I would like to say I'll be sexy in a couple of months and I have mellowed somewhere over the last year. Someone did ask me whether we could have questions etc at the end but that depends on when you want to have supper. I don't mind. I prefer dialogue to standing up and being giving a monologue but we'll see how it goes. Just a few words of introduction. The terms used in this talk, in the title we have the notion of an imminent Buddha. It's not a term I use but this is a term that has been used in the movement. We're talking about the imminence of Buddhahood within individuals. So we use the term imminent Buddha but what we're talking about is traditionally known as the tatagata garber. Now I say tatagata garber and not tatagata garber, not because I'm Irish because that is as far as an English person goes or a Scottish person, a British person. That's how you pronounce it. I'm very finicky and I don't let people often look on these things. And then the other term I'm going to use in this talk, it's all the same thing, is the term Buddha nature because if you read Zen books and the Buddhism you get from China, this notion of tatagata garber, it got a bit garbled on the way and when it comes back into English it's known in Zen, Chinese Zen or Japanese Zen, it's known as the Buddha nature. So sometimes because I'm going to be quoting texts, sometimes I will talk about tatagata garber, sometimes I will talk about Buddha nature but it's the same thing as it were. And the other things I'm going to talk about say I'll refer to the Sanxaric sequence of conditionality and I'll talk about the nirvanic sequence of conditionality and I think we all know what that means. I'm just going to take it, that is given anyway. So sometimes I'll talk about the nirvanic sequence of conditionality which we know is the from Dukkha arises Shraddha or Confidence Nadarma from that arises Joy, right through to knowledge of the disruption of the Astruvas. That's the nirvanic sequence. The Sanxaric sequence is the usual one, independence on spiritual ignorance arises as Sanghskaras or the current formations all the way to old age, disease and death. But for shorthand I'm just going to use these two terms. Now I'm a scholar, so when I am asked a question what is the Buddha nature, what is tatagata garber, my only interest is what taxi, I'm not interested what anybody else says, I go to texts, that's where I find my sources, right. The Buddha in the Maha Pali Nabhanasuta which is in the Palikan and says when I'm gone you have the Dharma, that is your guide, let the Dharma be your guide and that's I take it quite literally. So when I'm asked a question like what is tatagata garber, I go to what the texts say about tatagata garber and in this talk I'm only looking at one text, a text called the Maha Pali nirvanasuta, not to be confused with the Maha Pali nabhanasuta which is only 20 pages long. The text I'm using in English translation is about over 750 pages long, it's the same kind of theme the last days of the Buddha but we can say it's been padded out over the years and this is a very influential text especially in China, in East Asian Buddhism and the notion of Buddha nature, we have in Zen etc, is derived from the influence of this text and in a sense this talk is just the beginning, I'm only using one text, there are other texts, I don't know what they say, well I do know what they say but I'm not going to go into it here. So this is a way I proceed, it's an investigation, what does this text say, and it gives you a basis, it gives you a grip on what the Buddhist tradition, at least in how we have it in translation, in time has come down to us and what it's said about this. Now you could look at some of the other texts and then maybe how it was understood in Galukpa traditions into that, how it was understood by dissolved China, whatever, and you've got to start somewhere, so this is where I start from, this which is, so firstly a bit of history, on the 17th of December 2001, Sibiti sent an email to a few order members, myself included, entitled to target a Garba study. Sibiti mentioned that he had been reading to Bante some texts from the to target a Garba tradition and out of this discussion arose the idea that we in the F2B or WBS strictly need to investigate this doctrine more thoroughly. Previously, if I remember my seminars with Bante correctly, Bante saw this doctrine as a red herring, and therefore it was never really introduced to this sort of standard F2B or approach to study, it was always seen as something kept at the edges it were. And there seemed to be the reason for this because it did happen in history that some beings thought that the notion that all beings have a target a Garba or a Buddha nature means that they do not have to practice, they are now fully endowed with the qualities of Buddhahood. And this actually happened, we know this actually happened, so Bante thought it could be a misleading doctrine, it needs sort of interpretation, expectation. So let's put it to one side because we do not need it, this seemed to be the general idea. But also, I'm not sure whether this is from Bante or Sibiti, it's simply clear that a lot of older members were saying that they find this notion of Buddha nature or to target a Garba or imminent Buddha, they really find it inspiring for their practice. So Bante thought that maybe we should investigate this notion further, maybe we're missing something, maybe we're overlooking it something, so maybe we should go back and have a look because if it inspires people to practice, it's obviously a very worthwhile thing to bring out. And to this end, Sibiti suggested that we start this kind of on-air sort of by email study group on the Tatar Garba, but it just didn't happen. So I thought it died of death, but lately of course Sibiti on the last convention gave a talk on the notion of imminence. I believe on the last national order weekend, Kamushila and Tejananda gave talks on this theme, and so I'd been asked to give a talk on this one. I imagine I'd been asked because you know, you do get a bit of a reputation, whether it's warranted or not in this F2 or DBL movement, and probably people think that I think this is sort of, you know, subversion of the Buddhist doctrine by sort of monks who are really Hindus, really, and you've got into the Buddhist tradition to undermine it by introducing this Hindu notion. And this is not just me. I mean, this goes on in all these texts. These texts, people who follow