Today I'm getting ready to embark on a voyage into some new waters of the teaching of the great vehicle. Some waters that I haven't discussed with you before. These teachings are sometimes called in Sanskrit, Tathagatagarbha, which could be translated into English as womb of the Tathagata, womb of the Buddha.

[01:05]

These Tathagata Garbha teachings arose in India, but as far as I know, were never particularly popular in India. But when these teachings got transmitted to China, they became very influential in Chinese tradition. One of the great schools of Chinese Buddhism called, I think it's called Huayen Song, the Huayen school, which is, the Huayen is the, flower adornment school, and this is its main text, the flower adornment scripture, the Avatamsaka Sutra.

[02:13]

There's a school in China which has this as their main text. And this the Tathagatagarbha teaching was one of their main treasures. The Tathagatagarbha teachings also had a big influence on what's called Tiantai Buddhism and Chan or Zen Buddhism. This Tathagatagarbha doctrine is a big part of the Zen tradition in China, Japan, Korea, and everywhere that it goes. So, quite a few years ago, I don't remember exactly when, but let's just say about 50 years ago,

[03:20]

I started studying the only Indian treatise on this Tathagatagarbha teaching, the only known commentary on this teaching in Sanskrit, in India. I started studying it. It's called the Ratna-gotra-vibhaga. which means commentary on the precious lineage, the precious lineage of the Buddhas. Gotra also means like a gene, like a genetic gene. It's like the precious gene, the jeweled gene.

[04:24]

Or it could also mean the lineage, the precious, I already said lineage, right? The lineage, the gene, or even the family. This teaching is suggesting that all living beings fully possess the wisdom and virtues of the Buddhas. So in the Avatamsaka Sutra there is a section of the sutra about the manifestation of the Buddha. It's a chapter called The Manifestation of the Buddha. And in that chapter, it states that all living beings fully possess the wisdom and virtues of the Buddhas. However, because of false views and

[05:39]

clinging or attachment, they do not realize this wisdom and virtues of the Buddhas which they fully possess. That's what it says in this sutra. And then in the same chapter it says it again, and then it says, since they don't realize it, I, the Buddha, will teach them. So the Buddha is teaching to help us realize what we already fully possess according to this teaching. So in that Indian text which I just mentioned, the Ratna-gotra-vibhaga, it identifies this womb of the Tathagatas as the, as reality, the way things really are, is mixed with

[07:12]

the way they aren't. That the pure realization of reality is mixed with the defilement of misconceptions and clinging. The womb of the of the teaching, of the wisdom of the teaching, the womb is defiled. The teaching lives in a defiled womb. The true body of the Buddha is not mixed with any pollution. That's called the dharma body, the dharmakaya. It's seen in this tradition, this teaching, as not mixed. However, the not mixed lives in the middle of the mixed.

[08:21]

One view of the tradition of the Buddha's teaching is that the Buddha taught that all phenomena are without self, are impermanent, are suffering, and impure. Sometimes just the first three. Without self, impermanent, and suffering. And then sometimes a fourth is added. Impure. This is a teaching the Buddha gave, which you've probably heard about. So one memory I have is when I started to study this precious lineage commentary

[10:38]

Even in the introduction, the person who had translated it from Sanskrit to English, or maybe he translated it from Sanskrit to Chinese to English, but anyway, I read in English that this teaching of how we fully possess the wisdom and virtues of the Buddha but that wisdom and virtue is in the midst of our attachments and misconceptions and delusions, that the way this text talks about it, how that's so, is really, really beautiful, that this would be the case. And again, the translator said, the way this teaching is conveyed, it almost looks like it's not Buddhism.

[11:49]

Because it's saying, basically, that all dharmas are, in a sense, the direct opposite of what the Buddha taught. namely all dharmas, our self, our eternal, our joy, and our purity. And when I read that, I kind of, not instantly, but I stopped studying this teaching. because I thought, I don't know if I'm ready to study something that's the opposite of what the Buddha taught. Plus, not only is it the opposite of what the Buddha taught, but it's supposed to be Buddhism.

