we think they are what we think they are. But they're not. Right? They're not. And the fact that they're not is their suchness, and the fact that we think they are is our confusion. So it's not the case that always, every time anything happens, there's confusion, and therefore there's this sticking to the conception of what we think it is, together with all the relationships of what it is. But again, it's not the confusion of the conception with what it is, because it isn't just all its relations. That's not what an event is either. An event is not just all its relationships. It's also the concept of it.

[27:10]

Because every possible thing that could ever happen, the possibility of anything happening, all the possibilities of anything happening are there right now, right? And all the possibilities are related to the relationships and conditions that make something possible. It's already there for everything, right now. But that isn't enough for things to happen, even though they're already there. You have to also have conceptualization. And conceptualization isn't enough. And when something happens, it has these two qualities, but it also has the quality that these aren't confused. And sometimes, quite often it has a third quality, which isn't really about the object, it's about the confused mind that laminates these two together and misconstrues all that it takes for something to happen except for conceptualization with the conceptualization.

[28:12]

It confuses, it mistakes mysterious interrelationships, interdependencies that make everything, that make every event happen with our idea of it. And that's a normal human confusion and that's a normal reason why we can't see that our nature is suchness is exactly the virtues of the Buddha. So then the cup is the cup, not the concept of the cup. What did you say? The cup is the cup. Cup is the cup? No, the cup is not the cup. That's definitely not the case. That's another implication of this, is that the cup is not the cup. There is nothing here that's the cup.

[29:19]

It's everything. It's everything but. It's all the relationships that make it possible and conceptual invitation. Conceptual invitation. Invitation, imputation. There's not a cup here. This is a dependent core rising. There's nothing but dependencies here. And there is the fact that this cup depends on other things. There's the fact that this cup satisfies the requirements of the cup, which is related to the concept. And it's also because this is also this glasses case. It's also something that depends on other things. but it satisfies other valid designations for itself than the cup does. So, they aren't the same.

[30:21]

The concept is another phenomenon which develops the same way. Right. Yes, it is developed out of our experience of forming a concept, right? It depends on our experience. It depends on the history of the human species. It depends on many things. There's various requirements. You can specify whatever you think the relationships that are necessary. You can specify what you think something depends on in order to be able to happen. And if it's a concept, you can say, you know, Once you have the concept, then you can say, well, these things must be satisfied in order for it to be this concept. But that's different from the actual mental imputation of the concept on the event. But anyway, the event is... Actually, all events come unconfused.

[31:34]

All events are like that and all sentient beings are like that. But if we're confused, we can't see. And there was a whole bunch of hands, let's see, I think. I'm sure I was first. Well, if you're sure you were first, then we got that down. So here's all the people I saw. There was Kevin and there was... Vernon, and there was Wren, and there was Arlene, and there was Herb, and there was... You can be first. Well, the thing I was thinking about was two things. Are you saying that the conceptualization is like the one that's part of the three? Is this like a general activity that's going on that's necessary for all things, or is it something that's particular to each object? You know what I mean? Is my mental process of conceptualization, is that meaning conceptualization, or it's actually like... Stop a second.

[32:40]

What was the first part of your question? Say the first part of your question. The thing I'm thinking about? No, no, what you said first. Just say the first part. Is it a general thing? It's a general thing. A general activity. Is what a general activity? Conceptualization. these concepts? Well, there's a general activity of the mind called conceptualization, but there has to be a particular mental imputation for each event. So for you to have an experience, for there to be an experience in your life, your mind has to impute a concept on it, otherwise you don't have a thing. Is that experience in the case of the cup? we call that like in general for all cups we call that like it's cup nest or like it's experience of cup you know something that allows me to like no matter what cup it is like oh I'm having the cup experience again is that is that the type is that the type of experience we're talking about that kind of concept conceptualization

[34:03]

an experience of cupness, or is it something else? It's not an experience of cupness. It is simply the idea of a cup. You don't have to get into cupness. You can just say, you just have an idea, and you can impute that idea to something. And what you impute it to, if you impute it to... If you impute it to... open space, then you have a different kind of experience. Then all you've got is the concept. And if that's not an experience for you, you don't really have a phenomenon in it. But when certain other things are satisfied, which are, maybe you could say, sort of the minimal valid elements that make a cup, when those are satisfied, then you can have a variety of cups. But each cup you have, you have to do some kind of mental imputation.

