Once upon a time a monk asked Fa Yin, I hear in the teachings there is a saying, from a non-abiding basis are established all things. And he said, what is the non-abiding basis? And Fa Yan answered with actually partially quoting another scripture. Well, it may not exactly be a scripture, a treatise, a shastra. From form arises before substantiation. Names arise before naming. Once forms and names appear, floating mists disturb clarity.

[01:06]

And so what is the non-abiding basis? Fall into non-abiding. All things are non-abiding. What is the non-abiding basis upon which all things are established? Active consciousness. Active consciousness. Well, you know, in a way. So active consciousness is one possible thing upon which all things are established, and then one step back from that would be... Impermanence. Impermanence? Who said that? I did. Emptiness, impermanence, well, we already have been told that the basis is non-abiding, okay? So impermanence is an adjective. Is it an adjective?

[02:14]

It's a noun. Impermanent, an impermanent basis. All things are established on an impermanent basis. What is that basis? Stuart says it's karmic act of consciousness. So it's in terms of the dependable arising, the traditional Buddhist teaching is based on ignorance, karmic formations arise. Do you know about that? I don't know that I'm very familiar with teaching. Yeah. So that's one of the early teachings of the Buddha, is based on ignorance. Depending on ignorance, common formations arise. So one sung-jao ...

[03:22]

Sungjiao suggests that the non-abiding basis is fundamental ignorance. So this is fairly classical Buddhist teaching, that all things are established upon ignorance. basic ignorance. But when we say basic or fundamental, we don't understand that that's some kind of substantial, permanent ignorance. Ignorance is a non-abiding... It's a non-abiding thing, just like every other phenomenon, most other phenomena, it's a non-abiding... So based on ignorance, all things are established. One person said maybe that based on emptiness all things were established.

[04:28]

And you said based on impermanence all things were established. In a way I would say emptiness doesn't establish things. It's a basis. Emptiness is not a basis. It's a non-basis. It's not a non-basis. Ignorance is the basis, and it's impermanent. Impermanence doesn't establish things either. Impermanence is the character of what does establish things. Ignorance establishes things. And ignorance is impermanent, and ignorance is empty. But emptiness does not establish things. That isn't what all things depend on. All things are marked by emptiness, but they aren't established on the basis of emptiness. And they aren't established on the basis of impermanence.

[05:34]

But the thing they are established on the basis of is impermanence. So you could say indirectly, or you could also say indirectly. things are established on the basis of emptiness and impermanence. But actually, the thing that's taking the rap is ignorance. And then, based on ignorance, we have comic formations. So that's pretty much straightforward stuff. Which, although straightforward, is maybe not that easy to realize this, because realizing it would involve, actually, realizing ignorance, which is very subtle, hard for us to understand ignorance. But that's highly recommended, that we would understand ignorance. Yes? In the text, it says, I mastered some child. It was the first move in thought, fundamental ignorance.

[06:37]

And I'm wondering, I'm wondering what is the meaning of the first moving thought. I was interpreting that as karmic consciousness or active consciousness. Yeah, I thought that would be, you know, that you were referring to there. Is ignorance a thought movement? And I would say it's a thought movement in the sense that ignorance is a phenomena that arises. So the first movement of thought, actually, you might think would be ignorance, because no other phenomena can arise. So the first phenomena, the first thought must be ignorance. And is that a product of karmic consciousness or a function of karmic consciousness?

[07:42]

Well, the whole dependent arising thing is an independence. So depending on ignorance, karmic formations arise. Depending on karmic formation, dualistic consciousness arises. Depending on dualistic consciousness, psychophysical personality arises. Okay? But you could also say, depending on psychophysical personality, dualistic consciousness arises. And depending on dualistic consciousness, karmic formations arise. And depending on karmic formations, ignorance arises. Because, and also with the ceasing of ignorance, so the way the Buddha first tells it is, depending on number one, you get number two. Depending on number two, you get number three. Depending on non-abiding basis, you have the arising of something and actually everything. But the first thing we're going to mention is karmic formations. Okay? With the ceasing of fundamental ignorance, with the ceasing of ignorance, with the ceasing of this non-abiding basis of everything, in particular with the ceasing of the non-abiding basis of karmic formations, there will be the ceasing of karmic formations.

[08:51]

Okay? Is everybody following this? With the ceasing of ignorance, there's a ceasing of karma formations. Was that the last thing I said? Besides, does everybody get this? Did you hear that? You get it? Okay, got it? Those are the big two. Number one and number two. Okay? With... Now, and depending on ignorance, you can get karmic formations. The Buddha, by the way, did not say, just thought I might mention this, the Buddha did not say, when you get ignorance, you get karmic formations. He didn't say that. He said, depending on ignorance, if you depend on ignorance, ladies and gentlemen, you can get karmic formations.

[09:55]

Huh? Well, I don't know the then. I don't know if I've said enough for it to be then yet, but you're right. They are interdependent. But so far all I've talked about is how they're dependent. You know, the right conclusion is kind of an intuitive leap there. It just happened to be right. But I just thought I might mention, which I wasn't intending to, that Karmic formations and dualistic consciousness and all that stuff up to suffering, anyway, karmic formations arise depending on ignorance. Depending on ignorance, karmic formations arise. But he didn't say, when you have ignorance, you have karmic formations. It's possible it would be ignorance, but no karmic formations would arise. Is that shamatha? No. No. Yes?

[10:59]

So to realize ignorance, there's karmic formation for it. How could you realize ignorance? Good question. The implication of your question, the way you're going with that, is wrong. It's wrong? I mean, you're suggesting that you wouldn't be able to without Right. Isn't that the vector of that? Well, in fact, ladies and gentlemen, that's very important. I didn't mean to get into this, but anyway. In fact, before I enter, I'll just tell you. Depending on ignorance, there's a rising of karmic formations. When karmic formations arise, they must depend on ignorance. But ignorance doesn't mean karmic formations will arise. But when they arise, you know you must have ignorance. With the ceasing of ignorance, you don't get to have any more karmic formations.