[12:59]

It's a Buddhism which is going against what makes Buddhism Buddhism. And now, many years later, I'm ready to study Buddhism that looks like the opposite of what the Buddha taught." So in that sense, you know, Zen, the Zen school in China and the Tendai school in China, they were very influenced by something that was the opposite of what made Buddhism Buddhism. And one thing, I'll just get this off my chest. One of our ancestors named Sagan Gyoshi, he said, when I first started practicing, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers.

[14:11]

And I think maybe after 30 years I realized mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers. And then after many more years I realized mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. And I may have those years wrong, maybe he said. When I first started practicing, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers. And then after I practiced for a while, I realized mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers. Now I see, after 30 years, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. I see that statement as, in a way, influenced by this Tathagatagarbha teaching.

[15:29]

So one story of Buddhism is that Buddhism arose in a cultural womb, a cultural context, where there was a religious teaching which taught that phenomena are self, are permanent, are joy and pure. That there was a religious tradition like that. Another version of it is that at the time that the Buddha lived, there were people like that, that people think there's a self, there's permanence, there's joy, and there's purity. And the religion, a religion that affirms that could be quite affirming.

[16:45]

because it affirms the way people think. And they think, but they don't understand what they're thinking. They think there's a self, but they don't understand what it means when they think there's a self. What they think the self is, is not what the self is. And thinking that the self is something that it's not, and thinking that permanence is something that it's not, and thinking that joy is something that it's not, and thinking that purity is something it's not, the Buddha comes forth and speaks to the people who misunderstand what the self is.

[17:49]

And the Buddha teaches no self. And the people who misunderstand what permanence is, he teaches impermanence. And the people who misunderstand what joy is, he teaches suffering. And the people who misunderstand what purity is, he teaches impurity. And this, you know, that was Buddhism at the beginning. And after a long time, when this teaching of the Buddha had somehow somewhat successfully freed living beings from their misunderstandings of, for example, what self is.

[18:58]

Then he taught them that After he taught them the teaching of no-self, then he taught them what self is. And he taught them what permanence is. And he taught them what joy is. And he taught them what purity is. So, there is also a teaching of the the four inverted views, or upside-down views. In early Buddhism, but also in the Great Vehicle, we have the same teaching of the four inverted views. In the Heart Sutra it says, without inverted views or without perverted views, right? Without perverted views, there's no fear. Right?

[20:10]

Something like that? Inverted? Yeah. Literally it is inverted, upside down. And the four inverted views are to view things as self, permanent, pleasureful, and pure. Those are inverted views. But really, it's an inverted way of understanding each one of those things. So, you can also say that to see in no-self, a self, is an inverted view. To see in pain, what? is not in pain, is in inverted view, and so on.

[21:12]

These virtues and wisdoms, however, that we possess are not no self, and pain, and impermanence, and impurity. This wisdom, this wisdom is true. It's true. And because it's true, the Buddha calls it a self. But before we're ready to receive the teaching of how wisdom is the self, we need to renounce our misconceptions of what the self is.

[22:32]

And then there's another important scripture in this movement, which is called the Nirvana scripture. It's a big scripture, and in there is a statement which is translated as, all living beings, without exception, possess the Buddha nature. And the Buddha nature is a parallel concept teaching to the Tathagatagarbha. The Buddha nature, again, is how the Buddha is mixed in with non-Buddhas, how non-Buddhas fully possess the Buddha. In Sanskrit for that is Buddha-dhatu.

[23:48]

The Buddha element in the sentient beings is parallel to the Buddha-tathagata element in the womb of sentient beings. And I might say now and again later that this affirmation of people's misunderstandings could be seen as a kind of opiate. So I think of Karl Marx saying, religion is the opiate of the masses. It's a way of telling people that the way they understand is correct, which is potentially quite soothing, at least temporarily.

[25:01]

To pander to people's misconceptions, which are quite, how would you call it, naturally existing in human beings, the natural misunderstandings that human beings have, to pander to them can be quite attractive and soothing, like an opiate. So the Buddha came along and noticed that people were being fumed, were being intoxicated by the religious traditions which were basically saying to them, you think you got a self? That's true. And also, the way you think you have a self, maybe they didn't go that far, but the way you think you have a self, we're backing you up on that. And that's reality.