[35:08]

And you can have different kinds of mental imputations for different kinds of cups. But you don't have to get into cup-ness yet. You can just say cup, just idea, thought, mental construct, cup. But what I'm saying is that there are no events, there are no things, there are no events without this imputation. All events have this imputation of this conceptual element. And the word imputation is kind of activity. It's a mental activity. There are no things prior to human consciousness. Okay? And that's what we might as well just jump to the verse now. Because that's what the verse is about. Okay? Okay? Maybe we shouldn't jump to the verse. Let's see what these questions are before we jump to the verse. Maybe they're different from what we're going to get into here. So, Kevin.

[36:09]

So, you have a cup. You have a cup. Part from the structure. Yes. So cup, concept cup, all the conditions that allow this cup to arise, are these conditions and this... They're not all the conditions that allow the cup to arise. They're not all the conditions. Nothing is all. What do you mean though by all the conditions are all the things it depends on for its own basic definition. that's not all the conditions that are necessary conventional this is what you're delineating conventional designations satisfying the valid conventional designations of a cup it has to have those for the event of cup to happen but that's not all it takes for an event to happen there also has to be mental imputation but the mental imputation is not just another thing that the cup depends on it is a crucial one and a subtle one but also

[37:22]

this is the good news for the cup to happen it also has to be true it has to be a truth and everything that happens is a truth in the sense that actually everything is unconfused and there really isn't confusion between our idea about things and what they are and that lack of confusion is what makes possible also for something to happen Otherwise, things don't really happen. Without conception, they don't happen, but when you confuse them, they don't happen either. However, when we confuse them, it still doesn't take away their purity or their suchness. It doesn't take it away. It just blocks it. Because we're confusing what we think it is, our concept of it, with not what it is, but all the things that are satisfied for this event to happen.

[38:25]

And we also, we block the separation of those two, which is the thing that makes the event thoroughly established. And that thorough established quality is what we need to learn how to see. And everything offers an opportunity to see it. All things do. So the concept and all the things that allow it to occur All the relationships that it depends on, all the conditions it depends on, minus conception. Everything that it is. Yeah. These are more opportunities for conceptualization. Each one of those could be conceptualized either, also, but they're not being conceptualized right now, because like I say... Well, they might. Maybe. They are. Here. Oh, you're doing that now. I'm doing that now. Okay, so you're doing that, all right. So, so what, where is, uh, how can, how can it be said that suchness is the, the, uh, clear conception, in a way, of the delineation of conception, and it's

[39:48]

I missed something there. The conception of all things, it's not. How can you say that thorough nature, the third part, is... is thorough without examining the conceptual quality of both conception, the things that this cup is not, and your own imputation or the concept of thoroughness. Examining these three stages, using this model of examination, what's left? What's left? What's useful? What's useful in it? What's useful in this way of examining things if you actually use the model to examine itself?

[40:54]

If you look at concepts... Okay, I got it. So what's useful about this? Is this just running around in circles? So the question could be rephrased as, what's useful about seeing suchness? What's useful about seeing the way things actually are when you're not confused? Well, kind of. But it's not... I saw it different. He said, what's being used of pagan concepts to begin with? No. It's this model that I'm having a hard time with. This model of analysis of conception. It's not an analysis of conception. You're doing that, but that's not what this is about. You said you started doing that, but that's not what this is about. This is analysis of phenomena.

