Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Small-group reports open this final session of an emptiness weekend with a student observation that reframes the whole weekend: impermanence is a time-scale phenomenon, emptiness a space-scale one. In this 144-minute talk, Ven Jampa Gendun develops dependent arising through concrete examples — a cabin where two identical rooms become “bedroom” and “kitchen” purely by designation, and bridges shaped differently in German and Spanish because of grammatical gender — then walks through the two truths: conventional phenomena are “falsities” that appear independent but exist only through causes, parts, and conceptuality, while emptiness alone appears the way it actually exists. A question about rebirth prompts an explanation of the “mere I,” the extremely subtle consciousness-energy continuum that carries karmic seeds across lives. The session closes by drawing emptiness into practical mind training — because nothing is fixed from its own side, responses to difficult people and situations can be deliberately reframed — then moves into guided loving-kindness meditation and a dedication from Śāntideva.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 05 EW 2011 03 05.mp3
UUID: bc74d1a3-76b1-4df0-ba2f-17d55230e6b0
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Emptiness Weekend (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 2011-03-05
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 144.4 minutes
Words: ~11,848
So I I found the the the the discussion some great ideas. I think I was quite impressed. And I just thought we if we could go around I mean, we’re gonna have a general discussion, but before we do that, I think I mean, I only listened in on each group for just a portion of your discussion time together, but you were discussing a particular point which I found rather interesting. I think, Indy, you mentioned in terms of About how every second we are doing this labeling thing, and Jampa’s been using physical examples of labeling, but I was just saying that, you know, we’ll be in a room and, oh, that person is thinking that about me, I know they are, and they constantly make up these labeling stories about and that’s really our whole life exists around that. Jacqueline was saying, know, you might see someone, they’re frowning.
Oh, they’re really upset with me. They might have a headache, or they might be thinking about something totally different. But labeling is going on all the time on that level as well, and that’s what causes most of our problems. And it can be according to our conditioning, so like the little abused puppy, we think. Yeah.
That’s a good point, I think. Due to our conditioning, we have a tendency to interpret our realities in a particular way. And that frown on that person’s face, I’m being disapproved of. And we tell these huge stories and we project them onto and we think that’s what’s really happening and we react, well, I’m worthless, something like that. I’m just no good.
Nobody likes me. That’s never happened to me. Is there anything else that you that you want to mention that came up in your group? We did come to a little idea that, you know, impermanence is sort of along the time scale, and emptiness is along the space scale, if that makes sense. It’s interesting.
It’s interesting because India was saying that, you know, six months from now, it’s not gonna matter what someone said to her at work because it’ll be all gone by then. I was just saying that’s the way I sometimes try to stop myself from reacting, like if there’s a situation I put in my mind, don’t get attached to this right now, because in six months time you’re not even going to remember what’s Yeah, yeah, So that’s true. So then I started thinking in terms of a spatial perspective, that person isn’t as real as I think it is. I’ve just projected a whole heap of stuff on it, that person’s probably not going to be what I think he is anyway, and therefore as unreal as that impermanence was six months ago in the emptiness realm. Yeah, I think he might be onto something.
Yeah, yeah, I think that’s a good notion that things aren’t things are empty of our ideals about them in general. They’re things our view about them, the stories that we project upon them. And this too shall pass. And this whatever whatever it might be. She can’t talk about that one.
Yeah. Thank you. I want to come to your group last. Okay? You had some great ideas.
I think the one you asked me to raise was when when we’re talking about I was I was trying to understand, I guess. What I I’ll go back to what I said. I we’re We’re talking about a rose and the rose being you know, we attribute we project things onto it like it’s beautiful and it smells divine and and it’s actually sort of none of those those things. And I asked the question, well if you take those things away, I think we don’t project those things onto it. What is it?
Is it still right? And we decided what it was. And then we were talking about, we transferred that to people. Deborah, like Deborah was my example. And I said, if I is it is this the same thing that if I meet Deborah, and effectively what Deborah is is just what I see.
But from meeting Deborah, I will tend to project if she reminds me of somebody saying that I met twenty years ago that I really didn’t like, that I will instantly almost search for, expect her to do or say something that will reinforce that view. But equally you know if I met Deborah and I met somebody ten years ago that I thought was wonderful, I would equally begin our relationship expecting that she’s going to be wonderful and that if we don’t do that then that would be enormous. If you just met somebody and just I have no idea. No. Is this the puppy Attachment of vision.
Honey? You’re being the puppy, aren’t you? Do it, do we? Yeah. The puppy that was hit before.
Expecting something because of the past experience that he put. Yes. I suppose. And it just it could go either way. Doesn’t matter if it’s a a beaten puppy or a loved puppy.
But just that you so we discussed that at some length that that that yeah. I mean, Deborah’s still Deborah as she is regardless of what I project from my own From my side. Yeah. So did you did work at that? Yeah.
I think so. Yeah. And then she said to me, oh, well, I really do what what did she say? Well, that that I really do like you, and I said, well, don’t care. You take it one step further, do you think at this point, you could go, my eye doesn’t care.
My god. Makes sense. Gets complicated, doesn’t it? And you also were talking about safety. About what?
Safety? Safety? You know, inside of the group. Oh, you in in a group? Yeah.
I you wanted me to talk to I I just because it’s important I mean, it’s directly relevant. It’s it’s it’s relevant to our activity here. Right. In terms of the women’s that I did. Yeah.
I I did this women’s studies course about ten plus years ago, and I was just explaining to Jampa that I was trying to remember when I was talking about safety in the group and about just being happy to speak up and take those risks and that in this particular course, despite the fact that there was an enormous variation of participants from age, you know, the age range was huge, socioeconomic backgrounds were huge, everything about us was different, it became an incredibly safe place and we became incredibly safe with each other and I was trying to remember what facilitated that, what created that, The only things I can remember is just at the beginning of every class, at the beginning of the term was a very clear expectation that what was said in this room was to stay in this room and that people were not to basically jump on anybody, know, that we all had a right to say something and have that accepted as what it was. And it did because the participants changed from class to class. It wasn’t even a it was a homogenous group going from this class to that class.
We all did different electives. It was quite fluid. But in the four years, three years that I was there, this feeling of safety within those classes was maintained. It was quite interesting. Developing this safe context where we can explore, I think is quite really necessary, really, really useful.
I think there’s a lot of learning that goes on in these little discussion groups. We can have different components. We can have some some didactic, you know, input, you know, little bit information and then kind of digest it within a group. I think what I make this comment at one point. I think we talk about labels, and we, you know, friend, enemy, stranger, But that’s kind of a really big simplification.