[26:04]

And this, again, was very strong in India at the time of the Buddha, and he refuted it. The teaching actually, again, will be the same as what he would later say, but the people misunderstood it. And in that misunderstanding, there was a teaching which said, your understanding is correct. So they didn't realize, they weren't being told, we are all deluded about our life. And then he freed people from these delusions, delusions about what they are, delusions about self, about permanence,

[27:14]

I mean, joy and purity. And in early Buddhism, that was it. But in this later movement, we're now coming back to the mountains and the rivers again, but with a new understanding. Okay, now I think I can tell this story now for the first time. And it's a story that is in the Nirvana Sutra. It's a story about a king who had

[28:21]

an official, a royal physician. And I just in brackets say this physician was actually a very deluded physician, close brackets. No matter what the illness that anybody had was, this physician would prescribe milk. Or as we say in Minnesota, milk. Whatever the illness, he would prescribe milk. And actually, some people really appreciated this milk. But for some people it was an opioid, and it made them feel comfortable for a while, but then later they had health problems because of using this opioid.

[29:33]

And then a wise physician happened to come to visit. the king and his court, and he saw the other magician, I mean the other physician. And he said to the other physician, I would like to assist you. I would like you to let me study with you. I would like you to be my mentor. he could see the other physician was a quack. He could see the other physician did not understand the nature of illness and medicine. But rather than come in and tell the king and indict the

[30:42]

deluded physician, he asked a deluded physician to be his teacher and let him assist him. And the deluded court royal physician said, okay, if you want to assist me, fine. And if you do this for, I think he said, 48 years, and you do whatever I say, after that I'll teach you about my medicine. And so they started that way. And the visiting physician then worked with the other physician. But after a while, he went to the king and he pointed out to the king that the royal physician did not understand the nature of illness. And he explained to the king in such a way that the king could see that the other physician was really unskillful, unethical, and all those other words we use for malpractice.

[31:57]

The visiting physician helped the king wake up to how harmful this other physician was to the people of the country, and he banished the royal physician. And I think he then asked the visiting physician to be the royal physician, and the visiting physician says, I will be, I'm willing to be, of service to you in that way, but I have one thing I ask of you." And the king said, whatever, you know, I'll promote you to any position, brackets, except being king, close brackets.

[33:00]

I'll give you anything. Whatever you ask, I'll give it to you if you will serve the country as the royal physician. help people get the medicine they need to be healthy. And the visiting physician says, what I ask of you is that you ban milk. And the king said, okay. And he sent out a proclamation that milk, well, banned milk for medicinal purposes. People could still drink milk. Maybe, I don't know if that's true even. Anyway, he banned milk. Definitely for medicinal purposes. And then one day, it happened that the king got sick.

[34:12]

I guess a fever. And the physician examined the king, and the physician prescribed milk. And the king said, have you lost your mind? Do you have a fever? you told me to ban milk and now you're prescribing it for me?" And the physician said, yes, I did ask you to ban it and I am prescribing it for you because for you, now, the milk will cure your disease. And the king took the medicine and became well again. And then I think the king asked the physician, well, how can it be that this deluded, unskillful physician had discovered this medicine which is really good for my illness?

[35:31]

And the physician said, it's like insects. burrowing into wood. Sometimes the pattern of their burrow looks like a letter of the alphabet. But the worm doesn't know that they've just made a letter of the alphabet. And people who see the pattern of the letter in the wood usually do not think that the worm understands letters and language. They think it's kind of random or accidental that the worm crawled through the wood to make a shape like a letter.

[36:37]

But some people actually do infer when they look at that, that the worm was literate. So, by chance, this unskillful, dishonest physician discovered milk. But he didn't understand what he discovered. And people attribute to him an intelligence which he didn't have. And because he didn't have the intelligence, he used the milk for everything, which is not appropriate. Therefore, he was banished, because he discovered this thing and didn't understand what he had discovered. So we have to ban the milk. until somebody sees the situation clearly and understands when to prescribe the milk.

[37:48]

So in the history of the world, something like this has happened, that milk has been discovered but not understood. And it has been used unskillfully to reaffirm rather than liberate beings from their delusions, which are delusions about their life, delusions about their real, the way they really are, their self, the way, and so then the Buddha says, after some discussion, well, what is this self? Whatever is real and true immutable and permanent, that's what I call self. That's the way everything is. Everything is real and true. But it's not the way we think the real and true is.