[41:57]

Sorry, you're right, you're right. I used the wrong word, but I was actually... It's being able to see and understand that all phenomena depend on your mind, that without your mind there are no things, and that all things are, in fact, none other than your mind. Nothing can happen, no things manifest in the world without mental imputation. That's what this is saying, but Even whether you accept that or not, still, according to this, when something happens, there's often a confusion between our mental imputation and what's going on. We think that our idea of things are what they are, and this is suffering. But if you can understand that things aren't what you think they are, and yet they're not separate from what you think they are, then you start to see the way things are, and you become disabused of confusion, and you see reality and experience release from suffering.

[43:04]

It's another concept. It's another concept, yeah. So I remember somebody, somebody gave a talk, said, you know, oh, it was the Dalai Lama, said that if there wasn't an end of suffering, you know, Buddha probably would have just, you know, said, well, you know, life is short, enjoy it the best you can. But this kind of analysis doesn't actually seem beneficial necessarily to the cessation of suffering and, you know, liberating oneself. It seems like a subtle reinforcement of wrong view. Because it's another system to invest in a further conceptualization, like reinforcing our conceptualization of reality. Well, you can use it that way, but that's not the proper way to use it.

[44:08]

The proper way to use it is as an instruction so that you can start noticing your conceptualization. So at first, when you hear this instruction, the words you hear and your experience of this instruction, it's an event which you have some, whatever understanding you have of the instruction. You think that what you're being told is what you think is your concept of it, or you don't. Anyway, the instruction is that what you're thinking is going on right now is not what's going on. So what you just thought is not true. That's just your concept of it, okay? So you could apply this instruction to what you just said, which would relieve you of this unfortunate conception you have of what we were just talking about. Pardon? And it would probably just give me another bad case of misconception. No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't. It would relieve you from your own... It's not misconception so much.

[45:10]

It's misunderstanding your conception. Your concept of what was going on was fine. But there was a... I sensed, you know, that perhaps you had some... Like you thought that what was going on was what you thought was going on. Rather than you just had this idea of what was going on. And you didn't apply the instruction to that. He didn't say, oh, I see this thing happening now. And my idea of what it is is part of the reason why it can happen. And then you'd be relieved of what you thought was just going on. Plus, anything else that was going on for you? Do you have any thought right now that you see what's going on? Do I have a thought like that? No. But I do have... This teaching word, I mean, you implied it. I felt that because I said these words, I was holding on to a concept. Because I spoke. No, your language sounded like you were believing what you're talking about.

[46:13]

Right, right. Because of that. Because of that. Something about that. Yes. Your language satisfied the requirements... of a person who's talking as though she believes what he's thinking. For me. And then I had a concept which I imputed such I had the event of the vision of you having that attitude. And the reason that I asked the question back was because I felt like what you were saying to me was... is also going on. From my experience... From your experience, what I'm saying to you... And I'm wondering if you're experiencing it differently, because I feel like the same thing is going on. Mental imputation and conceptualization. Mental imputation and conception, same thing, yes. I feel like we're doing the same thing here. It's how we're seeing a different picture. Yes? Kevin had to put down...

[47:15]

Pardon? I haven't put down a cup yet. You haven't? No, I haven't. Yes. Kevin wanted to say, I think Kevin wanted to make a bestness of concept. You think he wanted to make a bestness of concept? Yeah, so he had to put down the cup, the actual best. He followed that. So you have a complex experience here, no? Yes. Called Kevin, you know, trying to bail out suchness. Okay? Yeah, I'd go... Well, he said, what good is it? I would go, it's this. Okay. Park. Bloody suck, the tapping on my shoulder. Okay. Waking at me. Now, you were first, right, Vernon? So, Arlene?

[48:20]

I'm so glad I didn't say I'm... It sounds like what you're saying is that the confusion is between the concept and the event. No, it's not the confusion between the concept and the event. Okay? Because there's no event without the concept. Right. It's the confusion between the concept and the fact that all events depend on things. Everything that happens has a quality that it depends on other things in order to happen. Nothing has a quality of being itself. That's one quality things don't have. They just have the quality of all things they depend on. So cups depend on certain things in order to happen. But they don't have a cupness. They just have an otherness. They have the otherness of the other they depend on.