These labels are an image. It’s like we project an image, which are very complex. We bring our past memories memories and our various experiences. Know, someone talks like maybe you had a bad relationship with your father and he talked a particular way, you’re talking to somebody, Why, I just don’t like this person. I can’t figure out why.
And then if you react like, Oh, they have a mannerism like my father who I didn’t get along with. And that triggers that label of this undesirable person, and you already know why consciously. So it’s much more complex than simply friend, enemy, and stranger. We’re labeling, what we’re projecting on is lots of associations. When you dump all your difficulties that you’ve had with such types of people in the past, you dump on this poor soul in front of you, you know, don’t even deserve it.
Well, what’s happening? Didn’t say anything. And all these are triggering us all the time. It’s just not like tables. Tables are just easier examples, but they don’t really get at the emotional, the effect of the relevance of what we’re talking about here.
You had some interesting notions. Well, that was in line with this issue of table. It talks a little story about bridges. Okay. Okay.
And there was this famous German poem about bridges that was translated into Spanish, and it suddenly became ugly. And it was determined determined that the reason for this was that in German, a bridge is female and in Spanish, it’s male. And on some observations, subsequently, it was determined that the German bridges were much more beautiful than Spanish bridges. Even if you would had no concept of of male and the female, when you designed the bridge in Germany, you would design it to be fluid and elegant and whatever and plus to do its job. Whereas in Spanish, you you you had a different perception because of the label.
The label was just the gender of the bridge. Mhmm. Yeah. And it affected the way people perceived them, but also it reinforced the design principles that you wanted a beautiful bridge in Germany, whereas in Spain you wanted it to be, you know, lost. Yeah, that’s quite what you said, quite true.
Yeah, that’s right. So the the the the our language does affect our perception. Yeah, was any other share any other points that you brought up in your group? Okay. Well, the thing that you helped when you came to the group that helped me was the issue of when I said, well, you knew in the periodic table there was some elements there, we didn’t know what they were.
You said, but we knew we’d been further that they were there even though we hadn’t actually seen them yet. Yeah. I think that helped me understand things, you know, even though something doesn’t you don’t know about it, you sort of know by inference that it exists. Yeah. So things can be established to exist by inference.
Yeah. We don’t have to directly directly perceive them. So, yeah, we can we don’t know we’ll just set aside the Buddha for a moment. No one’s seen the middle, you know, the very center of the earth, but we can infer there exists the center of the earth, and that way we can establish it, and we can talk about it intelligently, that the center of the earth is both lava and so forth, and it makes sense. Okay?
Okay. Well, we talked about the fact that we went from the conditioning aspect of the puppy analogy to and then the karma. Mhmm. And then I asked from that. Okay.
So what is it if it isn’t the soul that is that is reincarnated each time? Is it the wisdom self or the higher mind sort of higher? I guess we were going to discuss that. And did what did you come up with? No.
You have to ask him. It is like he came up with so you you know, there there are you know, have to be honest with you. There there are those who hold that the Buddha didn’t teach rebirth. So it’s very much part of tradition that we follow here, that there are many instances when the Buddha did teach rebirth, and what did he teach as to what in fact takes rebirth. We talked about these different schools, these tenet systems, and they all each of them has a different, perhaps a different way of positing what goes on to take rebirth.
Some of them would posit the mental consciousness, for example. In the highest school, what goes on to take rebirth is called the mere I, and what does that mean? So, you know, we we have I don’t I don’t know if this we’re getting into really away from experience here. But, anyway, There are within, you know, the Buddhist explanation of the nature of our nature, we have three levels of bodies. We have a gross body made of made up of gross elements, and this body of flesh and bones and so forth.
There’s a subtle body, which is the channels within our body. What kind channels? They’re really what kind of channels they’re made of what the term subtle matter there’s a central channel and then there’s there’s there’s a branch channels moving off from that. It must be like the chakras. Yeah, that’s right.
Chakras are means channel centers where there’s a big junction, you know, like lots of different channels crossing would be chakra. It’s kind like the Kundalini model. Yeah, that’s right. So that’s what we call a subtle body. And then there’s also also what is called an extremely subtle body, and this is an extremely subtle wind energy.
And then correspondingly there are are three levels of consciousnesses. There are gross consciousnesses, eye consciousness, nose consciousness, and so forth. Then there’s a subtle consciousness, conceptual consciousness, mental consciousness, and extremely subtle consciousness, which is likened to just the fact of a radio being on. There’s simply a quality of knowing. So this extremely subtle consciousness and extremely subtle energy are one entity, and it is on the basis of that we label I.
So there’s an extremely subtle consciousness and extremely subtle wind energy. There’s a physical and mental component on the basis of which we label I, self. This combination of extremely subtle wind energy and consciousness will, by the force of desire, go on to reassociate itself with grosser states of embodiment. It’s like a leaf being blown in the wind, like the karmic winds and craving. Once it will, the extremely subtle body begins to express itself in terms of associating itself with more complex structures, and the embodiment begins to take place.
It begins to evolve a subtle body and finally a gross body. But what goes on to take rebirth is just simple. It is a combination of extremely subtle wind energy in combination with extremely subtle consciousness, and it is us. Why? Because it has encoded in it our evolutionary history, our karmic seeds or impressions are carried upon this extremely subtle energy combination.
So it is unique to us, and this will go on to reassociate. So this gross body and the subtle body, they dissolve into the various elements. They just disperse. But due to the force of desire, of craving, re-embodiment, which is one of driving forces to reestablish our existence in terms of our embodiment, and we’re conditioned by our particular karma. We’ll go on to seek a particular rebirth site.
And it begins to reestablish in accordance with that karma, which throws it into that rebirth. It begins to associate it with that new gross structure, and that’s before we can say, I can take rebirth as a dog in my next life. Body cannot take rebirth. It’s going to be dispersed. It’s finished.
But there is subtle this subtle combination, which is carrying you know, which is which is unique to myself because it’s carrying my unique evolutionary history in terms of my karmic, you know, what I’ve said, what I’ve done, what I’ve thought in the past, those conditioning factors. And in combination with the force of craving to re embody, we’ll go on and seek out the right site of a fertilized ovum of a dog, and then we associate it with that structure, and then I will take on the mentality of a dog according to my physical structure, you know, the biology of a dog, I will begin to express myself as a dog. And then, you know, eventually that dog dies, and then, you know, that gross embodiment disperses, dies, fades away, but still there’s this indestructible element of extremely subtle energy in combination with extremely subtle consciousness which will then go on. So it’s within the reason they call it the mere eye, because we have I’s, we have particular I’s, the I of my last life, the I of this life, the I of my future life. But there’s this continuity.
