Is that clock over there, like, you know, one of those clocks that's supposed to be, like, really the time outside Tassajara? No? Is it one of those clocks that are actually accurate by... Where is it? It's behind the Zendo. It's behind the Zendo. It's behind Zenda. So it's sort of that. Can you have that time on your wrist now? I think so. Call it passed. Call it passed. But we need to synchronize all the clocks from that. Oh, okay. You just got it. Okay. I'd like to look at this little paragraph here in the chapter on the questions of Gunalkara.

[01:22]

And after introducing the three characters of all phenomena, It says, Gunakara, for example, the indicational character should be viewed as being like the defects of clouded vision in the eyes of a person with clouded vision. And other dependent characters should be viewed as like the appearance of the manifestations of clouded vision in that very person. manifestations which appear as nets of hair or insects or sesame seeds, or as blue manifestations, yellow manifestations, red manifestations or white manifestations.

[02:43]

And then the thoroughly established character should be viewed as being like an unerring objective reference, a natural objective reference of the eyes when the person's eyes have become pure and free of defects of clouded vision. So let's see here. So we have these three characters. And I thought it might be helpful to point out a parallel which has been brought up.

[03:48]

And I think that in a sense, the way I'm going to be talking about the sutra today might be sort of in the line of what you might call... like maybe the way Vasubandhu sees the sutra. I don't know exactly the way he sees it, but there'll be some Vasubandhu kind of view of the sutra today, which is what we call yogacara, sometimes. Anyway, what I'm saying now isn't really, but... I think most people would agree that other dependent phenomena refer to impermanent phenomena. Other dependent phenomena, dependently-causing phenomena, are impermanent phenomena, or rather

[04:57]

Yeah. Not all other dependent phenomena are impermanent. But other dependent phenomena generally, except for emptiness and space, are impermanent phenomena. But let's just say we have an other dependent phenomena which is impermanent. Okay? And it has happened, apparently, that some people have observed impermanent other dependent phenomena and they have realized... I'm not going to put on a... So the exact word for... impermanence is anicca, and the Sanskrit word for... There's another Sanskrit word which is anicca.

[06:07]

So anicca means impermanent, and anicca means impermanence. So if you observe impermanent things, it's possible to realize, to have a realization and understanding called impermanence. In other words, impermanence isn't like something on top of... You could say impermanence isn't something like sitting on top of impermanent phenomena. Does that make sense? The impermanent phenomena don't have this like little sign over them or little truth flying over the top of them. So impermanence is, in a sense, it is, if you just use the expression which David Kuluthana uses, impermanence is like an epistemological achievement.

[07:13]

Impermanence is kind of like a knowledge. So when you see impermanence, you don't really see impermanence. You see impermanent phenomena. But a lot of people see impermanent phenomena, right? Most of you have seen impermanent phenomena, right? But not all of you may have seen impermanence because, in other words, not all of you have understood have made the epistemological leap into knowledge of the impermanence of things. As a matter of fact, we usually look at impermanent things and think our epistemological achievement for most impermanent things, and we think, well, they're impermanent, but really they're permanent. I mean, I know they're impermanent, but really they're permanent. We innately think they're permanent. And by practicing meditation on the impermanent, which is ordinary, phenomenal, empirical stuff, you can get the idea gradually and the knowledge of impermanence.

[08:32]

Can you explain the word epistemologically? It's something to do with having to understand and understanding the basis on the basis of your knowledge. Your knowledge is based on something, and you have a knowledge which is based on something, this particular meaning of epistemology, a knowledge based on something, and you understand what it's based on, and the knowledge is not the thing it's based on. And the what? The knowledge is not the thing it's based on. and you understand that, that would be a type of epistemological understanding I just told you about. So you have some other meaning of epistemological? No. No. So you have an understanding of the basis of your understanding. You understand that impermanent phenomena are impermanent.

[09:38]

You have an understanding of impermanence. But you can't actually see impermanence. Impermanence is not an empirical phenomena. It's a knowledge. And the same with emptiness. Emptiness, you look at phenomena which are empty, and by meditating on things that are empty, you develop an epistemological understanding of emptiness of these phenomena. But you don't actually see the emptiness. It's an object of knowledge in the sense that you understand that. Your understanding is something you're conscious of. So the thoroughly established character in this... Other translations, I think, are somewhat helpful in this particular case.

[10:42]

The other translations are that the... I won't say it the way they said it. I'll just say the thoroughly established character is like the unconfused object seen by pure vision. Unconfused object. And the other translation is... are like the unconfused sphere of the operation natural to clear eyes. In this chapter it doesn't tell you something which it tells you in the next chapter about the other dependent character. In the next chapter it tells you that the other dependent character is the basis of the imputational character, the signs of compounded phenomena, and, again, the basis of conceptual activity.