the Tatar Garba doctrine, are always being accused within a Buddhist tradition of bringing in Hindu doctrines. So there's a lot of controversy. And it's still a controversy. A recent movement called Critical Buddhism, which has its origins in Japan, this is really asking similar questions. For example, there's a book on Critical Buddhism called Pruning the Bodhi Tree, The Storm Over Critical Buddhism. And there is actually an article by a Japanese scholar called Matsumu Oshiro, entitled The Doctrine of Tatar Garba is Not Buddhist, followed by an article by a Western scholar called Sally King. And he has an article called, or it might be she, I'm not sure, The Doctrine of Buddha Nature is impeccably Buddhist. So this thing still continues right through to the present day. The thing is Shiro, this Japanese scholar who is against the idea that the Tatar Garba is a Buddhist doctrine, is because it to him contradicts the basic root doctrines of Buddhism, i.e. preteach it some of the pada or condition arising, and the notion of an atman. Now this is what he says. So let's have a look at the notion of imminence. So the notion of imminence, it comes from the Latin menere, which means to dwell, or to remain, and the prefix "im" or "in". So what it means is to dwell within, indwelling, innate, or being, it even means permanently pervaded by. Even our English word, Manchin, comes from the same root. So the notion of imminence is it's something that is inherent in us. And usually the implication, especially in theology and philosophy, is that it's a permanent thing. It's something that one is born with, it's innate. Maybe the Sanskrit term might be Sahaja, something you are born with, innate. So in a word is this doctrine saying that we are all born innately with a really existent, ontologically, existent thing called tatagad-grava, or a Buddha nature. Now we could say that the concept of imminence, it's not a Sanskrit concept, it corresponds directly to imminence, but the notion of imminence is very clear. It pervades the whole of the Upanishadic tradition. And this is, you know, the earlier Upanishads, so I'm going to use here, they proceed Buddhism by probably 200 years, right? And so I'm going to say, you know, just show how we see it in the Upanishads, in the Chantogu Upanishad, which is an earlier Upanishad. And there we have the sage Udalaka, and he's trying to teach his son, Sveta Ketu, the notion of the immanent Brahmin. That's, I mean, even modern philosophers, when they give titles to these things in Upanishads, although they don't have titles in the original Sanskrit, this is the term, they use the immanent Brahmin, etc. So after Udalaka's initial attempt to teach his son about the nature of Brahmin, Artman, it's the same thing in the Upanishad, the Brahmin, Artman, same thing. Sveta Ketu asks his father to teach him further, he hasn't quite grasped it. So what follows are nine similes, as it were, illustrate the imminence of Brahmin in the world and in the Self. So first of all, he says Sveta Ketu is as well, get a big container of water, then get a big chunk of salt. Now I drop this salt, the chunk of salt into the container, and come back tomorrow. So they come back tomorrow and he says, now, taste the water from this corner of the container. And he tastes it, he says, what does it taste of salt? He says, now go to the middle of the container, taste the water there, what does it taste of salt? Go to the other end of the container, taste the water, what does it taste of salt? And he says, that is exactly as Brahmin is in the world. Brahmin is, Brahmin permeates, he's imminent in the world, but we cannot see him, we see the water. And the water is like, in the world or the illusory world, in some forms of enthusiasm that we perceive. But the reality behind that illusion or permeating that illusion, or imminent in that illusion, is the Brahmin Artman. And this is where we have the famous statement Tatwam Asi, which means you are that. And this is what Udalaka says to Sveeduketu. He says, that is Brahmin, you are that. In other words, in reality, you're not your mind, your thoughts, your feelings, etc. beyond all that, what you are in reality is this Brahmin. And those who realize it are liberated from rebirth. That's the idea. So here we have a clear notion of imminence in pre-Buddhist Indian tradition. Later on in Indian philosophy you have, because I think Sabudhi mentioned something like immanent, I'm transcended. But again, we have this in Indian philosophy. The term is, Bhed Aabheda. So Bheda, as in Sangha Bheda, which is kesamin, asanga, Bheda means a split, this union. And Bhed Aabheda means Bheda and Aabheda, which means union or non-juality, and duality. To Bhed Aabheda means Brahmin is in union with the universe. He is imminent in the universe. But at the same time, he is not identical to the universe. He is, or whatever it is, is transcendent of the universe. So these ideas mean people think they just have their origin in the West. But these ideas were in India long, long before we had these ideas coming out in Christian theology. But the another analogy of the simile, because I like similes. When I teach, I prefer to use stories and similes, because I think they can't demonstrate things much more clearly than putting it over conceptually. And I could say that, because I'm supposed to be an intellectual. So we have another simile. And this is a simile I'm going to use, because it's found in the Upanishads. To do with this imminence, it's found in the Pali Suttas, and it's a simile used in the text, the Mahaparinovana text, which is a tatagada garabha sutra. This is going to be the main theme of the talk. So in the Upanishads, Brahmin is likened to ghee, which is immanent in the milk. And what this says, if there was no ghee immanent in the milk, the milk could not produce ghee. Now technically, this is known as Sankariya Vada. Vada is the doctrine that the effect exists in the cause. Where you were talking about a rose and the seed, in a sense, they would say the rose, actually ontologically speaking, really exists in the seed, even though you can't see it. So here in this analogy, it's impossible for you to get ghee from milk if the ghee did not already exist in some hidden form immanent in the milk. It just can't happen. So I think, personally, that the whole doctrine of the conditionality was introduced to completely undermine this view. So what I want to talk about now is conditionality, because conditionality