[38:57]

It's not what we think the self is. So we have to like say no self for hundreds and hundreds of years and then we can see sometimes the teaching of self is the perfect medicine. So sometimes this Tathagatagarbha teaching, which reverses the Buddha's teaching, is a Buddha's teaching. To not think that the Buddha's reversal of these misunderstandings, the Buddha's reversal of these misunderstandings That's not really the true teaching. It's a medicine. It's like, what do you call it? It's like going on the wagon from your misunderstanding. So there's a teaching which the Buddha gives, which is part of the Buddha's teaching, is to refute misconceptions.

[40:10]

That's part of the Buddha's teaching. And when the Buddha first taught that, the world had never seen this refutation of these misconceptions. But the refutation of the misconceptions is to realize what the misconceptions are interfering with. which is something incredibly beautiful and wonderful, something really beautiful. The four things could also be called self, permanence, joy, and beauty. Like if we look at a, I don't know what, a human being, a baby, a Tesla, we might think, oh, it's beautiful.

[41:11]

And it is beautiful, but it's not the beautiful you see. The beautiful you see is a delusion about what beautiful is. So then we have a teaching for you. All cars are not beautiful. all people are not beautiful, everything does not have self, so on. When you're completely cured of that disease by taking the proper medicine, which is part of the Buddha's teaching, then at some time, for some illnesses, we're gonna bring in this milk again, this teaching of Now we're going to actually teach what the self is and what beauty is, beyond our ideas of it. Any idea we have of self is not the self. The real is not our idea of the real.

[42:22]

And so we need to give up our idea of the real We need to give up our idea of the true, of the self, of the permanent. And then, when the time's right, the final medicine can be given about the way things actually are. So that's a beginning of this teaching. And you are the first people to hear it, from me anyway. This teaching is offered to help us wake up to how we fully possess, right now, the wisdom and virtues of all Buddhas. Yes? Can I ask why you think the time is right for this teaching now?

[43:23]

Well, I think because I finally saw that although it looks like it's not Buddhism, it is Buddhism. So yeah, so I heard the warning, and that warning kept me awake for several decades. And I think the story of the milk medicine in the Nirvana Sutra, which I just recently read, kind of woke me up to it's time. It's time to turn the wheel beyond the early teachings in this particular way. That's one story of why I feel ready now, that I realize that there is this milk, but you need to know when to use it. And I think now maybe I can use it.

[44:25]

Yes? It seems to me that there's a dissonance between Okay. You mean impermanence goes against reincarnation? Also, Buddhism doesn't usually teach reincarnation. It usually uses the term rebirth. Okay, so anyway, you see a dissonance between the teaching of impermanence and the teaching that there's rebirth. Okay? And the teaching that beings are permanent also, I think, would be inconsistent with rebirth, because if they were permanent, they couldn't be reborn.

[45:32]

So you say impermanence conflicts or is dissonant with rebirth, But for me, even more inconsistent with rebirth would be permanence, because there would be no birth if there were permanence, and there would be no death if there were permanence. So I see that as even more inconsistent or dissonant. Maybe it's the aspect of continuity that's, at least to me, implicit in rebirth that seems It skirts it. Continuity, I think, might be tinged with permanence, right? Yeah. But if you let the tinge of permanence into the continuity, there's no continuity because there's no movement.

[46:40]

If you have permanence, there's no movement. So if you bring permanence, if I see permanence come into into the issue of rebirth, I think rebirth is impossible, by definition, because you can't have rebirth without death. So, yeah, so I think, I think that, yeah, that what we're talking about is not so much, anyway, that's enough on that, I think. Yeah, for me, permanence pretty much doesn't go with rebirth and impermanence. I can also see your point that maybe that has a problem too. I think next was Charlie, way in the back. actually has drawn the letter of the alphabet?

[47:54]

No, I think the wise person knows that the worm drew the letter of the alphabet, but the worm wasn't thinking, I'm going to make it an A. The deluded person thinks that the worm actually is a smart worm. This is like a super smart worm that knows, for example, the alphabet of Devanagari or the alphabet of of cuneiform or English. They don't. They don't think, oh, I'm gonna make an A now, as far as we know. But people maybe think they do. So the example is this false physician, he discovered this milk, but he didn't understand what he discovered. he discovered a medicine that would work for the king when the king got sick, but probably didn't work for almost anybody else as a medicine, and made them sick, and he didn't understand that.