[12:05]

Sorry. Maybe that's okay. Anyway, take away no ignorance. With the ceasing of ignorance, you have the ceasing of karmic formation. Got those two? Ceasing of ignorance, ceasing of karmic formations, and the rest of it also. Because with the ceasing of karmic formations, you have the ceasing of dualistic consciousness. With the ceasing of dualistic consciousness, you have the ceasing of psychophysical personality, blah, blah, blah. You have the ceasing of suffering. Okay? Now, this is the part that not too many people hear about. With the ceasing of karmic formations, there's a ceasing of ignorance. Although ignorance doesn't necessarily mean that there will be karmic formations, once there are karmic formations and they cease, then you understand ignorance. So it's very important that we find a way for karmic formations to cease, because when karmic formations cease, ignorance ceases, which means we understand ignorance.

[13:11]

It's because of karmic formations that we don't understand ignorance very well. Because of karmic formations we have dualistic consciousness. Because of dualistic consciousness it's hard for us to understand ignorance. Because of dualistic consciousness we have psychophysical personality. So if you've got a psychophysical personality and you've got dualistic consciousness and karmic formations, it's pretty hard to study ignorance. So, these three have to cease, in a way, for us to understand ignorance. So it goes, when you've got this, you can have that. When this ceases, that ceases. But also, when that ceases, this ceases. And also, when you have karmic formations, you have ignorance. So, depending on karmic formations, ignorance arises. So it goes, the productive cycle goes both directions, and the ceasing cycles go both directions, but it's not a direct, you know, a causal thing, it's a dependence.

[14:20]

Okay? So this monk's asking about, he didn't necessarily know it, but he's asking about In the sutras it says that everything is established on this basis. What is this basis? In other words, he's asking, what is ignorance? And the teacher then shows him what ignorance is. But it's hard to see ignorance, so even though he showed him, it's hard to see it. Form arises before substantiation. Names arise before naming. Yes? Yes. I don't know if it's good to ask this. I think of ignorance already as a karmic formation. You think of ignorance as a karmic formation? Ignorance is actually a...

[15:29]

is actually a kind of understanding, it's a consciousness, it's a misconception. Karmic formations are like tendencies of mind, dispositions, inclinations, biases, and not just conceptually but emotionally. it's actually a pattern of mind that's shaped in a certain way, which includes this misconception. So once there's this misconception, then there will be a shape, a mind will be shaped by that misconception in a way that there will be apparently, you know, self and other and so on, and action done by, you know, one side of the picture. and so then they can be dualistic conscious and so on.

[16:35]

What's an example of ignorance without doubt for me? What's an example of it? That was an example, the best I could do. I didn't use any karmic formations on that thing back there. But now that I think about it, it was pretty good. So would ignorance, would delusion be a synonym for ignorance? Yeah, basically, except this is not just any old delusion, this is the basic one. This is the first one. You can generate a zillion... Based on this first one, and we were talking this morning at a priest meeting about different versions of what the first one is, We want to find the first one, the most basic, the most subtle, you know, because that's the linchpin of the rest of them.

[17:44]

Pull that one out, they all will flop. But based on that first one, you can make delusions wherever. There's no limit to the delusions. So delusion is a synonym for ignorance, but we're talking about the first ignorance, the basic one, the fundamental one. And then again, what's the basis of that? It has no basis. And the fact that it has no basis is emptiness, but it's based on the fact that it doesn't have a basis. You don't make the fact that it doesn't have a basis into a basis. Do not do that. That's against the rules, the no-basis rules. It doesn't have a basis. Ignorance doesn't have a basis. Also, by the way, of course, karmic formations don't have a basis. Nothing has a basis. But when we're talking about all the things that grow up out of fundamental ignorance, we know that they depend on fundamental ignorance, but fundamental ignorance isn't their basis.

[18:44]

It's just that they depend on it. See the difference? And fundamental ignorance doesn't have a basis, but it doesn't mean it doesn't depend on anything, because in fact it does depend on karmic formations and so on. It does depend on the cycle, and that's part of what we need to understand about it. And we need to become free of the cycle to some extent before we can understand that. So that's why this monk's asking the question. He wants to understand ignorance. He wants to understand the basis upon which all things are established. And then the teacher partially quotes this treatise. Forms arise before substantiation. Names arise before naming. And we've spent several months on this So now we're going to move on to the verse. But before we get to the verse, I just thought I might read this part. And Pat Leonetti told me after the class that part of what she was referring to in her comment was the way Reverend Sway Du was talking.

[19:59]

So after, you know, Fa Yen's answer, like I said, came from quoting the Jewel Treasury Treatise, and then Sui Du is quoted as raising his staff and saying, everyone, this staff brings up both form and name together. Form is formless, name is nameless, okay? Okay? That sounds like form is emptiness, doesn't it? It does to me, I don't know about you, but it sounds like he's saying form is emptiness and names are empty. What are names empty of? Name. What is form empty of? Form. It's empty of itself. It's not empty of existence. It's empty of its own self. So anyway, he's just mentioning that, which, of course, all Zen students know that teaching anyway.

[21:07]

They may not understand it, but they know that teaching. And then he says, after saying that, he said, you're a bunch of blind people. Without any perception, you only recognize that which is formless and seamless and take it to be the ultimate principle. Well, this is understandable, that they would take the formless as the ultimate principle because the formless is ultimate truth. I mean, emptiness is ultimate truth. But the problem is, it sounds like what he's saying, if you people, you Zen monks, you take this teaching of emptiness and you grasp it, and you only see emptiness. That's what it sounds like to me. He's criticizing him for that because they're developing this terrible disease which is called developing a view of emptiness. So, you know, there's Zen monks, they know that they're supposed to be into emptiness, so they are.