[11:50]

How did it go? How did you say it? The other dependent character is the object of conceptual activity, the basis of the imputational character, and the signs of compounded phenomena. Okay? You're told that in the next chapter. It's somewhat implied in this chapter. So the other dependent character, in particular, I just want to draw attention to that it is the signs of compounded phenomena. So compounded phenomena, it turns out they sort of have signs. And those signs are kind of like, in some sense, a justification for coming up with imputation, imputation of... imputation of own being, imputation of duality.

[13:08]

So I'm going to emphasize the Vasubandhi's take on this, is that The basic imputation is imputation of duality, of subject-object duality. But the other dependent character is the basis for this imputation. This imputation is not totally... This imputation dependently co-arises. Imputation of duality, which is how things appear, That imagination, that pure imagination, is based on something which is not just pure imagination. This is not just pure imagination, the other dependent character. But the imagination of duality is based on the other dependent character.

[14:13]

And the other dependent character is also the basis the thoroughly established character. But the thoroughly established character, it says it's the unerring object of what? Unerring object... Objective reference. Objective reference. The other dependent, in a sense, is kind of an erring objective reference because when you look at the other dependent, it has these signs. It has signs which can be the basis for the conception of duality. But by understanding how the imputation of duality upon the other dependent is actually somewhat justified, but also totally non-existent,

[15:16]

you can understand, you can come to the epistemological achievement, you can have the achievement, thoroughly established achievement, of understanding that the imputational is absent in the other dependent. But you can't actually see this because it's not actually a phenomena, in a sense. It's more like an achievement. In the sense that it's a phenomena, it's an achievement. It's a knowledge that comes by studying dependently co-arisen phenomena. So what we have to do in order to see that, which I was going to start with today but I didn't, we somehow have to loosen our belief that the imputational is the other dependent so we can have the understanding that although the other dependent character is the basis for the imagination of duality, and in that sense it sponsors duality, it sponsors the idea or the imagination of duality, so it's implicated in duality, and in fact it is the appearance of duality.

[16:39]

It is that which appears as duality. So what appears is the other dependent. That which appears is the other dependent. What appears here is the other dependent. But what appears here is a manifestation of the belief in duality. So the belief in duality is based on the other dependent character. And then when that belief, or that Totally imaginary duality is put back upon the other dependent, which justifies it to some extent. What appears to us is duality. Can I ask something? Yes. When we often talk about these seeing things as they are, Are we just talking about this epistemological achievement?

[17:40]

We don't actually see something as they are, that is more an achievement? So, as you just said, epistemological achievement, does that mean we don't actually see things as they are, but it's just an achievement? Well, Yes, I guess I would say that we don't actually see things as they are. However, we understand how they are. See, we can't actually see non-duality.

[18:42]

Because when things appear, there's already duality implied. But we can understand that duality is non-existent. So again, the way Vasubandha understands the thoroughly established is that it is an existent thing, non-duality. It is an existent non-duality. It is an existent absence of a non-existent duality. So duality does not exist. Non-duality does exist. However, it exists not as an appearance, because that's duality. It doesn't exist that way. And in the self-fulfilling samadhi,

[19:51]

Doga is talking about all this stuff happening, this miraculous stuff happening, this resonance between all beings through the medium of enlightenment. This is a description of non-duality. It's a description of the absence of duality. And then he says, all this, however, is not reached by perception. but it is reached by understanding, but no perceptions reach it. But it's based on things you can perceive. It's based on things which you can perceive and imagine, which in a sense are empirical, are observable, and it's also based on and connected to understanding the imaginary as being absent in the other dependent.

[20:57]

So should I go on a little bit more, or should we want to plunge into the questions now? So quite a few people have their hands raised, so is it okay if we go on a little longer? Yes. What do you people who have your hands raised say? You just have a question? No, but do you want... Do you want to get into the questions, or do you want to go a little further? You can send a number of questions that you would answer, and then we would go on rather. Because if you go on... For me, if you go on, and I don't get an answer to this question, it's difficult for me to follow. Because you get on something that's kind of a crux. Right. Okay, three questions, yes? So I thought I agreed to say the other day that all appearances, as a human being, whatever we see as an appearance is an imitation, and that kind of rocked me, because

[22:14]

for various reasons that I want to go into, but when you said the word sign, that the other dependent has, actually has signs which, um, which, to which we have attached... has these signs. Are these signs our perceptual... apparatus at work, basically. We're confined to a certain range of perceptions. The signs themselves, are they intrinsic to the other dependent or are they intrinsic to our perceptual apparatus? The other dependent is our perceptual apparatus. I think Madhyamaka doesn't usually talk about this, but they would accept that, that the signs are due to our conscious creativity in relationship to the world, because our mind creates these dualities, not these dualities, but these...