It’s not a soul because it’s continually changing, and moreover it’s simply a matter of physical elements of energy in combination with the mental quality of knowing, awareness. This is what’s continuing. So it reassociates with the gross embodiment, eventually that dies away, it continues, reassociates with new gross embodiment, then dies away, and this is continuity. And this is what goes on to become a Buddha eventually. Does that make any sense?
Why are they called mere I? Because there’s an I particular to each embodiment. The I of this life as a human being, the I of my next life as a dog, that self, that eye of the dog, so that’s constantly changing. This mere I is a continuity which continues, it’s changing, it’s not permanent, and it’s merely imputed upon this this eye is merely being imputed, merely labeled to this combination of subtle wind energy and subtle consciousness. It’s merely imputed.
So there’s a continuity of a mere I. Right now it’s associated with the gross embodiment of Jampa. It’s like sometimes it’s likened to, you know, this know, we to become aware of it, try to of this very subtle consciousness. It’s like trying to be like a star during the day time. Know, if you look at the sky, there are stars in the sky right now, but we can’t see them.
They’re overpowered by the brightness of the sun, for example. You know, we can’t distinguish them, but they’re there. So the stars only become manifest when there’s a diminishing of the relative brightness of the sun, you know, the sun goes down. Then you can see what’s always been there, and there is within there’s always this subtle consciousness present, but it’s not apparent due to being overwhelmed by our gross embodiment, mental and physical. So it’s manifestation rather than creation?
Yeah, it just becomes manifest. Yeah. Yeah. It’s not created. Called the mirror what I see is mirror they’re asking me what you’re going to call it.
The mere I. It’s the I which is merely imputed on the basis of the subtlemost wind energy and consciousness. That’s what goes on to take rebirth. And it is it has it carries our karmic history impressed upon it. It’s conditioned, just like our brains are conditioned.
Our mind our present minds are conditioned. So that’s generally the explanation. I don’t know that in twenty five words or less. I guess we still want to put a label on that, don’t we? How’s that?
We still want to put a label on that social energy. Yeah, that’s what we label it, the mere I. Yeah, that’s what we label. So I can say, I take rebirth. But the eye of this life, jampa, isn’t going to take rebirth.
This gross embodiment which I identify with, it’s finished at the end of this life. But there’s something which I’m intimately connected with which will go on. So this is how you can get Dalai Lama’s and Tolkus reborn and Well, you’re you’re you’re you’re reborn. What was that? You’re reborn.
You’re reincarnated. Yeah. But I I I I I know how else who know what they were. That’s right. They have memory from that previous life, and they can pick out the tools of the previous Dalai Lama.
Whereas Okay. Yeah. I don’t think we’re gonna be far as four. We’ve got a long way to go. Oh, yeah.
Many more lungs. Imagine when you were two or three, Or Someone said to you, you know, put a whole lot of stuff, and you may you may you may be able to do it. Yeah. But it might just clarify. Yeah.
Okay. And did did you guys have any other points discussion? Yeah? Okay. Maybe talk a little bit about dependent arising.
So in a way, we’ve already discussed it. When you begin to talk about this. The other side of the coin is dependent arising. Dependent phenomena are dependent arising because they’re empty of independent existence, and things are empty of independent existence because they’re dependent arisings. It’s like the other side of the coin from each other.
The reasoning which establishes one establishes the other. And we’ve talked about, but we haven’t pointed it out directly, that there are when we talked about dependent arising, everything is dependent, and it’s dependent in again, when I say everything, I’m talking about almost the vast almost everything except for permanent phenomena. There are only a few permanent phenomena, so we don’t have to become overly technical, but everything, all impermanent phenomena are dependent arisings, and again they’re dependent in three ways. They’re dependent upon their causes and conditions, and they’re dependent upon their parts, their attributes, their parts. This table is dependent upon its rectangular wooden flat board and four legs.
It’s dependent upon its causes and conditions, you know, the growing of the tree in the forest, cutting it down, carpenter who shaped it and cut it and joined it together, and so forth. And additionally it’s dependent upon, language and conceptuality. Being called such the name table by thought consciousness. It’s dependent, everything is dependent in those three ways. So everything arises in dependence upon those three conditions.
To give you an idea, that’s an illustration, know, let’s say you were going to build a cabin in in the in the forest, in the woods, and and two rooms, very simple cabin, okay, two rooms. And you lay the foundation and you put up the walls and the windows, you put the roof on, and you have two exactly identical rooms in this cabin. It’s a pretty simple cabin. And you think okay, which one should I make my living quarters and which one should I make my kitchen? They think oh wow, that window has a nice view, I can lay back in my bed, I could look out that window, that’d be great.
I’m going make that my bedroom. I’m going to make this my kitchen. So you have two exactly same rooms, but in dependence upon various conditions, a good view for example, or maybe water is more closer on this side so you make that the kitchen, you designate that’s my bedroom, that’s my kitchen. So we now have a cabin with a living room or a bedroom and a kitchen that they arose in dependence upon cause and conditions, fact you know the effort to build the cabin, the all the materials that went in it, to building it, the materials that went in it, to building it, the nails and the wood and the cement and the glass and mortar and so forth, its parts, its foundation, walls, roof, its parts, but also it depends depends upon designation. I could have called this my living quarter, that’s my kitchen, I could have called that my kitchen and this my living quarter.
There was nothing from the side of the object which demanded that they are what they are, which determined this must be the kitchen, this must be the living quarter. in dependence upon certain conditions I thought, I’ll make this my kitchen. I’ll make this my living room. Therefore that became my living room, that became my kitchen. in dependence upon them.
There was nothing about them which determined that’s what they were. Okay? So it was dependent upon thinking them as such, giving them a name, this is my living quarter, this is my kitchen, and subsequently thinking them as such. And, you know, if somebody comes in to, you know, the stall, to put the bed, you know, here. So I’ll put it in my living room over there.
Put it in my living room, and the the delivery man said, well, which which one’s your which one’s your bedroom? That one over there. And, oh, okay. And it subsequently becomes familiar as your bedroom, and it takes on, you know, you you decorate it as such, and it it seems as if it’s always been your bedroom. It was but, anyway, it was dependent upon being thought of as such.
So every existence comes into existence in the same way. There’s something out there in which we give a name. There is not a single atom of existence in the universe which does not establish itself by means of the same process. The same is true of ourselves. And there is a body and mind which we instinctively label I, self.
We begin to determine what is, you know, we learn what is self, what is not self. I mean it sounds like it’s a given, doesn’t it? But a baby doesn’t enter into this world thinking, you know, I’m over here and the rest of the world’s over there. This is a learned process. It begins to see it has certain control.