[22:17]

But then they only see emptiness. They hold the view of emptiness, so then they become blind. And then he says, you turn your back on Fa Yan. So the monk asks, you know, what's ignorance? And so what does Fa Yan do? What does he come back with? He comes back with this thing. Warmerizes before and self-substantiation, blah, blah, blah. And then again, sort of to follow this line, he quotes the Zen monk Yan Shou, who says, there is not a single name that does not broadcast an epithet of the Buddha. There is not a single thing that doesn't express the reality body of the Buddha Vajrachan. So all these forms which arise which are established upon a non-abiding basis, all these forms which are established based on what?

[23:34]

Ignorance. Ignorance. How did you know that? What? You told me. I told you and then you remembered? Yeah, I actually remember. And you agree with that? My mind is working with it. Okay, so these forms which are established on this ignorance, okay, and they're empty, okay, what else are they, besides being established based on ignorance? What else are they saying about it now? They're manifestation. What? No. Take another guess. You're close. What? They're telling you about Buddha. They're names of Buddha, they're epithets of Buddha.

[24:35]

They're all teaching you about Buddha. These things which, all these things that arise depending on ignorance, then once they arise, every single one of them is teaching you the dharmakaya. It's not teaching you the sambolikaya. It's not teaching you the nirmanakaya. It's not teaching you... What? Is it the absolute? No, it's not the absolute. No. No. I don't think so, anyway. If you have an absolute, let me know. Okay? Well, the truth, the absolute truth. If you have an absolute truth, let me know. Okay? Emptiness? The dharmakaya is not emptiness. You know what the dharmakaya is? I thought it would be up to you.

[25:44]

Do you know what the Dharmakaya is? Forms? What did it just say, what it was? It's forms. It is forms. I thought it was formless. You thought it was formless? It is! It is formless. So, and as I said, it was forms, but, you know, it's not just forms. It's every single form in the entire universe. It's everything in the universe. And it's not just everything in the universe, the way you think of everything in the universe. You know, like, if you think, you know, there's black holes over there, you know, you might be right, but the way you think about black holes is not the way they are. The way, actually, the way everything is in the entire universe, that's the dharmakaya. And you can call that the absolute if you want to. Or empty. Huh? Or empty. You can call that what? Empty. Oh, and the dharmakaya is empty.

[26:45]

That's for sure. Everything's empty. The black holes. The black holes are empty. But the dharmakaya is everything, so that's why everything shows you the dharmakaya. All these things in the universe that arise on the basis of ignorance. Black holes, by the way, arise depending on ignorance. They're established depending on ignorance. Okay? You and me, everything, are established based on ignorance, according to this teaching here, right? All those things, all of them, are the dharmakaya. So there's some tendency, once you hear that everything's based on ignorance, to devalue them and switch over to think that emptiness is really swell, which it is. But then to, like, be an emptiness freak and have the view of emptiness. But then you don't see that if you stay over on that side very long, you don't see that all forms and names are telling you about Buddha.

[27:47]

Now, if you want to say, well, to me, when I hear about the Dharmakaya being like that, the Dharmakaya is that everything is teaching you Buddha. If you want to call it absolute, you can, but I'd rather not call it that. And if absolute's a word, then that also tells you about the Dhammakaya. But the relative also tells you about the Dhammakaya. Everything tells you about the Dhammakaya. Everything teaches you. Is that okay? Do you want to call that absolute? I would say it seems that you're constricting it by calling it that. Because this absolute is all the relative things, too. and not like the relative things like they're telling you less about what's going on than the Absolute. To me it's not so much that even though you might say, well, that sounds like a pretty big picture, a pretty complete picture of the way things are, it's the whole universe after all, so that must be the Absolute.

[28:55]

But it's not just the Absolute, it's the Absolute as it teaches you about wisdom and compassion, and that everything's offering me that opportunity. And again you say, well, that's what I'd call the Absolute. Would you like to call the Absolute? I'd just call the Dharmakaya and say that's what the Dharmakaya does for you. So this is being said because some people hearing this story about that all this stuff is established based on ignorance might devalue something. Now, of course, a lot of people who haven't even heard about things being established based on ignorance this non-abiding basis, they already devalue some things, right? Just an ordinary person on the street devalues this and devalues that and devalues this and devalues that, right? But now if you hear this teaching, you may have a new reason for devaluing some things. As a matter of fact, you might have a new reason for devaluing everything. Instead of just devaluing some things, now you can devalue everything because everything is based on ignorance.

[30:00]

or established based on ignorance, based on impermanent ignorance. So you might devalue things and say, hey, I'm switching over to emptiness, because emptiness is ultimate truth. I'm switching over to formlessness and namelessness. And Suedu is saying, uh-uh, don't do that. You turn away from Pha Yin. Pha Yin didn't do that, he thinks. So this is like, this kind of talk leads up to the verse. Doesn't it? Well, there's one more little section. And this is kind of difficult, this next paragraph. Maybe we should skip it, right, Elenia? It's actually just, I like this paragraph, but it's a little tricky. Huh? Want to skip it? I can see why. I'd like to skip it too, actually, but it's also kind of neat.

[31:03]

So, should we skip it? No. Okay, if you don't want to. You sure you don't want to? I don't know. Okay. Anyway, so he's saying, you know, he's quoting Sway Dhu saying, you people, you know, you're just sort of going for the formless and the nameless and blah, blah, blah. And you take that formless and nameless to be the ultimate principle. Well, it is the ultimate principle. So that's not so bad, right? Problem is they take it as the ultimate principle. You're not supposed to take the ultimate principle as the ultimate principle. Does that make sense? You're not supposed to take the ultimate principle as the ultimate principle. You're not supposed to take emptiness as emptiness. Reaffine that. Yeah. Emptiness is emptiness, of course, but you're not supposed to take it as emptiness because then you're taking emptiness as though emptiness were something you could take.