is supposed to be the root doctrine of Buddhism. Even I think the Dalai Lama somewhere calls it the Buddhist mantra. Joanna Macy calls it. She, I think she says something like, "In no other religion, do we have a doctrine of causality as the root doctrine of that religion?" It's very strange. It's almost like it's a Buddhism of religion. The key doctrine is a natural law, as it were. Okay, it's more than a natural law, and it says, but it's got nothing to do with God or whatever. And this is meant to be the key doctrine of Buddhism. When I've studied it, I divide it into three levels. There's three levels of condition arising. There's level of conditionalizing as reality. So the Buddha says in his Samutta Nikaya, monks, whether there be an appearance or non-appearance of a tatakata, this determination of nature, this orderliness of nature prevails, just this conditionality. And we'll see actually later in one of the tatakata garbha sutras, another one called the Shrimalasutra, it actually hijacks here the notion of conditionality and replaces it with the notion of tatakata garbha. But elsewhere in the same Nikaya, the Samutta Nikaya, the Buddha says, "Bikus, that herein which is reality, not unreality, not other than it really is, just this conditionality, that is called condition arising." And we note here that the word for reality is tatakata. So if you study Mahayana sutras, yoga chalasutras, this is a term that's often used to indicate the nature of reality. Here it is in the Bali sutras. Tatakata makes a non-abstract, so it's like adding ness on you and like empty ness, shunya tat. So tatak is just a word that means thus. So it's sort of talking about kind of thusness. Things are just as they are in the scene, only the scene in the head, only the head, etc. It's pointing to something, reality, we'll just call it reality, right? So these statements regarding conditional rising, to me, they clearly point or they're trying to point to the very nature of existence. And also in the bhijima nakaya, the buddha also creates conditional rising with the dharma, and also from another edition, we have the dharma created with the buddha. So he says, "Whoever sees Pritijit samut pada sees the dharma, whoever sees the dharma sees Pritijit samut pada." And moving back to the samutta nakaya, we have the buddha warning against identifying his physical body with buddha hood, and he says, "What is there in seeing this vile body of mine? One who sees the dharma sees me, one who sees me sees the dharma." So you only see the buddha when you see the dharma, and you only see the dharma when you see Pritijit samut pada or conditional rising. And then another text, probably most of you don't know this text, is called the shali stambhasutra, which is available in English. It's a very early Mahayana text, what some call a proto-Mahayana text. It actually puts these together, and it says, "Whoever bigus sees Pritijit samut pada sees the dharma, whoever sees the dharma sees the buddha." And interestingly, we actually find this quote in a tatagadagabha sutra we're looking at later on. But this sutra also goes on to say, and this is why I think Pritijit samut pada here is reality, it goes on to say that Pritijit samut pada in this sense is always an ever devoid of a soul. The word for soul here is a jira. It is unborn, not become, not made, not compounded, unobstructed, inconceivable, glorious, fearless, ungraspable, inexhaustible, and by nature never stilled. So here we're talking about Pritijit samut pada as reality. It's pointing to the nature of reality. And in the Pali suit is we have this, on a more sober level, saying that the dharma is subtle, difficult to grasp beyond the range of reason, you know, to be understood only by the wise. So we could say a Pritijit samut pada in this sense is synonymous with reality. But then we have Pritijit samut pada on another level, and that is what I call Pritijit samut pada as a principle, a universal principle. And this is found in the expression, when this is, that becomes, from the arising of this, that arises. This not being, that does not become, from the ceasing of this, that ceases. So this is a general formula. What you have to do to make it more concrete is you have to fill in the pronouns, this and that, you know, when this is a rose seed, soil, moisture, sunlight, that becomes a rose, right? When this is not, I know, no water, no seed, that does not become, no rose. So this is Pritijit samut pada as a general universal principle, which is an expression in space and time, et cetera, of what is, in the first instance, something of the nature of reality in the world, the first step of reality in the world, as it were. So it's a kind of minimalist formulation. But then we have Pritijit samut pada in formulae. And we have various formulae, such as the 12 for nadana sequence, beginning with independence on spiritual ignorance, the rises, the samskaras, independence on samskaras, the rises, consciousness, et cetera. And there are many, many more of these. There's tons and tons of formulations. Unfortunately, I may mention this later on, it is the case that Pritijit samut pada becomes identified with one formulation. And the important formulations, as we know in the movement, are what we call the nirvanic formulations, such as independence on faith arises joy from joy, you get the rapture from rapture, happiness, happiness, samadhi from samadhi, insight into nature of existence, et cetera. So all these formulations, they're filling in the principle. So what I'm saying here, there are three levels. This Pritijit samut pada is reality. Pritijit samut pada formulae is a very general universal principle. And then there are the individual formulations of Pritij samut pada, which are various. Some relate to samsara, some relate to nirvana. Unfortunately, the nirvanic ones seem to have been lost in the bells of history. This is another talk I like to do actually, what the effect is on Buddhism, when these positive nirvana sequences become totally lost. They're just not mentioned, you know, at all in 2000 years, as far as I can see, what effect did that have when conditionality itself becomes identified with what is a negative samsara sequence? There's a lot to say on that, but I'm not going to say it here. So now we move on to imminence in the doctrine of the tataka the garbar. In translation anyway, there are three main tataka the garbar sutras. First of all, there's one called the tataka the garbar sutra. It's only