It begins, can make that wiggle. I can’t make that pin wiggle. That’s strange. I can make that wiggle. I can’t make that wiggle.
This becomes a part of what we see as I. It’s a learned process. That which we have great more control over we begin to include within our own identity of self, of who I am. That which we have less and less control over we begin to think of it as other. So it’s a learned process in making distinguish about what is myself and what is not myself.
And it sounds strange, doesn’t it? There’s a point when the mother is not distinguished as separate from the notion of self. There’s no, you know, this identity of self would include that warm source of milk, you know, as another. And then slowly we begin the separation process and becomes other. So this, know, to give you another example of how this labeling process works, in dependence upon someone who’s going to run for an office, let’s say the president, a prime minister of Australia, So they aren’t by their very nature the prime minister of Australia.
They might act like that. I don’t know. I don’t know, like Julia Gillard or something like that. I don’t know. Anyway, they have to become a proper basis of designation and then they have to go through certain legal procedures where they are officially given, they’re sworn in, and then they become a proper basis of designation as Prime Minister of Australia.
First they have to be nominated by their particular party as an MP, they have to be leader of the party and so forth, then they have to go to the voters, the voters vote them in, then they have to go to the Governor General and the Governor General swears them in. Upon meeting all these various conditions, conditions then that person becomes a proper basis for calling, ah, hello Mrs. Prime Minister, and then it’s a legitimate label. They are actually in fact. So in dependence upon causes and conditions, the sperm and ovum of Julia Gillard’s parents, his parents, or Julia Gillard herself, her mind and body, having gone through electoral process, gotten the necessary votes, legal procedures, being sworn in and so forth, and they become in dependence upon being given the title, language and thought.
They are thought of as prime minister. They weren’t by prime minister by way of their own nature, from their own side. There wasn’t anything about her which was kind of prime prime minister ness. Her parents looked at her and said, obviously, here’s the new prime minister. That’s what it would mean.
So everything arises in dependence upon this. I think, you know, we’re talking about dependent arising, and maybe it’s, you know, these kind of very external examples. But it also has a sense that all our states of mind are also dependent arising. Our anger is a dependent arising. Our jealousy is a dependent arising.
Our love is a dependent arising. Our compassion is a dependent arising. Our wisdom is a dependent arising. They all arise in dependence on something other than themselves. They somehow bring themselves into existence.
We must necessarily create the causes or the causes are being created even involuntarily, quite often in this case. Whatever the state and it’s being labeled. You know what we call an emotion is being labeled to physical sensations, feelings, and particular trains of thought. Upon that we label particular emotion. So everything, hatred or love, whatever, but altered states of mind, they arise in dependence upon causes, conditions, their parts, but they have a basis of labeling.
And we can take advantage of that, that understanding and working with our emotions. As I was talking about before, one of the, you know, the basis of labeling of an emotion, one of those components, and it’s very powerful in the case of say anger, is physical sensations. And we each have our particular indicator. You know, I know for myself when anger is beginning to rise, as I mentioned this morning, I get, my heart starts palpitating, my jaw begins to tighten, my brow begins to furrow, that’s like an early warning device. And before the anger is actually manifest I know that the basis of what would be called anger is starting to arise.
Our body can tell us a lot. I think think that we overlook the body in this regard. We carry a lot of information in our bodies that we that we are insensitive to, we aren’t aware of. Anyway, that’s another story maybe. Jampa, what are the permanent phenomena that you skipped over?
Yes. Interesting. Permanent phenomena. For example, non compounded space. Non what?
None. What would it say? Space. Space? The space in which There are two types of space.
There is the space between my hands, so that changes, doesn’t it? But there is the space in which everything exists, whether there is something there or not. That space is unchanging. When we say permanent, mean unchanging, something which is not changing from moment to moment. So space is one, emptiness is one, any non-affirming negation, the absence of elephants in this room, is a permanent phenomenon.
It’s not changing from moment to moment. Doesn’t rise anything that doesn’t any existent which doesn’t arise in dependence upon causes and conditions is a permanent phenomenon. There’s not too many. Yeah. Okay.
You know we talked about, you know, the fact that this labeling process is not arbitrary. Everything is dependent on labels, but just because we call something something doesn’t make it so. It’d be nice in a way. Maybe it wouldn’t be. I don’t it could get you in a lot of trouble.
It could complicate your life. The fact that can’t what are the there are certain criteria which determine whether a label is valid or not to be applied to a particular basis. When we apply a label or a designate an object, and we talked about this briefly this morning, three conditions must be satisfied in order that the object validly exists. Just because our thinking is so does not make it so. We can, I don’t know if you’ve ever noticed, be mistaken?
You know, we can think we’re being disapproved of by that frowning face, but in fact we might be mistaken. You know, it happens. Did I do something wrong? Oh, you have a headache. Oh, I’m sorry.
I thought I did something wrong. I was mistaken. That appearance triggered a particular in my mind, but it was a mistaken response. So it’s good if we can check up, isn’t it? Even in a very mundane way and not take it for granted that our appearance are what we think they are.
They can be deceiving. First, the object must, as we said, must be renowned in the world for what what it is. That particular and what we mean by the world, mean a particular linguistic community. Know, it was just as I sort of just pointed out, know, we don’t in the English language, don’t have male and female bridges, which I I was reading a book last month and he said it was a shame that we don’t in English because it makes the the language such more much more poetic. Know?
We miss a lot of translated poetry, you know, like anyway. Because we we we it does sometimes it actually doesn’t make sense when a male pine tree and a female what was it? Oak tree long for each other. Doesn’t make any sense. Anyway In a very small area it does, but it would be a very minor portion of the language.
It does it in the same way we do, that German, French, Russian, Italian that do. So it must be known within a particular what do we mean by the word linguistic community? It must be known by by that. This means that there is a consensus regarding the name that we’re going to give it. As I you know, using an example, simply cannot label that four legged animal that barks a cat.
We can do it, it, but we’re not, we are using that label inappropriately and we’re going to have problems in our communication in the way that we relate with it and we think about it. They can’t stop us, it doesn’t work very well. And secondly, that we cannot be contradicted by a valid cognition of what we call conventionalities. When we come to the two truths, we’re going to talk about conventionalities and ultimates. Conventionalities is everything but emptiness.
So tables, people, universes, friend, enemy, stranger, all of these things are conventionalities. So label cannot be contradicted by a correct understanding of these kinds of things, tables and chairs and buildings universes and people and things. And like that example we gave, you know, like, yeah, the scarecrow and the man standing out in the field. Upon investigating, I see a man and I might react in that way, I see a man. Something appears to my consciousness and due to my conditioning, not only my eye consciousness, due to my conditioning, the filters in which I’m viewing.