[32:10]

But emptiness isn't something you can take. Emptiness is you can't take anything. So then you don't want to take that. Yeah, remember, emptiness is empty too, so you can't take emptiness, which is the ultimate principle, as the ultimate principle. You're not supposed to do that. People sometimes do. And then Zen teachers get upset. And even Nagarjuna... who was usually quite cool, got kind of upset about this. He says these people are incurable. They're incurable, these people who take emptiness as the ultimate principle. The people who take the ultimate principle as the ultimate principle, you can't teach them. Now, people who have not even seen the ultimate principle, you can teach them the ultimate principle. And then they're all set, as long as they don't then take it. Does this make sense to everybody? The next part, we have these kind of guys, these kind of smarty-pantses who realize emptiness and they take it.

[33:21]

They're in real trouble. Then we have these other kind of people. They're also the kind who study alone and are poor in learning. who do not consent to investigate the inner principle with penetrating questioning. Now, this is more common and not so dangerous, although certainly despicable. But these people, you know, it's like, you know, these people can be helped. They're just like, you know, lazy. Why are they lazy? They don't want to investigate the inner principle with penetrating questioning. These kind of people are quite common. They go around like, yeah, inner principle, fine, see you later. Do you have any questions? No. I'm okay. No questions about the inner principle? You don't want to penetrate this? Well, if I have to.

[34:23]

Anyway, there's those kinds of people, and they say, basically, what is there? I mean, you know, why should I go to the trouble of penetrating, because basically, what is there? What should I do? That's the question. Well, at least there's a question. you're saving it's nick of time i didn't even notice that was a question but thanks for pointing out that it was so you're not one of these people so then uh this this monk says i say already too much you know you say basically what is it already too much too much we don't need you to say that We already know what is there. Okay, then they say, how do you avoid it? I say, basically, what is lacking?

[35:24]

Just understand in this way. Avoid these ways, these trips. And as you seek fayin, You also see Tien Tung. So now we're ready for Tien Tung. What's the matter, Anna? Do you have a headache? What? What gave you a headache? No. What it means to, as you seek out Pha Yen, you also, you will also seek. I don't know the difference. Oh, the difference between Pha Yen and Tien Tung? Phal Yen's the guy at the beginning of the story, right? Yeah, well... Okay, so if you have this kind of understanding here, so the kind of understanding I want to have is, first of all, you don't want to, like, have a view of emptiness. And then you understand what's wrong with the way these monks are in the next paragraph. And with that understanding, you study Fa Yan.

[36:27]

And when you study Fa Yan, that understanding, then you can also now study, you'll be able to understand Tien Tung. That's the way I understand it. Okay, so that's not coming up. Well, can tongues not coming out? Yeah. Yeah. But what he's saying to you is that if you look at Fa Yan, if you want to understand Fa Yan, which has been presented above, and you approach Fa Yan in this way, in other words, you don't turn your back on Fa Yan, and you don't get into these other things of like, like saying, what is there? You know, I'm not going to investigate this Fa Yan guy. I don't have questions about Fa Yan. You're not going to get into that way of being, are you? And in this other way, you're not going to get into that either, about avoiding something, are you? Okay? With that attitude, plus not grasping emptiness as the ultimate, then if you look at Fa Yan, you'll see Tien Tung.

[37:29]

That's what he's saying, that you'll be able to see Tien Tung. You'll be able to understand the verse, in other words. So here's the verse, more or less. No news without tracks. Eliminating footprints. No news. Stopping communication. What's that about? Good. And then we have white clouds are rootless.

[38:33]

What color is the pure breeze? Spreading the canopy of the sky, mindless. holding the carriage of the earth powerful, illuminating the profound source of a thousand ages, making pattern for 10,000 forms, meetings for enlightenment in the atoms of all land, Each place is Samantabhadra. Opening, excuse me, the door of the tower opens. Everywhere is Maitreya. And the commentator has this interesting thing here.

[39:43]

I think it's interesting. He makes kind of a lineage of this poem. And the lineage is, what he makes up is... Well, first of all, this is interesting because he's making up this lineage, right? Like we have also made up the lineage of Zen teachers, he's making up the lineage of this poem. And the lineage of this poem is yin-ju. asked a Chinese lord named Liu Yuduan, he asked the lord, where does the rain come from? Excuse me, the lord asked Yunzhu, where does the rain come from? I guess strictly speaking, actually the first person in this lineage is this conversation. Where does the rain come from? Yunzhu said, it comes from your question. Good place to start.

[40:47]

The Lord was delighted and thanked him. Yinzhi asked back, Where does the question come from? The Lord said, Nothing. So that's the first thing. That's, you know... Right. Next is Shichun was sitting with another official and asked, what is the color of wind? So there's the next line. And then Suidu, then Yunmen helps answer the question. by saying, this preacher is falling into words. And then Sui Du comes in and writes two poems, which bring in the business about Maitreya. And you can also... In fact, I don't see where you might say Samantabhadra came from in this lineage.

[41:58]

But anyway, there's a lineage for what Tien Tung is referring to to make his poem. He's got this little lineage in his mind, and he used this to write this poem. And another thing which I thought was interesting that the commentator said is that when Tien Tung writes, clouds are rootless... what color is the pure breeze, he's praising, he's speaking of the virtues of ignorance. And when he says, spreading the canopy of the sky, mindless, holding the carriage of earth with power, he's praising the virtues of all things. But I particularly like that he's praising the virtues or he's praising and eulogizing ignorance.