about five pages long. It's very short. I think it exists of nine similes of tataka the garbar, you know, like a woman with a child or a gold hidden in the soil, this kind of thing. Then there's the shrimala devi, or it's got various titles. The shortest title is shrimala sutra. That's available in English. You could have a look at that. But the one I'm interested in is because I, you know, it's just peculiar to me. I got suddenly interested in this text. I had it in the library. It's in 12 little booklet forms. And it comes, I photocopied it and bound it, and it's come to over 750 pages. And this is the Maha Pari navana sutra. Now I took this sutra because it's mainly the most influential in East Asian Buddhism. It's the largest sutra it uses many, many similes. And that's what I like. I don't like personally, funny enough, the more intellectual approach these days, I'm getting old. I prefer a similar approach. So first of all, a bit of background. Well, for instance, none of these texts, we do not have any Sanskrit original none. We have Sanskrit, the texts I'm using, the Maha Pari navana sutra. We do find Sanskrit fragments, just a few, few pages. That's all we have. But to say about the texts we have, so what do we have in terms of the Maha Pari navana sutra? Well, we have one text called a Thaxian text, which is meant to be the earliest. That was translated into Chinese from, we assume it was Sanskrit. It might be in some like sogde, you know, some central Asian version of Sanskrit between 414 and 418 CE. Then we have another translation which was done by someone called Dharmak Shema. And that was done, run about the same time. It seemed to have started earlier, but maybe finished later. Now this is the one I am using. This is an English translation of the Dharmak Shema translation. It's much bigger. We don't know why this is. The Thaxian translation roughly corresponds to the first five chapters of the Maha Pari navana sutra I'm using the Dharmak Shema translation, which is in 46 chapters. But we also have a translation from Sanskrit into Tibetan, but that was done in the 9th century. So this is for nearly 500 years later, and that's in something like about 20 chapters. And very different, I've had a look at some of them. I've got an English, a rough English translation of the Tibetan one, but it's not published yet. And they're all talking about the same thing, but they're slightly different. Whether these are differences due to translations, well, I'm not sure. But the text I'm using is this big one. And there is theories. All this mention is about the origin of these texts. Last night we heard about imaginary, his book on Buddhist Saints in India, and he talks about the monastic tradition in a late tradition, and there's a forest non-sean tradition. And the view of scholarship these days is the Mahayana has its origins in the forest non-sean tradition. It's like it's more visionary. It's more to do a meditation, etc. They don't live in monasteries, but don't get the idea that laypeople, they're much stricter and more aesthetic than any monks. In fact, they complain about the monks being too lax. So don't get the idea that we are forest non-seans. But it seems it's quite clear from the earlier text seeing how they progress. It's like they start with these people who are called Dharma katicas, and they're like a charias, they're wondering teachers. But these texts are taken up and they are written out in the Dharma Kshayman translation. They're written out and they're replaced by monks. So that's how things go. These are the texts. And the two main themes of the Tatagadgarva text, the main theme is that the Buddha is eternal. The Tatagadha or the Buddha does not die. He does not actually die the so-called parinavana. And that's why they call it the Maha parinavana, because that wasn't really the Buddha dying. The Buddha just goes elsewhere. The Buddha will not leave Sanghsara behind until all sentient beings are awakened. Well, there's a lot of problems. There's a problem of people called echanthikas. And in some parts of the text, the echanthikas and beings who have got, they're so devoid of any root of goodness. Even the Buddhists can't save them. Some saris left to them. But again, the other people got their hands and especially went to China. And they said, "Well, no, the echanthikas, because they've got the problem of, well, do the echanthikas have Buddha nature. How can somebody with Buddha nature not gain enlightenment?" So they said, "Well, it takes Buddhists to awaken these beings." So they get awakened. They can become awakened. That only Buddhists can awaken them. So to explore this theme, I'm using similes. And these are the similes used in this text concerning milk. Or sometimes it's milk, curds, butter, cream of butter, ghee, cream of ghee. Sometimes it's just butter and cream. Sometimes it's milk, et cetera. They vary, yeah? But the point is the same. The point is the same. So we saw that in the Upanishadic tradition, when we use this simile, the simile was that Brahman exists in us, because it's in us. It's called the Akman. And it's imminent in us. And it's our reality. And it's here really now in a very real ontological sense, just like the ghee is in butter. So we switch the Pali switches in a deacon account, huh? The Buddha says, and I think because the Buddha, I mean, I've done a talk on the Buddha of a sense as human. It's quite clear that, well, I say the Buddha, but whoever wrote these texts in the early days, they clearly knew about the Upanishads. And basically, there are so many jokes in the Pali canon that people don't understand because they don't understand the Upanishads. That's another story. So I think the Buddha uses the simile with the Upanishadic notion in mind, because you must remember a large majority of the early Buddhist disciples were Brahmins. You know, they were the people who knew the Upanishads, they were the people in New Sanskrit, et cetera. So this would have all come in, even though the Buddha didn't know about it initially, it would have come in to the early Buddhist tradition. So the Buddha says, in his minimalistic sense, he says, from the cow, we get milk. From the milk, curds, from the curds, butter, from butter, ghee, and from ghee, cream of ghee. And when there is milk, we do not speak of curds, or butter, or ghee, or cream of ghee, we speak of milk, right? When there are curds, we do not speak of butter, cream of ghee, milk, et cetera, we speak of curds. And he