[48:55]

Because he made the shape, he wormed his way into the situation and made this shape, the shape arose, but he didn't understand what he discovered. And so he used it inappropriately, namely for everybody. And the physician in the story didn't use milk for everybody. He didn't use milk for anybody until this one particular illness came, which just happened to be the king. But it could have been some other intelligent person who would notice that he was using the medicine that he banned. But now he banned it because people don't know how to use it. So he banned it, and he was waiting until it was the right time to use it, and then when the right time came, he used it, and then he got accused of being crazy, and then he explained that sometimes milk is really good medicine.

[49:58]

But he was comparing the false physician to the worm. that I didn't understand. And just like the worm doesn't know how to use the letters that he or she carved, they don't know how to use them. They don't know where they apply and where they don't apply. So I guess what I'm picturing is that someone might come along and look at a piece of wood with that shape on it and say, hey, it's the letter A. And then somebody else, a little bit smarter, Yeah, and we do that. And that's what the physician did. He used milk and other things, other shapes, he used them because he could see what people's illnesses were, and he used all these things which he knew how to use them.

[51:04]

You know, if you go out in the woods, you see all the things that nature has done, all the different plants it's made. but you have to study in order to know how to use the plants, and he did, and he also studied people so he knew what illnesses they had, and so he could make a language of medicine using natural materials in relationship to living beings, he could do that. But the king was saying, well, how come this physician came up with the milk? And he said, it's like a worm, or it's like a flower that bends over and makes the shape of a of a character. They don't know that they just made a Devanagari character. So the physician is trying to explain how the physician discovered something that can be used as medicine, but he didn't know how to use it. And some people do attribute intelligence to the worm's carving of it.

[52:08]

And some people might attribute wisdom to the physician who came up with the medicine, but obviously he did not have wisdom because he did not apply it. The Buddha, however, the great teacher, the great physician, does know when to use that thing and when not to. And now is the time to use it. So, I see Denise and Catherine and Denise. Denise? Well, I'm just going to say that it seems so much related to language. Yeah. That, you know, not to get stuck in one way or one word. And that how the literature paradox is used as a way of, you know, fixating on a definition or a word. Yeah, paradox and irony could be used to help us understand the proper way to use language, to not get stuck in it.

[53:13]

That would be part of a skillful use of language, is to know when paradox and irony were appropriate. Because irony can't work without not-irony. you have to say a non-embronic statement in order to then turn it into irony. Yes, Catherine? Q. Are you saying that permanence and self and joy and purity are the medicine so that there's a time to look at those things as real? I'm saying that, for example, self can sometimes be used as medicine, the teaching of self. And then the Buddha says, early on I proclaimed, you know, no self, and I did that because of the

[54:22]

because people lived in a time when there was this non-awakened tradition, non-awakened religions, which taught people a self without them understanding what it was. And so it caused illness, because the self was given without knowing who to give it to. It was given to everybody. It was given to the whole Indian population, but it's not suitable for everybody. Because if you give it, who's going to check with them about how they understand it? So you give it to somebody who's ready to understand it. This teaching is not for people who already have the idea of self in a deluded way. So the people who have a deluded understanding of self within that, right in association with that deluded understanding of self, they also possess the wisdom of the Buddhas.

[55:25]

But they have to have some teaching about, to show them that this is a misunderstanding of self, otherwise that misunderstanding of self hinders their realization of actually their actual situation. So the Buddha did that. He taught everybody about how all your ideas of self are like, wrong. So basically, a summary of the Buddhist teachings to us about our understanding of self, a summary of it, is no self, or not self. That's what you think self is? That's not self. So people do naturally, it's part of our natural conscious process that in consciousness there's a sense of self. I am here. Okay? That's natural. So for people like that, who say, I'm here, but don't understand what that I is, the Buddha said, no I, no self.

[56:30]

You don't understand what that is. So to get things started, I'm just going to say, not self. But the Buddha didn't say that there's not even the appearance of a self in consciousness. He's just saying, we don't understand it. And to help us understand it, he said, not that. Whatever you think it is, it's not what you think it is. And if people would accept that, which they did for a long time, they became somewhat more open and unhindered in their relationship with their given Buddha's wisdom. by letting go of their delusions about what their self is. After that, then the Buddhist said, well, that's good. Now I'm going to tell you about something I didn't tell you about before because you were so caught up in your delusions of self, I didn't want to use the word anymore. And now it's time for milk. Now I'm going to say, OK, self.