[43:01]

So he's praising both ignorance and all things which are established based on ignorance. And all things which are established based on ignorance. Yes? You don't see how... Well, that's what the commentator was saying, right? He's saying that that line spreading the canopy... Excuse me. White clouds are rootless. What is the color of the pure breeze? You're saying that praises the virtues of the roots? I'm saying that's what the commentator is saying. That is praising the non-abiding basis. Yes. Well, there's two things. One is, how does it relate to non-abiding basis, and why is it praised? It's a non-abiding basis because the story says, what is the color of the wind? What is the color of the wind?

[44:05]

What's the answer? Shopping in the city. Right. And what's the other one? The other one, where does the rain come from? Where does the rain come from? May I? But I appreciate the idea, whether you see the connection or not, the idea that the commentator feels like Tantung is, with the third through the sixth lines, he's praising first of all the non-abiding basis, ignorance, and then he's praising all things. And then the next two lines, in some sense, he's continuing to praise ignorance by calling ignorance, well, not exactly calling ignorance, but now he's talking about what we need to do.

[45:17]

We need to illuminate the profound source of a thousand ages. We need to illuminate the profound source of a thousand ages, making patterns for ten thousand forms. We need to eliminate this profound source from over the ages which makes the 10,000 forms. We need to eliminate the source that makes the forms and see the source making the forms. In other words, we need to illuminate, depending on ignorance, karmic formations. Depending on karmic formations, dualistic consciousness. This is the ancient source. And then all the ten thousand forms come from you. We need to illuminate this.

[46:18]

This poem is illuminating that. for enlightenment in the atoms of all lands. Each place is Samantabhadra. The door to the tower opens. Everywhere is Maitreya. Does that happen after you illuminate the source? Does what happen after? You don't just see the door of the tower opening and then you see the door of the tower opening and in there you see like 10.6 trillion Buddha lands and in each Buddha land there's a Maitreya opening doors for you and you get to scamper in all the beautiful

[47:24]

playgrounds and all those illuminated worlds and your tour guide is Maitreya. It isn't just that you see that opening for everywhere. And it isn't just that everywhere and in everything you meet Samantabhadra. The line before is very important. You have to illuminate the source. You have to illuminate ignorance. When you illuminate ignorance, then you see this. Then you see this. So you have to illuminate ignorance. Fortunately, you've got ignorance, now you have to illuminate. And ignorance is close, is intimately connected with all forms. Ignorance may be hard to find, it's very subtle, but all forms are rising in dependence on it, so the forms are right near the ignorance. Which is again, ladies and gentlemen, what? The forms are near the ignorance. What's that? What is that? that places for meeting enlightenment are in every atom.

[48:31]

Because every form is right near the thing you need to see. You need to study ignorance. All forms are right there. So you see, enlightenment's nested the opportunity of meeting enlightenment in each thing, according to this. But each thing is connected to ignorance. So you have to look at each thing and then you have to see ignorance. And that's where the enlightenment happens. That's where you meet Samantabhadra. And that's where Maitreya opens the door for you. Already Samantabhadra is there waiting to meet us. Already Maitreya is opening the door. But because we don't like to get too close to ignorance... And because we don't want to get too close to forms which arise based on ignorance, we don't get to see Samantabhadra. And again, it's understandable that we don't want to because it's difficult because, you know, everything's kind of a mess. And there's pain all around this ignorance and these...all these places are...have pain associated with them, so it's hard to, like, study them.

[49:40]

Do you feel encouraged to do so? Following mental elaborations is a path to learning. Following mental elaborations? Yeah. Yeah, but before you follow mental elaborations, don't get involved with them. Because already you've been following them, and because you've been following them, or, you know, by you I mean we, we've been following mental elaborations, and because we follow mental elaborations, we're so excited that we have trouble, like, studying forms and seeing the ignorance which they depend on. So the first step in the study process is mental stabilization, which means don't get involved in all these mental elaborations. That will help you become closer to them. Or put it the other way, becoming intimate with these mental elaborations, you don't follow them.

[50:46]

You may be their attendant, but you don't get involved with those things which you serve. And by becoming intimate with these mental elaborations, you're becoming intimate with the forms which arise in dependence on the non-abiding basis. So except for the last couple of lines of this thing, I think we're OK now. I think we're finished. Any more questions about this case? I have a question. Yes, Mary? How would you suggest, I guess just when you're talking about investigating beginner principles, I have a training question. What's the question? Could you give me a question? What's the question? You're looking for something.

[51:50]

You're doing it already. And you're looking for something other than what you're doing. Okay? Did that help? Don't look down there. You just did it. and you were looking for something other than what you were doing. So that's one of the first principles, is don't look for something other than what you're doing to do this practice. And particularly, when you're asking questions, don't look for a way to ask questions. What's louder, please? I'm just repeating what you're trying to say. That's okay. Try to, you know, like, what do you call it, imbibe this wonderful instruction, which is, when you're asking questions, be there for the question that you just asked. And remember that I told you that there's the way right there. Because there's the form. And not only that, but it is a question of all things.

[52:50]

Not to say questions are better than not questions, but anyway, there it was. And there was, in your questioning, not just a form, but there was a gesture of how to get closer to something. So you were really on the beam there, except that you were looking for something other than what you were doing, which throws you a little bit away from being intimate with the form and the words and the names that you're playing with at that time. It leaves one almost speechless. Yes, it leaves one almost speechless, even while someone is speaking. Because the practice is not the thing you're saying. The practice is being intimate with what you're saying. And the practice is not only being intimate with what you're saying, but even hearing the question in what you're saying. Because questions don't have to throw you farther away from what's going on. They can be more like a kind of looking for the... looking for how it's happening for you right now.