goes through them all one after another, right? So in other words, when we have milk, we stick with the fact that in terms of what exists here and now in any kind of meaningful sense, there is only milk. If we start to speculate and ask questions such as where the cream of ghee is, when there's only milk, or where the milk goes from the cream of ghee, the Buddha says, you will get confused. So this is clearly, I think, a challenge on, you know, is this the way our mind works. And he says to Chitta, the cycle he's talking to, he says, but Chitta, these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the targetter uses without misapprehending them. So here, I mean, just to give you how I try to teach it, or try to grasp it, I say, well, it's like a rainbow. You look at a rainbow, you have yellow, then it becomes orange, red, then what is it called, mauve, blue, et cetera. But you say, obviously, my students as well, where does the yellow finish and the orange begin? So you get, oh, well, there's a there's a color in between yellow and orange, and the most of it's something like that. Well, where does the yellow start? You know, where does yellow finish? And the most have began or whatever. And you can just go on and on and on. And the whole point is you realize that these designations, these labels, et cetera, like yellow, orange, et cetera, they don't belong out there. They are what we impose on what is in the scene, only the scene, in order to, well, in order to live, in order to survive, in order to communicate, et cetera. But the problem is, is we think there is something yellow there that is distinct from orange. It's not the same kind of temporal process as a key in the mill, but you could apply it to a key in the mill. You say, well, where did the milk? Well, when it comes out of the car, you know, it's got a certain constitution smell, et cetera. The next day, well, it's slightly changed, doesn't it? Smells slightly different. Maybe it's slightly sweeter. You know, and after a while, it becomes a little bit sour. You're not sure whether you put it in your tea or not, you know, you're not sure as you throw it out, you know, and if you leave it, it becomes sour. These things don't really exist. There's just a continual process that's got no divisions in it at all. But in order to understand that, we say, we have ghee here, milk. Well, where does the ghee come from? You know, here we are, unawaken beings. How can our unawaken beings become awakened beings? So, awakened beings is like ghee, unawaken beings is like milk. So, somehow or rather, there must be something in us now that is awakened, and we'll call up to Doug and Carver. Is this what it means? We'll see. So, the point is that this way of looking at things, if you just stop with it, the Buddhist seems to stop there, because it does not tell us anything about the real nature of existence. When the Buddha talks, he says, this being that becomes, from the arising of this, that arises. You know, there is continuity, not even like we say in the Guardian, but in a sense, there is no this that becomes. It's just, even then, that's a labeling. Yeah, just more abstract, right? So, this is why I think the Buddha, when he talks, I mean, it's like if you want to grasp on reality, the most minimalistic statement you can say is this being, that becomes. It's pointing to something. So, we go to our Baha'i Parin of Anasutra, and so, there's a Bodhisattva Singanada, and he's playing the straw man. He's playing the part of the literal-minded Buddhist, who thinks there is ghee in milk. We've got a whole pile of similes here to do with milk. So, he says to the Buddha, "But in a way, Lord, all beings possess the Buddha nature in the same way that there is butter in milk." And the Buddha replies, "I have never maintained that there is the nature of butter in milk." When people say that there is the nature of butter in milk, it is because they see that butter is produced from milk. I see that butter arises in pen-owned conditions, but you don't understand that. They think it comes from milk. So, the Bodhisattva Singanada asks, "World Honour One, everything produced surely must have its occasions." I'm not sure what this means, but anything. That's what it says. And the Buddha replies, "Good sons. When there is milk, there is no butter, and there is also no curd, butter, or ghee. If there is cream in milk, why don't we give milk the double-name cream milk?" Just as we call the person's skillful in making both articles of gold and iron, a golden blacksmith. And then he says, "Good sons, if there is the nature of cream in milk, if you have maintained, why do milk sellers not ask for the price of cream? Why do they just ask for the price of milk?" He says, "If there is the nature of cream in milk, why can't we detect it simultaneously in the five tastes? The five taste has been the taste of milk, cream, curd, butter, and ghee? If there really was the ghee in the milk, we would taste it, but we don't." Then he says other things like, "Good sons, milk differs from cream in its color, taste, and products, and the same is true of ghee." How can we say that there is a nature of cream in milk? Good sons, just as it is absurd to maintain that, a person who will eat curd tomorrow gives out a bad smell today, equally absurd as it to maintain that there exists definitely the nature of cream in milk. So it's just slightly vulgar, isn't it, as if curds make you fart. Well, if you're going to eat curd tomorrow, you should be able to fart today. I mean, this goes on page after page, it's unbelievable. And he gives another one, he says, "Why do mere sellers ask for the price of mares only and not for the price of colts, which will be born from the mares?" So if colts actually exist in the mare, like the tatagada garb in us, when one purchases a mare, one should really pay for the colt as well. And he does the same thing with children, this is quite interesting when he says, "A man of the world asked for the hand of a woman because he is without offspring, and once a woman gets pregnant, she would no longer be called a girl." Now, if it is said that a girl gets married with the nature of a child in her, that would be wrong. Why? For if she had the nature of a child in her, she would also have the nature of a grandchild. And if she had the nature of a grandchild, her child and her grandchild would be brothers. Why? Because both of them owe their existence to the same belly. Therefore, I assert that girl do