[49:23]

All the things a cup depends on, that's one quality of a cup. But that's not enough to make a cup. It also means a human being or some other living creature must impute an idea in order to precipitate all these possible dependencies which make a thing happen. When those two come together, that is two-thirds of what it takes for something to happen. But one more thing that takes for something to happen is that these two things must not be confounding each other. And for any event, they don't confound each other. In other words, each thing has that kind of reality, that this process of causation, of dependent core arising, is completely clear and unconfused. But human beings can confuse this process, even though there is this thing really already there that there's no confusion, we can confuse it. And this is our problem. So it sounds that there's no thing at all without the human concept.

[50:26]

There's no things at all without human conceptualization. So the human concept is necessary for the thing, and with the human concept comes confusion. Well, not always, see, because with human conceptualization and with certain other dependencies being satisfied, and when they're not confused, then something really happens. I mean, you know, that really happens in the sense that you have a valid experience, okay? Now, then human beings sometimes, almost most of the time, make that confusion. But the confusion is not necessary. You do not have to be confused. And that's what Buddha is saying. You don't have to be confused. It's not necessary. As a matter of fact, basically, everything that happens to you is unconfused. Everything about you is unconfused. There's no confusion in your actuality.

[51:27]

If there's any confusion, you couldn't happen. You couldn't have any experiences. Fundamentally. But still, things can change, and we get confused, and then we don't see. But the actual situation isn't confused. And that's always the case for any event. And if there is any confusion, the event can't happen. And you can try to make certain things happen with confusion if you actually try, and they won't happen. Like I said before, where is the cup? If I confuse my idea of the cup with the cup, well, that's what I've got right now. This isn't a cup. I've got the idea, and if I confuse it too, then I should be able to have a cup, but I don't get one this way. But when other things are satisfied, none of which are the cup, we can have a cup. That's actuality, and then we can be confused about that easily. But it's not necessary.

[52:30]

The way the cup really is, is always there. Confusion comes and goes. It often comes and goes, but it isn't necessary. It's when you say it isn't necessary, I find myself thinking, okay, how do I do it without confusion? Right, that's good. And the minute I do that, I'm into another concept. That's fine. Now you're dealing with the experience of wondering how to practice. That's an experience. So you have to have the mental invitation of wondering about practice, plus certain other things have to be supplied in order for you to have that idea. And those aren't confused, but you want to understand that. And so the mode is to look at everything that happens and in a way that you have a good chance of seeing that the mental imputation is separate from the things that the event depends on. And what is that mode? Well, that mode is not attaching to what's going on and not seeking anything other than this.

[53:40]

That's the mode in which you will be able to have this revelation. A kind of a miracle will happen And that is, what usually seems to be stuck together, you'll see is separate. You'll have a new vision of what's going on. So if there is any confusion, confusion will turn. Not the confusion, but the situation will turn such that confusion will drop away and you'll see the way things actually are. But it's okay to want to understand this But if in wanting to understand this and in wanting to study, you seek something other than what's going on right now, like you think, maybe tomorrow I'll study, well, that attitude is not the type of attitude where the revelation is going to occur. The revelation is going to occur when you're studying right now and you're not seeking an easier thing to study than this. And this, unfortunately, isn't a very hard case, so probably none of you are seeking anything other than this case, right?

[54:44]

Yes. Did you already ask your question? No, I didn't. We've gone a really long way beyond what my original thought, which was very elementary, but it was going back to when we first said there is no thing without our concept. I remember reading that if, just in terms of visual experience, if there's an object before you that you do not recognize, you literally do not see it. And I've had that experience myself, so I could immediately just kind of relate it to the visual experience anyway, and then realize, well, this must apply to mental conceptions and all of it. Right. Eric? I think I understand the cup that's not really a cup.