[53:56]

This is also about how not to get involved with the conceptual experiences that you're having. and this will then help you enter into the illumination of the source of the forms which you're aware of. If we're not intimately and mindfully working with the forms that we're aware of and how we're aware of them, then we, to the distance we are from the forms, we're also distancing ourself from the non-abiding basis. When the forms which arise, which are established based on this alana body basis, when they are illuminated, the basis is illuminated. When the basis is illuminated, then we understand that this place here, with this form, based on this ignorance, this is a site of enlightenment. This is a place where the door opens. Are you encouraged to do this kind of practice?

[55:06]

This is like, it's quite available. And we have all these people in our lives, each one of which is an opportunity to, like, there's the form, there's the name, and the non-body source is right there because they're established. The establishment of this face, of this person, is on this basis. So you're right there with what you need to be working on all the time. Yeah? I'm just wondering if humans have always had this ignorance. Did some of our ancestors a long, long time ago, did they not have this problem? Yes, at some point people used to have not such excellent ignorance as we have now.

[56:06]

So the ignorance we have now is really... It's really fun. Yeah, it's really great. So we have this wonderful universe now. And they used to have a slightly less lower quality universe. So not such highly developed ignorance. That's what we see. To them it was just as good a quality. No, that's just what I'm saying. Right. I don't receive this. Right. That's just the words that are coming based on this ignorance. Denny? Do we want the ignorance to end? Do we? Do we want to end? Well, it depends on what you mean by end. Do we have to agree on the answer to that? Do we have to agree on the answer to his question?

[57:09]

Yeah. Do we have to agree on it, did you say? He said do we. Oh, we. He said do we. Do we. So you're wondering, well, since you said do we, he's actually also asking you. Right. So after I answer, then you can answer. And maybe before I answer, you could answer. What would you like to say to Danny about that one? Did you say no? I did. What does that mean? It means I don't want it to end. It means you don't want it to end. Again, like I said to him, what do you, since you're talking, what do you mean by end? Well, just a second, I'll come back to you. What do you mean by end? Well, by understanding ignorance, isn't that the end of ignorance?

[58:12]

Well, again, you'll hear those expressions like end of suffering. Well, I've heard the Buddha talk about the end of suffering, right? Or maybe even, yeah, the end of suffering, okay? And I haven't heard the end of ignorance, but probably that was said too, because you just said it, didn't you? So you probably said it before you, at least in some foreign language. So the question is, what do you mean by end of ignorance, and what do you mean by end of suffering, and what do you mean by end of, well, that's those two. What do you mean by end? Do you mean cease? Do you want ignorance to cease? You could ask that question. Cease is not the same necessarily as end. If you mean end like annihilate, if you want that, then you should like take, calm down. Wanting some things to be annihilated is not recommended in the Buddha way. Because wanting things to be annihilated is wanting things to be the way they aren't, ever.

[59:16]

Things are not annihilated. Wanting things to last is also not recommended to get into that. We're supposed to try to learn how to avoid thinking in terms of things being annihilated ended, or things lasting. To want something to cease, that's a little different. It's like, can I have a break, please? A little break? Could we have this stop for a minute? So the ceasing of ignorance is one of the basic possibilities of Buddhism, that ignorance could cease. But end, or be annihilated, well, nothing is annihilated. What does cease mean? What does cease mean? How about disappear for a little while? How about lose its function? How about be lame? How about a lame ignorance? I can manage that.

[60:19]

Like for example, something arises, you know, and then the way it arises stops happening and it ceases. But that doesn't mean that it's annihilated, that it's completely gone. Because it wasn't completely there when it arose either. But if you think it's completely there when it arises, then you could think that it would completely disappear. But when you understand that something that comes up isn't like really substantially there, then you can understand, like T.S. Eliot says, how can there be an end to a drifting wreckage? A drifting wreckage. How can there be an end to a drifting wreckage like us? It's understanding ignorance. So it's understanding ignorance. So what's understanding ignorance? Cease. The ceasing of ignorance is understanding ignorance, right. When you understand the way ignorance is, namely if you understood that ignorance does not really exist and is not really non-existent, then you would understand it.

[61:19]

That would be the ceasing of ignorance. Because what you want is the ceasing of the ignorance which is probably either ignorance that can be eliminated or that can last. That's another aspect of ignorance. Okay? Isn't that swell? So if you want ignorance to end, what you mean by cease, we want ignorance to cease, we can say, yes, we'd like ignorance to cease, but that's the same as, I would like to understand ignorance. And why would I want to understand ignorance? Well, I don't answer why questions. How come I want ignorance to end? What's the good of ignorance ending? Or ceasing? What's the good of it? That's Buddhahood. It's the ceasing of it. Why is it the ceasing of it? Because it's the understanding of it. So I want to understand ignorance, don't you? So get into understanding ignorance. And that entails the ceasing of ignorance. Now, do we want to understand ignorance? Amy?

[62:20]

Well, speaking for everybody in the room. Do you want to understand ignorance? Yeah. So can't we get behind that understanding ignorance, which is Buddha? And then it turns out that when you understand it, all your understandings, previous understandings of what it was, all those kinds of ignorance, they cease. Because you don't understand it that way anymore. So all those understandings cease. But ignorance, you understand. So you understand that ignorance isn't something that ends or lasts. And nothing else is like that either. But by thinking that things do end or last and grasping that, then you can have things arise. So this is what we want to understand, right? That's what this case is encouraging. I don't remember what it was. Could somebody play that back on the tape, please? So in Bodhisattva's ceremony, it's a beginning that's great.

[63:26]

Yeah, beginningless. There's nothing about it ending. It's just beginningless. It's just beginningless. There's nothing about it ending. But there's another vow. I vow to end them. Oh, I forgot about that. It's his translation. Oh, it's his translation. He knows more Chinese than he looks. Yes? Is ignorance limited to humans? No, it's not. However, we have certain varieties that other animals do not have. How so? We have language. So for us, ignorance is... Well, ignorance is not language, but based on ignorance we have created discriminating consciousness, and with discriminating consciousness we now have words.