not possess the nature of children to whom they will give birth. In other words, just because a woman can give birth to a child, it would be absurd to talk as if there was a natural child there before she was pregnant. And just another one, you know, it just says, "If there is a substance of a banyan tree, five feet tall in the seed, why can't we observe in the seed at once the miscellaneous forms of sprout, stem, branches, leaves, fruit, and flowers?" And I'll finish with the last one. He says, "We mix the colors of blue and yellow together to form the color green. It should be understood that the two colors, blue and yellow, do not embody originally the nature of greenness. If the nature of greenness already existed in the colors blue and yellow, why do we have to mix the colors blue and yellow together to form the color green?" And now this goes on again and again and again throughout the sutra. So what is clear? Why is it singing out in a few others? They're the straw man. Why is it to keep saying the Lord? There must be cream of green butter, you know, the sort of thing. Why is it? Well, clearly in history, people keep misunderstanding it. So they have to say it again and again in one illustration after another. I mean, you have really strange ones like someone says, "Yes, but the shadow of the tree exists when there's no light." Because when you put the light on, you see the shadow of the tree, you know. And then he ends, he says, "Good sons, all dharmas are without definite nature." This is the reason. If the milk had a definite nature, you could not change into green. Because what it is is milk, that's its real nature. If the ghee had a real nature, then it would not need milk to bring it into being. Because if it had its own nature, it could just manifest. It doesn't need any other conditions. So this seems to be the point. And then the Buddha goes on to say, he says, "Well, it is the same with sentient beings. The target agarabha is likened to a direct cause. And the practice of the six perfections is likened to an auxiliary cause." So this is bringing in later Abhidhamma stuff, really. You know, there are conditions, but it's like there are different orders of conditions. You will only get a rose from a rose seed. A rose seed is a kind of, it's a more dominant condition. You need other conditions for the rose. You need the soil, the water, etc. But if you plant a cabbage seed, you will get a cabbage under the same secondary conditions. You know, cabbage also needs soil, water, moisture, etc. So just talking about what the tatagadha agarabha is, is this direct cause. If we didn't have this tatagadha agarabha, then the perfection of wisdom or the practice of the six parmitas would not produce a Buddha. Nevertheless, there is something about human beings that, under the right conditions, can produce a Buddha. And you're going to see elsewhere that what this is is mind. I'm not sure what they mean by mind. I'm using a Chinese translation for this because all sentient beings have a mind. So the reason that it's only sentient beings that possess the tatagadha agarabha rocks do not possess the tatagadha agarabha because they have no minds. So that's when we have in later Chinese Buddhism because of the Chinese view of the world, they think rocks are mind. So there is a debate, you know, does a dog have Buddha nature, etc. So where does us all leave us in relation to the notion of imminence? So very clearly, all these similes completely reject the notion of imminence as found in your panishads, i.e. that the Brahmin appan actually exists like an unseen salt and water or like the key in milk. In Upanishads, the Ammin Brahmin is the unseen essence of all things. And is there ultimate, untrue, and absolute nature? And yet is transcendentally distinct. And as I said, it's insight into this. The In Upanishads constitutes liberation. And we don't know, I mean, obviously, they said that some people have this experience. I mean, I think we should remember this. These are yogans saying this. They're not sort of dual blog on the corner, the street corner. You know, these are yogans. These are people who live in a forest. These are the meditators, say this kind of thing. So therefore, in answer to the question, is the imminent Buddha a fallacy? The answer is, yes, if this imminent Buddha, or Tautaka de Garbha, is understood to be a really existing thing here and now, literally dwelling within us. All these similes are brought up again and again to demonstrate that such an understanding of the Tautaka de Garbha doctrine is a wrong understanding. There is no imminent Buddha or Tautaka de Garbha in this literal sense. The doctrine of the Tautaka de Garbha points to the potentiality to attain Buddhahood that all sentient beings possess because they possess a mind. Now, I'll add to that because I am a scholar. That is according to the Maha Pari, Navana, Sutra. So when I say this, it's qualified that that's what this text is. I'm not saying this is what other texts might say, or what some Tibetan teachers might say, or Zogchen teachers, etc. I'm just telling you, this is what this text is. We saw this Japanese scholar said, the reason that Tautaka de Garbha doctrines, now Buddhist, is because of contradicts, the notion of Patitya Samagpada and an Atman. So, is the relationship between Patitya Samagpada and Tautaka de Garbha? Well, once again, our text makes it very clear. Good sons, that is why I teach in various sutras that if a person perceives the 12 links of conditioned arising, he sees the Dharma. To see the Dharma is to see the Buddha. And the term Buddha leads to the same thing as the term Buddha nature, the Tautaka de Garbha. Why? Because all Buddhas have the Buddha nature as their nature. And then he goes on to say, "O good man, the wisdom that can meditate on the 12 links of conditioned arising is the seed that gains one unsurpassed awakening." And for this reason, we call the 12 links of conditioned arising the Buddha nature. So, here it's very clear they're saying, "Tautaka de Garbha is conditional arising." Now, as I said, just to mention this, in the Shrimalah Sutra, it actually says, "Son of good family, this is the true nature of all dharmas. Whenever the Tautaka de's arise, or whether the Tautaka de's arise in the world or not, all sentient beings possess the Tautaka de Garbha." So, they're being a bit dishonest about it, at least the Mahātārī Nāvana Sutra is saying that the Tautaka de Garbha is producing some of the body