[55:52]

It's a collection of things that are required for the cup to exist. It's not really a collection of other things. It is a dependency. It's a dependency on other things. Okay. And the mental imputation. Yes. And they're not confused. Then you have a cup. Is that where the suchness comes in? The not confusion. If they're confused, you don't have an experience. No, you don't. You don't think you do. I mean, you may think you do, but when you talk to anybody else, they'll say, no, you don't. Or if you talk to somebody else who's, you know, can think straight. So, for example, right now, if you say, I have a cup, you can think that, but that's not really an experience. Because I don't count that because, you know, I'm going to say, I don't have a cup.

[56:53]

And a lot of other people will say that, too. So if you think I have a cup, it's kind of a mirage or hallucination. Now, hallucination can be a phenomenon, too, which you may or may not be able to come up with for yourself, but I can, and I have a concept for it, and so on, and you satisfy certain things, such as I say, that's a hallucination. But right now, a non-hallucinating person doesn't say, I have a cup right now, right? Well, what I meant is if I'm holding this thing, drinking tea, and I'm confused, and I'm kind of unconscious and just drinking tea, does it have suchness? It still has suchness. Even though you're confused, if you have an experience that you say you have, and you talk to somebody else like me or somebody else in class, and they say, yeah, there is a cup there, There can be confusion, but there still is the non-confusion too. The non-confusion is always there, whether you realize it or not.

[57:54]

Okay? Who is that back there? It's Emmanuel. Okay. I'm just wondering about Lukas, for instance. What level of conceptualization is going on with babies or the people who experience... Because Lukas, I'm sure, is really, let's say, experiencing the... What's the word? Well, Lukas, yeah. What level of... Conceptualization is going on there. So there must be some kind of conceptualizing... Yeah, there probably is... The incipient conceptualizations are going on. It's pretty hard to tell at what point children are precipitating things... It's kind of hard to say, but it starts pretty early that they start seeing things, like they can tell the difference maybe between one thing, you know, we look and we see things, and at a certain point they start seeing things too, like they... Tell the difference between a nipple and not a nipple.

[59:01]

Something like that. That's kind of a conceptualization. They distinguish one thing or another thing. Yeah, that they see. You say you can see a thing, right? Like a nipple or not a nipple. No, you have an experience. Let's say you have a phenomenon called a nipple, okay? You have that experience. There's a nipple. It's a visual experience. It's a visual phenomenon called nipple. It also can be a taste phenomenon. It has to be a touch phenomenon. And so you have these things. And now the baby, at a certain point, the baby does not have these things. There's a time when the baby does not see these things. And then there's a time when it seems that the baby does see these things. So, in other words, there's a time in development where the baby does not have things in its life. It's living, it's alive, it's living, it's responding to conditions, but it doesn't see things because it doesn't have concepts.

[60:09]

So it doesn't exist then? It doesn't exist for them? I think that the baby's probably living in reality where there isn't existence and non-existence. Is that blocked? Is that blocked? Is what blocked? Living that way. How would it be blocked? I don't know, I'm trying to get back to the case where it says, before feelings arise, knowledge is blocked. Yeah, and the monk says, what about before feelings arise, and he says blocked? Well, I'd like you to tell me what you mean by why you think that would be blocked. Why blocked would apply to before feelings arise. beyond the reach of eyes and ears beyond the reach of eyes and ears beyond the reach of eyes and ears is blocked that's my question is that what they're talking about but what do you think blocked how would you what would you understand as blocked what is blocked wisdom is knowledge is blocked right

[61:38]

Knowledge is blocked. We're talking about knowledge being blocked, right? Huh? Experience being blocked? No, no. Experience is not blocked. No, that's the way you study this. Blocking resolute stability is non-attachment and non-seeking. Blocking resolute stability is the mode in which you study phenomena, such that this miracle of vision will occur. But what does blocked mean for some, if he means literally that, if he's talking about before feelings arise, and he's straight on this, and he means that that's blocked, how would knowledge be blocked before feelings arose? How would it be blocked? When feelings do arise, it's blocked too, right? That said that, right? Feelings arise and it's blocked. Okay? Knowledge is blocked.