[64:31]

So the blossoms of ignorance, we have grown some forms of ignorance that no other animals have, like the ignorance of language. Is the understanding that limited to him? Pardon? The understanding of ignorance? Well, I have not seen myself any evidence of other animals understanding ignorance yet. I have not seen or heard of it. And part of the story about why other animals have trouble understanding ignorance is that they don't have this dharma which directs, which encourages them to look at their ignorance and find it. And human beings who do not study their ignorance continue to be ignorant. Ignorance thrives in non-inquiry or non-study. So other animals do not seem to be encouraging each other to look at their ignorance, but they're ignorant too.

[65:37]

Ignorance is pre-verbal. Verbiage is a derivative of ignorance, but then once you have words, words can, like, talk you into, like, turning around and looking at them. So I hadn't seen signs of other animals meditating on themselves, even though other animals are totally lovely and teaching the Dharma. Not all Dharma teachers, not all things that are teaching Dharma are themselves studying their own ignorance, if they're, you know, ignorant beings. Can you give us an example of an animal delusion, then? Well, I often talk about this little dog I live with. She's totally... She's got a lot of the equipment that we've got better than we've got it. She's so alert, and she's so energetic, and she's so enthusiastic. She's just so adorable in those ways, and she's teaching us all the time. And she's always teaching this, but she herself is, you know, a nervous wreck.

[66:44]

She's really frightened almost all the time, and she's unhappy and scared when she's frightened. I mean, she's really, truly scared and nervous and afraid of being abandoned. Sounds like me. She's a lot like a lot of people in a lot of ways, but more. But the thing she doesn't have is I have no clue about how to direct her attention back to her fear. All I feel like doing with her basically is making her feel comfortable by basically conveying to her that I'm never going to abandon her, that this is an illusion. She's not going to be abandoned. And in fact... When I'm around, she's not quite as scared. But when I'm not around and she's with my wife, she's just scared to death that my wife's going to leave her. And sometimes with Diana, she's not scared because usually Diana doesn't leave her. But sometimes with Diana, too, she gets scared to death that Diana's going to leave her. And she's shaking, trembling with fear that she's going to be left.

[67:48]

Just like a really scared person. And so it's not obnoxious the way she's, well, actually, my wife finds it almost intolerable to be with her when she's scared because she's so nervous and so frightened. So that's, I would say, in case of animal delusion, which is like a human version of that is also, you know, people take medication for that. But we don't give her medication. I think the main thing we give her is, you know, be with her. That's the main thing that takes care of her. If you make it clear to her that you're with her, she calms down. But during certain transitions when it looks like she might lose one of us or both of us, she's scared to death. And I think one of the main characteristics of animals, you know, what they typify is fear. And they're afraid because they're deluded. But they're not afraid exactly the same way we're afraid.

[68:52]

They're a little different, because we have language to throw into the mix. So that's the main thing, is the Buddha could talk to us. And so the Buddha did. So we have the Buddha's words to tell us, would you please do these practices, you know, like turn the light around and look at what's going on, and calm down, and then would you investigate, please, and would you study ignorance? Yes. And would you see the relationship between ignorance and form? So we have all these words from the Buddhists, so we have a chance, which other animals, I haven't seen that they do, even though they have many good qualities that we need for practice, like enthusiasm and rapt attention and those kinds of things, and generosity and devotion and loyalty. They have all those qualities. If you take those qualities and put them together with Dharma, then they would be able to understand. And if we have those qualities like they do, and we put those together with the Dharma teachings,

[69:55]

then we're happy campers. We're cooking, our practice is working. And even before it's concluded, we feel great joy at even being able to be involved in this practice because we understand that we're following this teaching, which has been laid out there and which we've clarified and we have trust in. Could it be that animals that are done like that, they say, have a truncated development? They don't ever develop, you know, pets don't develop into adults. They stay as juvenile. And they never go on to develop. And that's the reason they develop fear and anxiety. And the humans are very similar. Their development is truncated. They don't ever finish. And that's what studying the Dharma does. Well, studying Dharma offers us the opportunity to finish our development. And so the people who have heard Dharma teachings have the opportunity now to apply their good qualities to these practices and complete our development.

[71:00]

And I think, again, this case, I think, is a big encouragement to complete your development, to work with all these great opportunities that you're being offered. Yes and yes. Yes? Does the Buddha ever talk about ignorance in connection with planets and the sun and so on? Or is it just... It did in this case here. It said that the planets and the sun are established on the basis of ignorance. Yes. Yes. Anything else you want to know about that was in this case that you didn't notice? Let me know. It's a big case. Yes? It is clear that from the case that we shouldn't fix on an idea of enlightenment. When we speak about ignorance and you're saying we should look for ignorance in every form so that we practice mental stabilization with each form.

[72:11]

It's not so much that you look for ignorance in the form. Ignorance isn't exactly in the form. It's just that the form depends on ignorance. So what you do is you become intimate with the form. Intimacy with the form reveals what the form depends on. So you don't have to be looking for something. If you look at the form... In a sense, you're looking for ignorance, but when you actually look at forms, you don't try to peel a form back to find the ignorance inside there, because that's more like the idea that the ignorance is causing the form. So you don't really... What you try to do now is, like, settle down with and become intimate with forms. And when you become intimate, you know, with the form, you get intimate with the ignorance. And when you get intimate with the ignorance, you get intimate with understanding ignorance. But although this is your goal, is to understand ignorance and to illuminate it and become awake...