[23:30]

these signs which are a foundation for or a resource for the imagination of duality. So that part of the other dependent, part of the way our experience is not made by itself, is that it's made by the creation of senses of difference and sameness. And so that's the basis. So if I said that appearance is imputation, but still that which appears is the other dependent. What's appearing is the other dependent, but how it appears is it appears as duality. So the other dependent justifies the imputation of duality, and then the other dependent appears as duality. So the other dependent is in cahoots with the imagination of something that doesn't exist.

[24:34]

But it's also in cahoots with the understanding of the absence of that imagination of something that doesn't exist. Or the, is it hot in here? So, when we see something, what is appearing is the other dependent. That which is appearing is the other dependent, but how it appears, that's totally imaginary. Pardon? Pardon? So, asking is a product. I missed what you said. So asking, is it hot in here right now, is a sample of that. There's an experience of something, and you'd have to ask, actually. Right. And then we'd all impute. Well, tell me.

[25:37]

Yes? Non-duality does exist, but it does not exist as something that we can perceive. And the self-fulfilling mad samadhi is not something that we can actually perceive. So my question is, can we experience non-duality at all? I think I hear you saying that you can't perceive it with your sense organs. And I'm just wondering, then, what is spiritual experience? I mean, occasionally people have what they think is... Okay, so look at impermanence, okay? You have impermanent phenomena which you can't observe. The way they appear, how they appear is as dualistic impermanent phenomena. So they're mixed up with our imputations, but we do have a sense, you know, we are actually working with the impermanent phenomena. And then you can have an understanding of impermanence, which you can't see.

[26:41]

Impermanence is not some empirical phenomenon on top of the impermanent. Does that make sense? But when you see impermanence, in other words, when you understand impermanence, when that's an object of your knowledge, when you know that, your life changes. So, when you understand the absence of duality, When you understand that, you have a new life. So you're using the words knowing as not just conceptual knowledge, but when you actually know that I'm not with duality, it's sort of transformative. First of all, it's conceptual. Actually, first of all, the thoroughly established is conceptual. That's what we're working on right now. We're trying to work on a conceptual understanding of the thoroughly established. We're trying to achieve an understanding of that achievement.

[27:47]

And then when that achievement is also freed of duality, because that's an appearance, too. That's a dependently coercive thing now, too. That also can be freed of that duality. And then this is the most thorough realization of liberation. But it's not in the realm of perception. So, in fact, we don't see all beings helping each other in this enlightenment resonating all over the place. We don't see that. But that's a description of non-duality. And then you could describe it, too, from that experience some other way, which might sound basically the same, namely how things are not separate or together. So there can be realization of something that's inconceivable, and we use conception to realize it. So this thoroughly established thing is actually a concept. So that's what it says, actually, that it's mere concept, also.

[28:52]

But when you realize it, you achieve liberation. But of course you can't see this concept. What the concept impermanence is talking about, you can't actually see impermanence. But you can see impermanent things. And you can see other dependent things. And you can also see how they appear mixed up with the projection of duality. And that's why I think it says the unerring... The translation from Tibetan says that it thoroughly establishes the unerring objective reference. And the other ones say unconfused. In a sense, usually when you look at the other dependent, it's kind of confused. It's the kind of confused thing you're seeing. because it actually offers signs which are kind of confusing.

[30:03]

And one way of dealing with signs is to come up with the concept of duality. But then that makes it even more confused. But just to look directly, and this is part of the reason why I'm of the school that doesn't say that the thoroughly established, I mean, that the other dependent is the object of purification, because when you look at the other dependent, there's some confusion there. Now, some would say, well, what about the other dependent of the Buddha when all confusion has been eliminated? So at that point when, I guess, if selflessness totally pervaded our psychic equipment, then maybe there would be no signs anymore. And you'd look at the other dependent, there'd be no signs and there'd be no basis for the concept of duality. But ordinarily, if there's the slightest bit of sign in what's happening, it's a kind of confusing situation.

[31:09]

But we can see this confusing situation. What we need to do is we need to hear the teaching and meditate in such a way that we can let go of the belief that the imposition of duality upon this field of interdependence is actually absent. And then we have access to knowing, understanding, which is parallel to understanding impermanence based on the impermanent. We can understand the absence of the imputation of duality upon other dependence, existence. Maybe that's enough. So now we can have questions. Fair enough? Pardon? You said three questions, and these were two.