[62:39]

And in that case, it's blocked. How is it blocked once the feelings arise? Huh? What? Confusion. Yeah. When feelings arise, knowledge is blocked by confusion. But how would knowledge be blocked before feelings arise? Linda. They would be blocked because there wouldn't be any phenomena. And you can't have knowledge until there's phenomena. When my daughter was born, Rob, she knew exactly what an algorithm was. She went for it from the time she came to the universe. So I think she did have an understanding of it. You think she thought of it as a thing? She knew where to go. But do you think she thought of it as different from something else?

[63:41]

Do you have that touchy feeling about her? Well, I mean, you know, the baby comes out and then it knows what to suck. Yes. It didn't suck my finger or, you know, it went right for the spot. So you think she could already see a thing? Well, maybe it's not visual, but they know where to go instinctually. But what are they going for? What do you think she's going for? What's your idea of what she's going for? She's going for, you know, it's that sucking instinct. She's going for food. Well, there could be a sucking instinct. Okay, you have a sucking instinct, but you could have a sucking instinct without thinking you were sucking something. I'm saying you could do that, but are you saying that she would not only have the sucking instinct, but she thought she was sucking something? Well, maybe she wasn't conscious by thinking. Right. So can she have a thing without consciously thinking? I say no. But if you say that if you're saying she has a thing, then I'm saying that you're saying that she already is doing that mentally, that she's creating some kind of concept, just pre-verbal, but she has some concept that this nipple is different from the rest of the breast.

[64:56]

Yes, she definitely knew somehow. I was amazed. So you're thinking that she thinks the nipple is separate from other things and she thinks it's a thing. You can say that. I accept that. Not in so many words. I don't think it was a conscious categorization. If it's not conscious, then what you're saying won't happen. But each sense has a conscious. Our senses have consciousness. Eye consciousness. Yes. Taste consciousness. Yes. Hear, hear. Right. So eye consciousness, taste consciousness. So is that a concept? You call that a concept? A contact? Would you call that consciousness, that kind of consciousness a concept? What I'm trying to get at is, does the child see a thing? Sense is a thing. Sense is a thing. No, no, no, no.

[65:57]

You can't sense a thing. That's what I'm saying to you. You cannot sense a thing. You have to compute the idea on something. There aren't things out there. And what do animals say? Let's just try not to talk about animals. Let's just do humans for a little while, okay? Trying to extend it to babies, okay? And I'll be happy to do it with babies. So the question is, does the baby see a thing there or not? And if it does, it's not that there is a thing which it sees. That's what I'm saying. It does something to what's out there such that it does the same thing to a breast that we do. If you're saying that it does, I'm saying that it's possible that there's a stage of development where you do not precipitate a nipple. Where you're getting lights in, you're getting colors in, you're responding to colors, the baby's in the womb or whatever, you're responding to colors, but at a certain point in its development, it was not seeing things out there.

[67:02]

It's in long-newity. It's in long-newity. It's in non-duality? No, you can't be in non-duality with lots of things happening. Non-duality is not that nothing's happening. Non-duality is that things and non-things are not different. In what state? I'm saying, at some state, no. At some state, the baby is not making things. because it has no way to have conceptual imputation. Therefore, the baby, it doesn't live in a world of things at some point. I mean, you know that, well, maybe you don't know, but if the baby from the time of conception, if the egg can somehow make things, I would be surprised if the egg is like aware of things out there, that it has conceptualization, which is computing on things, and so on and so forth.

[68:06]

But before we get further onto this particular thing, if we're going to do it, I would like to come back to the thing about blocked. Because, again, if feelings haven't arisen, knowledge is blocked because you can't have knowledge. Knowledge is not about nothing happening. That's not knowledge. When things aren't arising, that's not knowledge. Knowledge... The knowledge of the fact that things don't arise only makes sense as knowledge in relationship to things that do arise. And the knowledge that things don't arise is understanding emptiness. It is a realization of nirvana. It is a realization of peace and bliss and freedom from that suffering. But that understanding is inseparable from the world where things do happen. Okay, so if feelings haven't arisen, knowledge is blocked because nothing's happening. And you can't have knowledge with nothing happening.