[73:17]

and in that sense have ignorance lose its function in your life as, you know, an affliction. Right. That's your goal, but when you're actually meditating you don't like try to, you know, peel forms back to find ignorance there. You just try to become intimate with things and, you know, let them give themselves to you and receive what's given without any kind of like bargaining. Yes? Right. Right. It's like I think somebody else, maybe it was you I was talking to, it seems like I was talking to you about integrity. And I think maybe it wasn't you, but the person I was talking to said something about my integrity.

[74:23]

All of you have integrity. All of you are integral beings, but that's not yours. And all of you are intimate with yourself, but that's not your intimacy. So it's subtle work. Yes? Yes. Can ignorance be regarded as just, if it's regarded as pure ignorance, as purely itself? Is that right? Like a phenomenon, another phenomenon where cars go by and there's a tree, there's a rock, and there's ignorance. Right. So the trick is to find it. And ignorance is right near the cars and the trees. Because all those cars and trees are established on the basis of ignorance. And when ignorance is revealed to you, then let it just be ignorance, because ignorance itself is the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas. That's what they know about, is ignorance. And they also know all the stuff that arises from ignorance.

[75:25]

But you really don't need to know cars and trees. You need to know ignorance. That's what you have to know. Yes? So when we are in this place of ignorance, we feel it. Usually... We feel it. Well, you, maybe you do, but a lot of people, they don't know that they feel it. Because they have a lot, they're taking a lot of painkillers. So when you say, we feel it, you know, if you're speaking for we, you're speaking for the Buddhists, they feel it. But not everybody feels the ignorance. But it's universal. It's beyond the universe. Right. It's universal. Well, it's universal. No, it's not. It's universal. Yeah, you're right. It's universal. It's the universe. The universe arises in dependence and ignorance, so it's universal. Right. But even though it's universal, it doesn't mean that somebody can't space out. People are very clever in not noticing something right under their nose.

[76:28]

So we don't necessarily notice it or feel it. I encourage you to do so, but the reason why I'm encouraging you is because sometimes we don't spend our time looking at it. I see people looking at other things, spacing out, getting distracted from this. So I hope that's the way it is for you, but... My experience is that a lot of people, if I ask them about it, they don't know what I'm talking about. Ignorance? You know, that person's ignorant over there, but I don't have any ignorance over here. They don't have knowing about their ignorance. They don't feel it. But even if they don't notice it, they're not free of the pain of it. They're not free of the pain of it, but they don't necessarily feel it. You can numb yourself. Are you trying to give something different besides... I can't imagine being in that place of ignorance without feeling. Stuart's saying, Stuart's saying, Stuart's saying, when you're ignorant, you're suffering.

[77:34]

When you're ignorant, you're suffering. Based on ignorance, blah, blah, blah, leading up to misery. Okay? Okay? And Stuart's saying, even if you don't notice, even if you don't acknowledge that you're suffering, you're still suffering. Okay? But to say that you feel your ignorance, I think you feel the suffering which arises from the ignorance, but I don't know if you feel the ignorance. I don't know if ignorance is something you feel. Ignorance is actually something you're thinking. It's a conception. And you are thinking it, but yes, you are thinking it. You are having that conception, that misconception which we call ignorance. You are having that But do you notice it? And very few people that I know have noticed it, especially notice it on a consistent basis and get used to, like, hanging out with it and becoming intimate with it. Well, have you ever been in a situation where you're in that place and... In what place? England. I'm always in that situation. And it resonates.

[78:39]

What resonates? Your body. My body resonates? The feeling, the thought, everything. Right? I don't know if I've been in a situation where my body resonates. What do you mean, my body resonates? You experience a chill. I have a chill? I've experienced chills. All the time. Huh? All the time. No, not all the time. I'm not saying I always am experiencing my ignorance. I'm not saying that. I'm saying I think I'm always in that state, but I don't always notice it. I'm recommending that we develop the ability to basically always notice it because I don't think we do enough of noticing ignorance. Okay, well, it's almost nine o'clock and we have a few people who haven't spoken yet, but might as well give them a chance now. Thank you. You mentioned at the first meeting that you talked about, when you talk about ignorance, there's the first manifestation of the first level of ignorance.

[79:52]

And I'm wondering if you've defined what is, what are we talking about, basic ignorance? I don't remember what I said, but I think I said, I mentioned that there's some debate about what is the most subtle in basic ignorance. So there's two candidates. One is the Yogacara school says the basic ignorance, the fundamental ignorance is the belief that subject and object Self and other are separate. That's one. They say that's the basic one. If you can become familiar with and intimate with that misconception and be free of that one, you've done your work. The Madhyamaka school says the fundamental one is the conception of inherent existence. So those are the two candidates from two major schools of Mahayana Buddhism about what the fundamental ignorance is. But I think both schools agree that we have those two types of ignorance.

[81:01]

The debate is which one is more subtle, and can you really attain liberation from the other school's ignorance? What was the basis of the second school? Were they pushing? Pushing? They're just devoted to you, Vernon, those that are in the school. They're not pushing you. So, next week we can start 75, and you can use K74 to study K75. So K75 is Ryu-Yan's constant principle.

[82:02]

So watch out, Miriam. Constant principle, watch out. This is going to be a bad case. I can see that. So if anybody wants to copy the case, 75, I have them up here. And I heard that in Japan, in the springtime when the cherry blossoms are falling. Japanese people just love to be out in the cherry blossoms when they're falling. But they also, I think, kind of hate that they're falling. It's kind of like, it's so lovely, and they're falling. That's how I feel about this class. It's so lovely, and it keeps falling. Another class is over. I like the last line in this case. The place where I saw my guest off always reminds me of when we parted.

[83:08]

It's such a terrible class. It hurts so much. So anyway, it's over. And soon the whole series of classes will be over. It's so sad I can feel the end of the whole series now. You want me again? I hope so. Next spring, start all over again. It'll hurt all of you. Here we go again. It's going to be over in 100 cases. We're almost in force.

[83:43]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_84.83