We don’t see them. We see colors and shapes. We see stimulation on our retina. This is the message that our brain is getting and that message is filtered through a lot of our conditioning. So even what we visually come to know is being altered by our conditioning of our mind.
It’s not an accurate, it’s not like photographic memory. We’re not taking photographs. People see different I I people actually see different colors. It’s hard to prove, but anyway, due to the condition and even the language, people in different languages see different colors. It affects how we’re filtering these visual images and that visual image triggers a karmic seed and there’s a thought process which is invoked, a way of thinking, a way of looking, a way of relating to that object.
Person. Over here, scarecrow. We a commonly shared stimulus, more or less, but we’re interpreting it in a vastly different way. And which is it? Is it a man or is it a scarecrow?
If it’s not contradicted by an understanding, a correct understanding of conventionalities, scarecrows and men and things like that, then it would be a man if I thought I was a man. But if we move closer, didn’t see it very clearly. It’s not a it’s not a man. That was an inappropriate label I I applied to it. So it it would be contradicted by a correct understanding that in fact, this is scarecrow.
Sometimes we have we can’t we can’t we can’t we come to a decision immediately. We have to wait for more evidence, more information, and then we can we’re not quite sure. But normally we can. So that’s not contradicted by an understanding which understands conventionalities, these kinds of things about us. And then finally, it’s not contradicted, and this is one that wasn’t it seems like technicality.
It’s not contradicted by a correct understanding analyzing for the ultimate. And if we if we could take an example. If you if you said, oh, my my soul is going to go to heaven. My soul. And, if we were to analyze for that soul, performing an ultimate analysis and not finding, what do we find?
We find non soul, anatman, or non self. So that conception of a soul or independently existent self would be contradicted by a correct understanding of the ultimate, that ultimately there is no independent self or soul. So that’s why that has to be technicality that has to be put in there. All phenomena are dependent on risings. Therefore, all phenomena are empty of independent existence.
Why are phenomena empty of independent existence? Because they dependent on arising. And why are all phenomena dependent on arising? Because they dependent on causes and conditions. Depending on causes and conditions.
They’re not independently existing. Okay. Does that make sense? And and we’re trying to get across it. Isn’t simply philosophy.
Admit that at times it becomes rather abstract and it can become even more abstract, but it does have relevance because that appearance of that person who is disapproving ourselves, know, that disapproval may appear as if it’s coming as if it exists independent of my mind thinking of it as such. In fact, it’s dependent upon my mind thinking of it as such. It’s empty of that independent existence. So it does filter down to practicalities. Think it’s really inspiring to hear how you’ve been able to bring it down to something which the nuts and bolts of our life.
That’s really inspiring for me and it’s more than I can do. So it does make a difference and if we can integrate that view then it becomes part of our natural ways of being and relating with the world. We don’t buy into the appearances as deeply and as quickly and as often as we normally. We’re less reactive. There’s a little bit of space where wisdom can intervene.
It’s not a knee jerk. Can question these appearances. Okay, should we take a break? And then we’ll talk about the two truths. I I I we’re gonna have another discussion group, I believe.
And then not just not just now, but I want to give you a I didn’t print out a suggested reading list with regard to emptiness, and so I’m gonna try to access the computer and print out something for you. Okay? So I want to talk about the within this context of this discussion of emptiness and so forth, there was a discussion of the two truths. So the the two truths are not vague concepts of truth or beauty or or, you know, the the the truth in that way, they they are phenomena. All phenomena are included in the two truths.
The two truths, the ultimate truth and conventional truth. Ultimate truths are only emptiness. All all other phenomena are conventional truth. Okay? So ultimate truth is only emptiness.
Everything else other than emptiness is a conventional truth. So this is the way phenomena can be divided. And by phenomena, I mean everything, including permanent phenomena. Tables, chairs, people, self, eye, beauty, ugliness, all of that can be divided into two truths. Emptiness is an ultimate truth.
It is the only ultimate truth. Everything else, tables, cars, people, are conventional truths. Does that make emptiness a thing? It’s a phenomena. Emptiness is a phenomena.
Okay. Because you’re starting to say something that makes it sound like God. It’s being and it’s outside of other things. It’s a phenomena. Just as this pen is a phenomena.
And this is a phenomenon. It’s the, or we can say it’s an existent. An existent is definition of an existent is that which is known by a valid cognizer. Anything which is known by a valid consciousness is in existence. Okay.
Okay? So that’s all that that’s what we mean by existent in Buddhism. Anything which is known by Valid consciousness. Valid consciousness is in existent. If it’s not known by Valid consciousness it doesn’t exist.
Full stop. This pin is known by Valid cognoser, this table, the eye, also emptiness. Truths are objects. Okay, what what do we mean by truths? Truths are objects that appear the way they exist.
Okay? Truths are objects that appear the way they exist. Only emptiness appears the way it exists. Only emptiness is in fact an actual truth. Okay conventional truths are falsities.
Why? Because they do not exist the way they appear. Appear. Why? Because they’re dependent arisings.
Not quite. Because they aren’t they? Not quite. How do they appear? How does this pin appear to my Permanent.
That’s part of it? Independent. Okay. It’s appear all other phenomena other than emptiness at all times appear to us to exist independent. They appear to be independently existent.
They don’t appear to be dependent upon language and conceptuality, for example. They appear out there, objectively, cut off from my mind. It’s very difficult to recognize that appearance. This is one of, you know, when we, I talked about the most difficult and important point in this understanding is identifying what the way things naturally are appearing to us, which is false. This pin appears like it has nothing to do with my mind.
It’s a pin by its own nature, from its own side, just like those voluptuous breasts. You got me there. Definitely attachment. I’m just trying to get bring up some relevant relevant examples for myself. It’s always great.
That that desirability. Oh, chocolate cake. Chocolate cake. Good one. Let’s go for that.
That desire that desirability of that piece of chocolate, you know, desirability is a characteristic of that cake, of a real rich piece of chocolate cake with really thick chocolate icing. It has that characteristic of desirability and it appears that desirability is in the very nature of that object. I’m not designating that for my mind, that feature, that quality upon that object. So that’s the way it appears, but it doesn’t exist that way. It appears to exist independent of my mind, but it doesn’t exist that way.
Therefore, it is a falsity. In this discussion, when we talk about truth and falsity, we mean that which exists the way it appears is true. That which does not exist the way it appears is false. I mean, we use this in our everyday language, don’t we? You know, like we say, oh, he’s a phony.
He says one thing but he really means another. He’s false. Yeah. He’s not true. He’s not fair dinkum always there or something.