[57:34]

But what do I mean by self? I mean something that's actually pure, that's free of your ideas of what self is. And I've been talking to you about this for centuries, and now you're free of it, you're not addicted to it anymore. So again, self is endemic to consciousness, and we are addicted to certain understandings of it. So by gently massaging that addiction, we can let go of it, and now we have the self, and we don't adhere to our addictions about what it is, and now we're ready to hear a new teaching, which is both the Thagatagarbha teaching and also the teaching about what we mean by these four things. Yes, Bruce? Well, I was just wondering about what might be an example

[58:36]

You're wondering when it would be appropriate? Yeah, and all the Zen ancestors are wondering the same thing. They're watching. you know, when is it time to give the milk? And when is it time to give salt? And when is it time to give other medicines? So they're giving other medicines, but they don't always give the teaching of self, because the person's not ready. They're still maybe addicted to believing what they think the self is, so then the teacher is gonna give them, you know, ban that understanding. until when they let go of it, then they can give a teaching. So again, people who, you know, in the beginning mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers, people don't understand mountains and mountains are rivers and rivers, so they teach.

[59:45]

No mountains, no rivers, until they finally see, oh, the mountains are not the mountains I thought they were. The mountains I used to have are not there anymore. Okay? Then we're ready for the mountains again, but with a correct understanding. And the teacher is watching to see where the person's at in the process. If they're at the no mountains, no rivers stage, we might get ready to say, okay, one, two, three mountains and rivers again. There's a conversation going through the process all the way. So the Buddha is in conversation with people who believe that their idea of self and permanence is true. You know, in medicine, making the patient happy is often important, so that the doctor will sort of offer a delusion, because it's actually good for the person's health.

[60:51]

Like, you're going to be okay if the doctor doesn't tell the person something. I just don't quite understand what kind of situation would be in which the milk is offered. I mean, is it sort of like that? No, no, you might offer them delusion because you're telling them that you might offer them the milk because you say it's a panacea. or you might offer it to him because you think it's gonna be an opiate and, you know, turn their pain off for a while. So you might do that. But if you were really a skillful doctor, you might actually see, rather than give them a panacea, you might give them an appropriate medicine, just for their thing, which isn't gonna cure other medicines, or even cure you at other times. A skillful doctor can give you just the right thing. That takes a lot more skill than to give people panaceas.

[61:53]

which people, you know, I don't mind a panacea because it works for me too. And a couple of times they say, that works for me. Yes, what is your name again? Michael. So I used to not knowingly identify with my ego until I learned that I'm not my ego. Yeah? Yeah, it's kind of like that. So the Buddha is saying to you, you're not your ego, you're not the self you think you are, And as you accept that more and more, you get more and more ready to open to who you really are, who you truly are, which can be called a self.

[63:01]

However, we shouldn't tell that to people. If they're holding on to what their idea of self is, then if you tell them there's a self, they hold on all the tighter and feel all the more calm and good about it. and they start getting addicted to it, even more addicted to it, and more relaxed and complacent about it, and then setting up more conditions for more and more serious illness, you know, like psychosis. Yes. teaching now, you're thinking we ought to? Yup. Because me being ready has, how would I call it, has consequences for you. I'm ready to, like today, I'm ready to deal with what happened today when I brought this up. It's, you know, it's something new, right?

[64:10]

And this is just the beginning of it. I don't know how much longer I'm gonna keep doing this, but I think this is a new wave of teaching. This is new wave teaching. And I guess I feel like, in some ways I thought some new people were coming today, and I was a little concerned about them, but actually I realized, well, it's new to the old people too. So it's kind of new to everybody, so here it is. And again, I feel like this story about the milk, again, I got a new encouragement for how the Buddha, what Buddhism is usually thought of as Buddhism, is actually just part of Buddhism. That's why some people look at early Buddhism and then they hear about the Mahayana and they say, well, that's not Buddhism.