[69:09]

Well, how can you have blocked without there being knowledge? How can you have what? How can you have blocked knowledge without having knowledge? Because he's talking to a person. But this sounds like what you're saying is pre-knowledge. Yeah, it's pre-knowledge, so knowledge is blocked because it's before it can happen. Is that like an Arhok? No, no. Harhads can see this, can see straight. Harhads are looking at phenomena, and they understand the problem. It's not that nothing's happening. There isn't like there's nothing happening. Happening. Can you have concepts without feelings? Can you have concepts without feelings? Can you have concepts without feelings?

[70:11]

Or when you say, can you have concepts without feelings? What do you mean, can I have concepts? You mean like me sitting over here, can I have a concept without a feeling? That's not a usual state of affairs. Usually in every moment of experience, there is conceptualization and there's feelings. That's a regular, you know, we have five skandhas, right? Five aggregates of every experience. Every experience has consciousness, feelings, perceptions, which include conceptualization, and numerous other emotional elements and form. That's what experience involves, these different dimensions. Okay? All right? So we're just talking about, in this case, the key, the issue here is that any event, any thingness, any phenomenon that we're aware of has these three elements. And sometimes people think conception is like a baddie, you know, but it's actually, it's not really good or bad, it's just that you don't have any things.

[71:28]

The universe doesn't come as, you know, a big pile of things. That's not the way the universe operates. But human beings have arisen in the world and we have made out of the universe whatever it really is. We've made things out of it. We've made it a thing. We've made it into many things. We've made it into a multiplicity. And this is fine that we do this, not a problem, if we can just see what's going on. And what's going on is that there is conceptualization that is not confused with all the dependencies that make the various things possible to happen and also that make them disappear. make them appear and disappear. If we can see this, then we see the real quality, the thoroughly established, the thoroughness of an event. We see it, and then we're released from suffering. Now, it's not completely accomplished by that.

[72:31]

We need to work with that suchness for a little bit, which we can get into some other time. said earlier, we can learn to see a better established quality of all things. So that's tempting to think. If we can learn to see it, it's tempting to think, look for it and see it. But it sounds like the instructions, don't look for it. Don't seek anything. Right. Just keep your eyes open and don't come along the cat. Well, don't have any. So all these things are happening. Things are happening. Phenomena are arising, right? For us, because of our mental imputations, we have a non-stop conceptual imputation going on, so we have pretty much non-stop... phenomena. Now, there may be spaces between the phenomena, but that isn't important for us.

[73:33]

In that space, in the spaces between phenomena, knowledge is blocked. The knowledge is irrelevant to non-events. We need knowledge about events because our misunderstanding of events are what bother us. You know, we're bothered by the way we understand events. We don't have a problem with non-events, really, unless we, you know, prefer them or something. So, in non-events, or before knowledge arrives, before feelings arise, knowledge is blocked. Knowledge arises in conjunction with feelings. But it arrives in seeing feelings correctly, unconfusedly, and the mode of correct vision mode of studying is that you don't attach to any of these phenomena that are arising. Whatever arises, you learn to not attach to them. And you learn to not seek anything other than this. Which brings you into the realm of seeing the way things actually are thoroughly established.

[74:41]

Now, Vernon. Thank you. First, I want to thank you for the incredible kindness you should be. You're welcome. And to say that you have explained perfectly. Thank you. Now, ready for the verse in the last five minutes? This might take ten. The sky covers, the earth bears. Bears also can be translated as supports or sustains, like a mother bearing a child. Do we say that? Mother bears a child? Supports or gives birth to? So this is a verse. Now, the commentary says, Yan To said, let it flow out from your own heart and cover heaven and cover earth. It actually, I looked up the thing that says, cover heaven and cover earth.