Yeah. Yeah. So there’s discrepancy between the appearance and what’s actually going on. And that’s what we mean by falsity. Truth is there’s no discrepancy, there’s agreement.
What you see is what you get. Something like, the way it appears is the way it actually exists. There’s only one thing which appears which is in fact in actuality true, emptiness. Okay? Everything else appears as if it existed independently, but in fact nothing exists independently, therefore it’s false.
In general, but it is true for ignorance. Okay, let’s tease that out. What do we mean by that? In general, conventional truths are falsities. This pin is a conventional truth.
It is a falsity, but it is true for ignorance. Ignorance is a particular function of mind. It grasps at that appearance as being true. That’s all it does for a living. What a life, what a way to make a living.
Anyway, the word. Sometimes language is is is very useful to look at because it doesn’t come across in English. In in the the Sanskrit word for conventional truth is means concealer. I don’t know. It’s too bad we’re using the word conventional.
There’s another word that we could be using. It means Satya means truth. So samvritya satya means truth for concealer. This is truth for concealer. And what is that concealer?
The deceiver is ignorance. Truth for ignorance. This is truth for ignorance. We’re not talking about whether it’s a pin or not, but the way it exists. You know, I’ve tried to underline that.
We’re always talking about ontology in our discussions, the way things exist, not whether they exist or whether it’s a blue pen or so forth, or whether it’s a good pen or a plastic pen or a metal pen, but how does that object exist? It exists that way, it is true for ignorance. Appears to exist independent and that appearance is true only for ignorance. Ignorance says yes, that’s the way it appears and it exists that way. It shakes its head yes and it grasps to that as being true.
That’s what we mean when we say true existence. It exists as true for ignorance. But in general it’s false. Why? Because it really doesn’t exist that way.
It depends upon conditions, parts, but most importantly on language and conceptuality. Okay, so this is a truth for a concealer. This table is a truth for a concealer. I’m a truth for a concealer. That concealer is ignorance.
This building is truth for a concealer. In actuality it’s false, but it’s true for a concealer. That’s what we mean by, you know, I’m sorry we used the word conventional truth, but that’s the term that we’re using. We could just say truth for concealer and that would be then it would become much more evident what we’re talking about. Because when we talk about ultimate truth, what is the Sanskrit for ultimate truth?
It’s Paramartha Satya. Para means ultimate or best or final. Arta means object. Satya again means truth. What is a paramartha satya?
It is a truth, it is an object which is true for the ultimate. It is an object which is true for the best. What is that best? What is that ultimate? It is a wisdom understanding the ultimate nature of reality.
The only thing which is true for wisdom, this wisdom consciousness is emptiness. Everything else is false. You know, talked about when we analyze as deeply as possible in terms of the way the table exists, we come to emptiness. Come under our ultimate analysis. We don’t find the object, we find the emptiness.
That consciousness which is doing that ultimate analysis is an analytic consciousness. It is a wisdom consciousness. What is true for that analytic consciousness? It is emptiness. Not the object, but it’s emptiness.
Does that make sense? So everything has two levels of truth. If we don’t analyze an object, if we simply when I see a table, when I hear a sound, when I think about Sydney, I’m not analyzing their nature. Okay? Therefore, these are conventional truths.
They function. We can, this pen is a conventional truth, I can use it to write, it’s able to perform its function as according to how I think about It works perfectly well on that level, but when I want to but when I analyze it, when I try to find, well, where is the pen? I can’t find the pen. So for a non analytic consciousness, for a consciousness which isn’t analyzing for the ultimate, the pen exists. For a consciousness which is analyzing for the ultimate, the pen does not exist.
The emptiness of the pin exists. I’m not saying that very well, am I? Emptiness is a characteristic of all phenomena? Good.. Everything, every phenomenon, this table, chair, even emptiness itself is empty of independent existence.
It’s everything is dependent arising. All phenomena whatsoever. So it’s an adjective or a verb rather than a noun. Emptiness? Yes.
But when you sounded like it was a noun. Emptiness is a noun. Yeah. It’s it’s things are empty, so then it becomes an adjective. You know, the emptiness I can talk to emptiness of this pin.
There’s a feature of this pin. Okay? That which which is known by everything which is known by non analytic consciousness is a conventional truth. It is known as by way of agreement. This is the way things exist.
It’s able to put this is a pin. It’s able to function as a pin. Let’s let’s let’s let’s look. You know, it’s hard as I admit, I think it’s the pin seems it’s hard to identify what we’re talking about because it’s like trying to explain to a fish what wetness is like. It has nothing to compare it with.
It’s experience is is totally pervaded by wetness. So it’s so much in its face, it can’t step back and say, oh, that’s what wetness feels like. We’re always, everything always at all times appears to exist independent of our minds, of language and so forth. We know what it would be like. It’s hard to identify what that independent existence actually looks like.
There’s a false element. We use the word duality. A lot of people throw that word around. It’s kind of a buzzword almost. There are two things which are appearing to us.
There is the convention existent pin, the pin which is able to write and so forth, but also the truly existent, the independently existent pin is also appearing to ourselves. Those two appearances are mixed together and we can’t distinguish them. The actual conventionally existent pin which is able to function and the independently existent pin which can’t is merely in appearance and does not exist at all. But those appearances are mixed. There’s two appearances, that’s what we mean by dual appearance or dualistic consciousness, an ordinary consciousness.
Let’s look at the pen. The pen is out there in its own right, from its own side, objectively. That’s a pin, no question. But we can accept on that level and we can make use of it, but if we analyze and begin to question, know, at no time will my hands leave my wrists. But watch watch watch.
Is that is that the pen? You sure? Okay. I hate to do this. I use more pens than that.
When we search amongst the parts, we can’t find the pen. Okay? But there’s a point which when we put it back together, what happens? There’s a point when it triggers the thought. That’s to say we recognize it as a pin.
We perceive it as we recognize, perceive or identify. These are all words that point to the same thing as impute. There’s a point where, ah, a pin, and poof, it comes out of nowhere. Before there wasn’t a pin there. So it’s almost magical that there reaches a point when the mind is conditioned, is triggered to think with regard to that where it simply recognizes a pen, a pen, and the pen comes into existence.
But it appears that the pen doesn’t rely upon our recognizing as such or imputing it or labeling as such to exist from its own side. There used to be a children’s program that had pictures, do you remember your puzzles? Were a puzzle, then the next bit, then the next bit, and the teams had to see who was quickest to guess what it was. To guess what? It was the same sort of thing, seeing the parts, and there comes a time when there’s enough together that it’s That you’re able to recognize.
A pair or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. So conventional truths are are falsities. This pen is a falsity.