in this one, they're trying to replace it with the Tautaka de Garbha. But to me, this equation here, well, what sort of level of conditionality we're dealing with here? What we're dealing with is they are equating Tautaka de Garbha with one of the formulations of conditioned arising. And not only that, but the one formulation they're equating it with is a samsaraic formulation. So, clearly it doesn't work, because the samsaraic formulation, you know, independence on ignorance arises, the samskaras, etc. What Buddhivists is the total ending of that. It's the destruction of that realm, doesn't it? I mean, all that 12 links can produce is samsara. If we talk about nāvana, we talk about nāvana entirely in terms of the very cessation and the bringing to end of that. So, clearly, if the Tautaka de Garbha is identical with it, what can we say? The Tautaka de Garbha is to be destroyed, is to be got rid of because it's completely ignorant, etc. So, it doesn't work. It doesn't work. Well, if you're clever, I'm sure you probably could make it work, but I think it's problematic, problematic. But this is my addition to it, right? This is me talking now. So, I think we can't rescue the Tautaka de Garbha. I find reading this text. It really had a very positive effect on me. I was really surprised, because I'm skeptical, usually, not to say cynical at times. And I was surprised, I was reading this text. I had really quite a positive effect on me. I quite liked this Tautaka de Garbha thing. And this is why, because it goes on to say, "Good sons, all sentient beings are not by nature resistant to the Buddha nature." And because of this, we declare that they have the Buddha nature. So, I see this as saying, in other words, the fact that we sentient beings are capable of responding to the Dharma is the very indication that we have a Buddha nature, right? So, generally speaking, when treated with genuine kindness, concern, and encouragement, human beings can flourish. And that flourishing can be understood as a manifestation of the Buddha nature. And according to this sutra, all sentient beings, not just human beings, are said to possess a Tautaka de Garbha. And as a sutra tells us elsewhere, all sentient beings possess minds. And so, any being who possess minds possesses the potentiality for Buddhahood, therefore all beings possess the Tautaka de Garbha or Buddha nature. So, I thought, well, how can you see a dog? God. How can you see a dog possesses Buddha nature? Well, it's clear, isn't it? Dogs respond to kindness. Simple, you know? I mean animals like kindness. They respond to kindness. It's simple. That's simple to nature. So, it's everywhere. Flowers, doesn't it? I mean, if people, you know, they've got their knack of growing flowers, etc. Flowers seem to respond to some people in the office. You could say, "Oh, I'm not going off my rocker here." You could... But you could say, in a sense, it's a way of looking at it, poetically, through the imagination, that this is the nature of existence, you know? Treat things with kindness, care, positivity, encouragement. And what happens? They flourish. In that, flourishing is their Buddha nature coming out. And then the Sutra goes on to talk about the famous parable of the blind men in the elephant. In what it says, it says, like, it sees this initial response to the Dharma, maybe like into the blind men, thinking that grasping the tail of the trunk, like understanding the elephant. But it's a very positive Sutra. So, it says, well, this is good, because at least the are in contact with the elephant. You know, that's the thing to focus on. They've got some handled on it. It's a misunderstanding. They think it's God or whatever. But somehow or other, emphasize or not, because this is the manifestation of their Buddha nature. And he goes on to say, and this is quite a positive statement. He says, "Even though Bodhisattvas perceive the evil deeds and errors in sentient beings, they never dwell on them." Why? They're afraid this will lead to the arising of further defilements in sentient beings. With the arising of further defilements, sentient beings will fall into evil modes of existence. On the other hand, Bodhisattvas, on perceiving the least sign of goodness in sentient beings, praise them. And what do we mean by good? It is the so-called Buddha nature. Bodhisattvas lauds the Buddha nature so that sentient beings will develop the thought of the most perfect enlightenment. So, the message, you know, is very clear, and it's quite a good message for us. By encouraging and praising skillful actions in others, we are thereby nourishing their Buddha natures, which only manifest in response to the Dharma, or at least some kind of contact with what we call the Dharma, even though that response might actually mistake the tail of the elephant for the elephant itself. When Bodhisattvas do not focus unnecessarily on the negative saying, "Don't be a silly fool. That's only the tail of the elephant." Yeah? They don't. They encourage people because they actually perceive in that response the Buddha nature, that response to the good, and this they encourage. Now, I think this is given the way our movement is these days. I think this is very necessary, and I'm not renowned for saying these side things. So, let's just return to put it in another kind of context. In this time, I'm going to use the standard story of the four sites. I think it helps illustrate a bit more. So, this story tells us a previous Buddha, Vapassan, or Vapassi, before he became a Buddha, got rather fed up, leading his rather sheltered, pampered, luxurious life at home, and desire to venture out further afield into the world, to explore. On each of these ventures, which according to this sutra, the only sutra where this is actually mentioned in Pali sutas, each of these sites is separated by billions of aons. So, don't take it too little. So, firstly, he come face-to-face with old age, and secondly, with the disease, and thirdly, death. So, what are these? These are the final links, or the final link, in the standard Sanghsarak 12 for the Vana sequence. So, clearly, that story is telling us what the life that the Buddha lived to at that time, the world, as he saw, is best illustrated in the formulation of the 12 Sanghsarak, the Dhanas sequence. Basically, Dukkha. But then he saw a fourth site. He saw a Pari Vrajika, which is a wandering mendicant, and here we can see, represents the Dharma. While going back to the story of the elephant and the blind