[75:45]

Huh? For me. For me. Right. So, so the commentator says, why so contrary? And actually it says contrary, but it says, it actually says, why upside down? Topsy-turvy, you know. Why flip it upside down? Okay, so what he's talking about here is that the commentator is saying heaven covers, earth bears. And this is, in some sense, this is like the human perspective. You know, that we live under the heaven and we're born of the earth, right? We live between the earth which gives us birth and the heaven which covers us. This is a human point of view, right? Right? But Yan To says, cover heaven and cover earth. In other words, don't think that earth gives rise to you. And the heavens, you know, it's not that way.

[76:47]

It's that the mind creates heaven and earth. That's what I've been talking about. Mind creates heaven and earth. Heaven and earth, the Chinese says, human sentiment is... heaven and earth give birth to the person. The Buddhist way is, mind gives rise to heaven and earth. And that's what we've been talking about. Our minds create this heaven and earth. And we, being humans, have this genetic similarity, so we create a similar universe together, and we study this universe together. But the Buddhist teaching here is remember that our minds are an essential element in the creation of heaven and earth for ourselves. Now, we not only do that, but then we can think that the world we created is what it is, rather than that we created it. So then the next two lines, making a mass, making a clump, pervading the universe without bound, this is again talking about the fact that our mind makes a clump, makes a mass, you know?

[78:01]

And our mind pervades the universe and there's no bound, nothing in the universe is not, no things in the universe are not mind created. We do not create the actual universe prior to being a thing or things. There's a universe before we make things. And we need to get in touch with that, but we can't have knowledge of it because there's no things there. But when it comes to things, we're definitely involved. The universe that has all the stars in it and stuff that are separate from each other and at different distances and have certain temperatures, that stuff, you know, that's stuff that's born of our mental conception. The entire universe is like that. It is not other than mind and also mind is not other than it. We don't have a mind that's separate from those things either. Our mind is not happening unless it's doing this.

[79:06]

So there's no mind separate from the things and there's no thing separate from the mind. The entire universe is not like the mind and it. The entire universe is just our mind. The universe of things is just our mind. And then we come to The breaking down of subatomic particles with no inside. Getting to the end of the mysterious subtlety. Okay? So this is referring to breaking down that particle and looking for the sutra, right? But it says no inside. What does that mean? Huh? It means empty. No, it means no upside, no inside. It means empty. It means healed. Huh? What?

[80:10]

It's healed. It means healed to you. Yeah. That's good. It means healed. It kind of means breaking down this atomic particle, another concept, and seeing what's not. Looking for potential. Pardon? Looking for potential. Looking for potential? Miriam, sounds like you're seeking. No, I'm Miriam. Oh, no, that's good. No, I'm Miriam, right? I'm Miriam, that's just Miriam. Essential Miriam. You know, I thought we were going to be able to finish this verse, but I don't think so anymore. I'm afraid we're going to have to study this for about a month. And then when we come back in July, finish this verse. This next part is not going to take just five minutes to deal with. But I'd like you, those of you who are going to take the class, I'd like you to study the next several lines of this.

[81:16]

Meditate on these next several lines for the next month. So when you come back to the class, if you happen to come back. And I will let you back again, Kevin. You can come back. Thanks. And be like... We took it, you know. So... Okay, let's vote. How many people think it's okay if Kevin comes back? It's only a concept. Now you see where it comes in handy. when we're taking the vote about whether you go to hell or not. There's a concept, and it's not connected with the... It's not really what's happening, what I think here. This is not... What I think's happening is not happening. It's not really that. So we have to study this case more, yes?

[82:18]

Sure. And I just wanted to tell you something. I'm not recommending this movie, but I did see a movie recently, and there's one scene towards the end where two guys are lying down on the earth together, and one of them says to the other one, you're empty, Mr. Anderson. And then Mr. Anderson says, you're empty, too. That's it. Pardon? That's the best I can do at the moment. You want more? What? It's called The Matrix. And it's, they're playing around with the stuff we've been talking about tonight. The universe. It's pretty new, yeah.

[83:21]

It's not any theories, no. No, it's not any theories. No, it's not.

[83:39]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_89.48