This table is a falsity. I am a falsity. Don’t tell anybody. Pen is a falsity. Why?
Because it doesn’t it appears not to rely upon my thinking of it as a pen, a language and conceptuality and thought, but also it appears not to rely upon its causes and conditions. Intellectually I can theorize, I can think about it, oh yeah, sure it was made in a factory, know, it’s a workman and so forth, it was probably made in China, and you know, it’s made of cause and condition, but that’s not the way it appears. It appears not to depend upon its parts, and it appears not to rely upon language and conceptuality. Though it appears that way, that’s the way it exists, therefore we say it’s a falsity. But for ignorance that’s true. It appears that way and ignorance says and that’s the way it exists.
It exists the way it appears. So it’s truth for ignorance. It’s truth for concealer. That’s what we mean by conventional truth. Whereas this for an ultimate consciousness which is analyzing the final nature of the pen, It’s a falsity.
The only thing which is true for this analytic wisdom, which is understanding the deeper nature of things, is emptiness. That, that is the only thing which is true for that consciousness, for wisdom understanding emptiness. Emptiness appears the way it exists. Though this is a falsity, it’s still able to perform its function. We can write with it.
That’s it. Does it matter? I know it’s terrible, I’m dying to say this, think it sounds so silly, but does it matter whether I see it as emptiness or just see it as a pen? Level As empty, not as an emptiness? As empty.
Is it going to make a difference to my life? Yeah, pins don’t make much difference. No they don’t, do they? But do we need to understand it at this level before we then take it to deeper levels with relationships and so on and so forth? Yeah, we want to relate it into practice.
Yes, yeah. So I can’t it. I can’t use it with a pen. I think if I mean, I think would be a tough one, would say. That this is what we mean by everything is to be seen as an another word for falsity is an illusion.
Yeah. Sure. Mhmm. Okay? Well, an illusion is something that you know, it’s like a magician.
He appears to be sawing this woman in half. Yeah? And that’s the way it appears. But the thing about it, that appearance does not accord with reality. He’s not really sawing that woman in half, is he?
That’s what we so there’s an appearance of women being sullen and have, but in reality he’s not. There’s an illusion. So if we begin to see everything in terms of a falsity or an illusion, we don’t we’re not going to be as reactive to appearances. Yeah. You know, some people would take that magician who’s sawing this woman in half, you know, who have never seen a magician before, they would get terribly upset.
Stop, stop, you know, we can’t do this. Other people would laugh at them. He’s not really sawing her in half, something like that. They wouldn’t be as reactive to that appearance. So it’s not that we, so it’s beginning to familiarize our minds with the notion that these of the illusory like quality of these appearances so that we don’t aren’t as highly reactive that we realize that there is a false element involved.
So that that helps with attachments? Exactly. Yeah. There’s breasts, for example. You’ve got some work to do.
So they point to a lot of it’s not that they don’t these things aren’t able to function. Used to see all these things are like a dream. These are like an illusion, like a mirage. These are all trying to help our minds not to concretize things, not to buy into the appearance as if they were real. Are as a pin, but the illusory like quality is that it doesn’t exist the way that it appears.
Not that it’s not a pin, we’re not questioning whether it’s a pin. It’s always coming down the way it’s existing. Does that desirable quality in that piece of chocolate cake, appearance of desirability, there’s an illusion like quality, there’s a dream like quality about it. I’m wanting to take that deeper to with friends, with relationships, with families, with someone. Okay so you know we were talking about yeah, okay.
Others might come, I’m When we talk about, you know, like in therapy, one way, I don’t know, way of dealing with or training the mind. We try to reframe what the same situation, are more or less the objective facts remain the same, but we view it in a different manner. Someone could be giving us a hard time. We’re triggered to think that this person is out to get us and they’re giving us a hard time. Through a process of mind training we could reframe that same situation and think, Well this is my best teacher.
Absolutely. And our response would be totally different. So that appearance is workable. Not they aren’t the very nature is that it’s not a something which is undesirable to be rejected. There is only our reaction to it.
And so we can recondition how we’re going, and we can recondition our conditioning. We can retrain our minds to react in a totally different manner. It’s not that by way of its very nature, the only appropriate reaction is to react in a particular way, with aversion for example. We could react to that person who’s given us a hard time as our best teacher, teaching us patience, teaching us how to love. And so we would reframe so that undesirability which is appearing isn’t in the very nature of the object.
It’s really an illusion. It has There is an illusory aspect to it. And we can recondition the mind. This is what mind training is all about, being able to reframe same situation given the same situation we view it from a different perspective, and what was difficult to tolerate becomes desirable. Or we look at it from a different viewpoint.
You know, it’s like, know, it’s like a half a glass of water. Is an old, you know. So due to it, it’s due to our conditioning, we we came to view it in one way or another. We said when some people see the glass as half empty, some people see the glass as half full. Know, who cares about glasses and water?
Big deal, it doesn’t make but it does make a difference how you see your life. You know, some people bring an impoverished mentality to their life. They see everything as hostile as out to get them, that life isn’t giving them a chance, and they feel that they see themselves as insufficient and so forth. Other people can see the same circus, they see a universe which is supporting them, they see opportunities, you know, and they know they have some qualities which they can bring to these situations. You know, it’s the same universe, more or less it’s the same world, but it’s workable.
Emptiness means that things are workable. They’re not fixed. If things weren’t empty, they would define themselves. We wouldn’t define them. We wouldn’t have any choice but to react in one fixed way.
Wouldn’t be the only appropriate way to act. Everything would be fixed, static, unchangeable. But because things are empty, they’re open ended. We can redefine our world through reconditioning our minds and how we label it, how we, you know, and this can accord with, this isn’t a delusion, this isn’t delusions of grandeur, and we’re not going off some kind of psychotic escapism. We can we can view the world as as benevolent.
It’s the same world, more or less. So many people think I have no choice. Yeah, that’s right. I’m stuck in this relationship or I’m stuck here I have no choice. There are always have choices.
It’s how you view things and then your life will be different. Yeah. karma comes down to choice. karma is choice. And we’re making these choices every day of our lives.
And we sometimes don’t avail ourselves of the opportunity to make these choices. We feel everything is fixed and the only appropriate reaction is the one I’m doing. Even though it hasn’t worked in the last fifty five years, we don’t know any other way. It’s habit. And habits can be changed if we’re willing to open up to that possibility.
So I think the message of emptiness is things are open ended, things are workable. We can bring about the changes that we want. Yeah. It’s liberating, I think. Yeah.
That’s I think so. Yeah. So we we shall we we take the stretch and then we’ll we’ll do a meditation. Good. Maybe is it warm Stuffy?