man, he represents, as it were, the tale of the elephant, because the Pari Vrajika wasn't really a Buddhist, but nevertheless, he represented an alternative, positive response to Sanghsara. At least he was a meditator, a urine, or whatever. So, the Buddha is to be a response, supposed to leave home, and go forth into the forests of northern India, in search of East Quest. So, the fourth site links in with one of the nirvanic formulations of conditionalizing. That is, independence on Dukkha, there arises Shraddha, or faith, or confidence, etc., which you can say here is the confidence. Well, you could see what it is. It's catching the tale of the elephant in that response. It's a confident response. There's a going for something. We're not sure what it is. The Buddha is not a Buddha yet, but that Buddha nature and the Buddha is being into manifest, and that manifestation leads to a going forth. Because suddenly, there's a promise of something that ordinary life does not seem to offer. What we are saying is that this response is possible because we all possess a Buddha nature. What the doctrine of the Buddha nature here is saying is that that is the Buddha nature. We all possess a Buddha nature because we are all capable of this kind of response. But like the milk in the cream of ghee, it would be a mistake to think that, literally speaking, this Buddha nature was actually there all the time. Just waiting for the right conditions to pop up, as if Shraddha really exists in Dukkha, or more correctly, that liberation or awakening really pre-exists in Dukkha, which is to say that Buddha who would quite literally exist, literally exists all the time. But on the other hand, reality is there all the time. This is another approach to imminence. Prejudice, some would part it, is there all the time, whether we see it or not. That's what the Sutra tells us. Whether the tatagadis arise or not, this is the nature of reality. Whether anyone sees it or not, it is there all the time. Never goes away. It is eternal. But the reason we don't see it is because our minds are under the influence of the glaciers or the afflictions, which, due to the nature of reality, in terms of conditional arising, give rise to Dukkha. So our minds are generally in this state, but they're, again, occasionally we experience skillful mental states, which, because of the nature of reality, can give rise to what we have in the positive formulations of conditional arising. They can inspire us with faith. And as it were, it's like that faith must have some flavor as it were of liberation. Isn't that what the Buddha says, isn't it? The Dharma has one flavor, the flavor of liberation, one taste. So it's again, it's like in skillful mental states, as it were, that is where, if you're going to be practical about it, that is where we can find what would they say the Buddha nature. So skillful mental states, in a sense, there's more to them if you have the right kind of attitude and imagination, there's much more to them than just this formula. It's like if you're sensitive enough and got an imagination, there is something there that is pointing beyond to something far more satisfying, etc., and ultimately, say, Buddhahood. So this is kind of what I call a nice good alternative approach to Buddha nature, that you can use in a quite practical sense. And it does bring out the emphasis on the positive, the importance of skillful mental states, because skillful mental states and unskillful mental states, they're both the nature of reality is around us, if you're unskillful, the nature of reality says tukka, if you're a skillful, the nature of reality says happiness. That's the nature of reality is here and now. But in a sense, you could say, well, because the nature of reality is here and now, in a sense, it is imminent. It's not imminent in a kind of literal sense, like ghee is in milk, because petitus samapata isn't like that. But again, it's an inspiration to practice that the nature of reality, it is there in front of your nose, our nose, day after day, moment after moment. So there's always what you could say, the notion of imminence in the sense of there is the permanent possibility of awakening, because insight with the say when it arises, it rises suddenly, and it's permanently possible, we don't know. So that, again, I think, is inspiring, it's an encouragement to practice when you sit down, you say, well, who knows? I must remember just the reminisce. Thinking about this talk, I was brought back to, you know, my early days and you have to already be all, et cetera, and pre-after already be all. And because I was a hippie, the reason I let throw on me because I want to go and take drugs. And then I used to take my LSD and read my Alan Watts and Suzuki and all this Zen stuff, et cetera. You know, and I was absolutely sure, you know, when we lived in Morocco, we thought we'd go to Morocco six times, we'd come back as a real, literally, believers, you know, because our, you know, we take LSD, you have this strange experiences, you seem to be touching on reality. When I first come along, they have to already be all, and I remember picking up the survey and just talking about what we call the developmental model, the member about the eightfold path, I thought, what a load of crap this is, you know. Thanks, people, I just don't understand it. But then I thought, well, have I got it wrong? Maybe I was right then, you know, because all this talk going on in the middle, so well, maybe I've been misled for 30 years by the F total view, and you know, you'd have to ask yourself these questions. I don't think I have, actually. No, no. But again, it's like, you know, I think this is an important thing about this kind of teaching, is to remember that there is a kind of imminence. And this imminence is pretty to some of Pada has got different levels, but even pretty to some of Pada's reality, that's more difficult to grasp than pretty to some of Pada's is, you know, turning milk into ghee thing is in front of us all the time. It's really quite inspiring, isn't it? In a sense, due to the glaciers, Navan is miles away, but we're not always in the glaciers. And so in a sense, it's near. You know, so I think, you know, one of the things was, could be imminent Buddha or to target a garbage, as it got practical use in people's practice, well, I would say yes. I think it's just the beginning. I think this has to be explored a lot more really. But anyway, that's all I've got to see. [Applause]