[65:14]

and some people hear about Zen and say, well, that's really cool, that Zen thing's cool, they have nice gardens and stuff, and their temples are really lovely, and they're pretty funny, too. But anyway, I don't think it's Buddhism. Like, for example, the mountains and rivers of the immediate present are the manifestation of the path of the ancient Buddhas. So the Shakyamuni Buddha didn't say that. So, but the Zen schools, some of the Zen schools say that the mountains and rivers of the present are the manifestation of the Buddha. Well, it's like, is that Buddhism? Is that way of talking about Buddha, Buddhism? Well, I don't know, it does sound different. And the mountains and rivers of the immediate present are going to be not mountains and rivers pretty soon. and then there are going to be mountains and rivers again. And these mountains and rivers, these mountains are like striding, striding along.

[66:22]

They're walking mountains. Is that Buddhism? Well, you know, I think you're ready for it. Yes? Yes, it did. Would it be right understanding to call ourselves True View Abode? So, rather than No Abode, could we say True View Abode? Well, again, that would be the New Wave. Because you're not ready for the New View Abode. Do you say New View Abode or New View? The New True View Abode. opens from no abode. So, first of all, we have self. We have our house.

[67:26]

First of all, we have beauty. First of all, we have permanence. This house, we're trying to hold this together, right? We're doing maintenance work. Gotta redo the roof, you know? Gotta get a new hot water heater right here. Okay? We're trying to make it permanent and joyful. Okay? Now, what we're going to do is we're not going to abide in any of that. We're going to ban all that stuff from any kind of abiding in it. Then we'll be ready for the true view. But if we abide in taking care of this place, if we cling to it, if we abide in, this is this, if we abide in the beauty of it and so on, then we're not ready for the true view. But when we're free of that addiction, then we're ready of the true view, which is

[68:32]

that we fully possess the wisdom and virtues of all the Buddhas. But that's not something to abide in either. But that's what we had in the beginning, you know? We were abiding in self, permanence, joy, and purity, beauty. We're already abiding in it. So the Buddha's trying to help us not abide in it, and when we are successfully in recovery from that addiction, then we can hear what originally would have just reinforced our addiction and have it not fall back into addiction again. So, round and round. Yes? I was trying this out. I was thinking about Bruce's question when you would give something that would be delusion So did I get that right? So I was thinking, if someone came to you, came to me, with a story about being traumatized, or something, at that moment I wouldn't try to talk them out of it, I might say, yes, I'm seeing it.

[69:52]

Well, in that case, the Buddha would give the appropriate medicine to that disease. but I wouldn't tell them there's no trauma, really. That wouldn't be the moment. You do know mountains. That's what I'm wondering. Go with empathy first. What? You go with empathy first. Yeah, empathy might be the appropriate medicine for that person. It would be kind of momentarily agreeing or substantiating? You might not be substantiating, you might just give what you thought was the appropriate medicine. And the person might be in the substantiating mode. Okay. And I wouldn't try to take that away. You would wish them to let go of it, but you wouldn't try to take it away.

[70:55]

you would be trying to not substantiate your giving the medicine to them. You'd give the medicine, hopefully without substantiating, in the self of that action. And maybe you actually wouldn't be abiding in the self of that action. So you actually might not be abiding in the self of the action of giving them that medicine. You might be not abiding in it. And because you're not abiding in it, you might realize that you're giving them the self of giving them the medicine. And you wouldn't be abiding in that either. However, they wouldn't know that you're giving them the self they would be probably thinking that what you gave them was their idea of the self of the medicine. That their idea of what you just did was what they think you did.

[71:58]

I think it's 1235? So, is that, can we call this session number one? Of the new wave? Yes? I wanna, if it's clarifying, or if it's correct, the word delusion came up a couple of times. If my understanding is right, the first version of mountains is mountains, you might call delusion. But then the second version of it is not delusion, it's just a fuller understanding. You mean the version after no mountains? It's not delusion. It's a correct understanding of mountains and rivers that is revealed when you give up your idea of mountains and rivers, which is like no mountains and rivers. and you didn't trash the delusions, you let them be, and you let the delusions be delusions, and then there's no more of that.

[73:15]

But not because you did anything with it, you just see, oh, that's not really there, that was just a delusion I had about who I am and who you are. But I'm over that now. So because I'm over it, nice to meet you.

[73:31]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