Yeah. Very stuffy. Maybe we could turn on the air conditioner? Thanks. Okay.
Here we go for it. So I think we’ve been doing a lot of heavy kind of stuff. I thought we’d meditate on loving kindness, a type of loving kindness meditation. I’ll lead you through it. Okay?
And You’re welcome to tune me up if you wish. I won’t be offended or not very much, but a little bit maybe. You won’t know. I won’t know. It’s not conventionally real.
Okay, so we’ll begin with about about ten minutes of just mindfulness of the breath and then I’ll lead you through the stages practice of loving kindness meditation. Okay? So taking a comfortable firm posture. I’m just bringing your mind to the wherever the breath is most obvious and clear to yourself. You know?
It’s very much up to you. And then when you are aware that your mind has been distracted, that your mind has wandered in a very gentle and patient manner, in a consistent fashion, bringing your mind back to the breath. The easy gentle in and out flow of the natural breath. Now we’re going to begin with practice of loving kindness, and we’re going to begin by directing it toward ourselves. So initially, you know, you can imagine yourself in front of yourself, but if you can’t see yourself, that’s not so important.
Just be aware that the feelings that you’re going to generate are in this particular case are being directed towards yourself. So whatever you may have done in the past, the various mistakes that you feel you’ve created, you can develop a healthy sense of regret, and you can begin again. Whatever kind of changes that you want to make in the future, can do. You can bring about those kinds of changes. But just for this present moment, we want to set aside the past and the future and simply make friends with ourselves in the present moment.
The person who we are now sitting on this cushion in this chair is the person we care about. So simply develop and generate some kind, caring feelings towards yourself. May I be happy? You deserve your own caring towards yourself, your own love towards yourself. Befriend yourself and wish yourself well.
May I be happy. May I grow. May all the good things of life come to me. We have to be gentle with ourselves. We have to care and express that caring toward ourselves.
Wish yourself well. Sincerely wish yourself happiness. Now think of someone that you naturally like, that you love, and imagine that person there in front of you. If you can’t see them, it’s important. Just being aware of who it is that we’re directing these kind, caring thoughts toward.
And remember some of the good times that you shared together, the many kindnesses that this person has shown you over the course of your relationship? Why it is that you care so much for this person? And begin to radiate radiate out, to direct out toward this person the kind, caring feelings and thoughts which arise when you think of this person in this way. If we were to put them in words, feelings such as, may you be happy, may all the good things of life be yours, you want to see a smile on their face, see them warm and safe and happy. May you be happy.
May you be happy. Wish them well. Now bring to mind someone who you neither like nor dislike, a stranger, perhaps someone you see from time to time your work and the course of your everyday life, but you have no particular relationship to them, no particular feelings about them. You don’t know them. But one thing we do know understand about them, is that they want to be happy, and they don’t want to suffer exactly like ourselves.
So simply out of the generosity of your heart, the magnanimity of your heart, magnanimity of your heart. It won’t cost you anything. Wish them happiness. Wish them well. Now think of someone you have some problems with, someone you you don’t like.
Again, imagine that person there in front of you. This person wants to be happy and doesn’t want to suffer exactly like yourself. No different. And perhaps their way of going about finding their happiness, eliminating their suffering, come in conflict with your methods of finding your own happiness, eliminating your own problems. But that’s it’s just a conflict of self interest, yours and theirs.
And just as you’ve hurt others in the past and trying to get the happiness that you wanted, perhaps they’ve hurt you. And just as we have to forgive ourselves, maybe it’s time to find some way to begin to forgive this person. So just for this present moment, you can pick up pick it up later on. Just for this present moment, set aside your hurt or your grudge, your anger, and see someone very much like yourself doing the best they can to get some happiness out of life. Oftentimes being mistaken how to go about it, making many mistakes along the way.
And let go just for the present moment. If you ever hope to be free, we’re going to have to learn how to forgive. Wish them well. Wish them happiness. And all the people in this room, and the people who are trying to take responsibility for their lives, exploring, searching, trying to climb out of our unique individual holes to lead a better life.
Wish that they find whatever it is they’re looking for, whatever would make them happy. Wish that they had it. Just generate a wish of kindness, a wish of caring, and direct it radiate out to everyone in the room. And begin to radiate out this wish of caring and well-being further and further to the immediate households surrounding us, the people on the on the cars and buses on the streets, people watching television, playing, cooking. Extending this wish out further to all of Adelaide and the people in stores and factories, all the homes, businesses, into the outback areas, further and further, just imagining this wish extending however you can imagine doing it, do that.
The small towns and isolated homes of all of South Australia opening your heart further and further extending out this wish. To Melbourne and Hobart to Sydney, Brisbane, Cairns, Alice Springs, Perth, Darwin. Imagine as if this wish were extended to the entire country. However you feel it, however you could imagine it to be. Further to New Zealand, northward to Indonesia, Timor, Malaysia, Southeast Asia, Asia, and westward to Europe, and Africa.
South America, and North America. Just imagine as if you were taking the entire world into your heart, all the people, black, white, red, yellow, all the animals, all the insects, everything that lives on the face of this planet is touched by a wish that they’d be happy, that they’d not suffer. How would that feel? Just imagine that. And extending his wish out in all directions of space.
Without any feelings of limits or sense of limitation. Completely opening your heart, radiating out in all directions. Vast limits of infinite space Until finally, without any boundaries, without any center, pervading all of infinite space, the feeling, the wish, may all beings be happy. May there be only happiness. May there be peace.
May all beings be happy. May there be only happiness. Happiness. May there be peace. Nothing but infinite space in love.
Just try to stay there. Vast open space and infinite peace. Vast open space and peace. And then bring your mind back to the breath easy gentle in and out flow of the natural breath And get in touch with your body, perhaps the feeling of your buttocks on your cushion, on the chair, the pressure of your feet on the floor. Slowly become aware of your surroundings, sound of the air conditioner and so forth, someone coughing.
There’s a beautiful prayer of dedication from Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra. Perhaps we can recite together as a way of dedication. But in your heart, we’ve created some positive potential, some merit, something which is positive about what we’ve done this weekend together and giving giving it some kind of direction to whatever end you feel is a value to yourself. Make it worthwhile. May all beings everywhere plagued by suffering body and mind, attain an ocean of happiness and joy by virtue of my merits.
May no living creature suffer, commit evil, or ever fall ill. May no one be afraid or belittled with a mind weighed down by depression. May the blind see forms and the deaf hear sounds. May those whose bodies are worn with toil be restored on finding repose. May the naked find clothing, the hungry find food.
May the thirsty find water and delicious drinks. May the poor find wealth, those weak with sorrow find joy. May the forlorn