[32:12]

No. We can have more than one. More than one question. Okay, now we have more than one question. Okay, is there anything else you want to do? Yes? Okay. To me, the point you just brought up, that actually looking at the other dependent, we can see confusion, that feels very important to me, in the sense that... I think my question about that is, Isn't being there, being at this dharma gate, confusion, isn't that the way we can enter to convince ourselves that actually something is not as it seems to be? Isn't the confusion the dharma gate? Is that what you are saying? Sometimes I think it's the only way. Well, we start by meditating on the other dependent, so we start meditating on a somewhat confused situation where we have transience, we have impermanence, and we also have imputation going on.

[33:32]

And some of the imagination that's going on is imaginations that we can share, you know, like we can share that in testing ways that, for example, you're burnt and things like that. In other parts of the imagination of duality, we can't really come up with any evidence for. So we have this confusion and we meditate on that. That's right. And that's the process by which we move towards realizing the absence of the imputation of duality. So, in a sense, confusion is the Dharma gate. The confused object is where you start. And then you ask yourself, or you could ask yourself at that point, would you like to be relieved of this confusion?

[34:41]

which is due mostly to it strongly adhering to the idea of duality upon this impermanent, interdependent phenomena. Okay, so did you have a hand a long time ago? Okay, I see you. So who had your hand raised before? I knew I could. No, Greg did. Okay, so Greg? Do we impute this duality onto the other dependent because we see cause and effect? This cause and effect, because this happens, that happens. If one thing, then there's another thing. Do we impute because there's cause and effect? I don't really know right now if I think that...

[36:06]

the reason that our minds have developed the projection of the concept of duality is because of seeing cause and effect. That doesn't necessarily make sense to me that that's the reason. We are looking at cause and effect, yes. That's what looking at the other dependent is. I think it's more like getting caught up in the signs of cause and effect. Because in working with these signs, has been very useful for us, because that's where language starts to come in. So in the realm of cause and effect of empirical phenomena, there are signs, and then those signs are the basis for, like, this and that, self and other, subject-object. dualistic thinking arising from dualistic, the concept of duality in the first place. So I think it's more the signs that are the basis for this conceptual activity, which is imagining something that doesn't exist, namely a duality.

[37:11]

And those who have gotten involved in that stuff are us. And those who saw the signs and didn't capitalize on that, they're not us. They're people who didn't develop language. They were looking at the same thing, basically, but then they didn't develop from there conceptually in this wrong way, which was quite useful. That was the story I would tell for the origins of it, because all beings have always been looking at the pinnacle of rising. And signs have been there in it, in the flux. But some beings have started to capitalize on those signs and use those signs to make these concepts. And then to hold to that as what you're originally operating on, what is the error? And we make that error. Eric, and then Mako, and then Andre, and then Roberta, and Shoho, anybody else?

[38:16]

Catherine? Can you remember those names? Yes? You said something kind of quickly, which I wanted to bring out again, which I think might be underlying some of the discomfort that I know a lot of people feel around this subject, because I think it sort of goes against some of the common-sense notions that we have, when we said that you were not of the school, that believe that it is the other dependent that is the object of observation for purification, but rather, I think you said that you believe that it's really established that it's the object of observation for purification, namely something kind of conceptual, this impermanence rather than the impermanent. And I think this kind of makes people uncomfortable because then sort of has the flavor of, you know, make-believe, and observing that non-conceptual reality as being the thing which is going to purify us and make us, not purify us, but relieve our suffering. And this teaching, what you're saying, seems to be saying something maybe a little different.

[39:20]

Is that true? And do you have more to say about that? Because this concept of observing a concept being what we should be concentrating on or what we should be observing is a little strange. Let's see, I was actually thinking the other day about these cases of where, what is it, where like, what is it, pebble hits bamboo, or a plum blossom opens. These are these Zen stories, right? When people were awoken when they heard a sound or saw a color. So how do we understand those stories in this case? And that's what I was sort of toying with at the beginning, is that for me, you know, I guess when I hear that may we exist in muddy water with purity like a lotus, what I think is the muddy water is the water of the imputational and the other dependent being mixed together.

[40:25]

and then that we exist there but we don't get caught by it. And we read sutras but we don't get caught by them. So I think Zen is more like entering the realm of concepts and not getting caught. It's not like finding some place where there's no concepts. So it's like you see a peach blossom open And that's another dependent phenomenon, of course, impermanent blossoming happening there with color. And that has signs which are the basis of the imputation of duality, which is like that the peach blossom is out there on its own, and it has some essence. These concepts are happening. And then you stop being fooled by that.

[41:38]

But the way you stop being fooled by it initially is that you have another concept which tells you that the duality which seems to be there is actually totally imaginary. And you actually loosen up and you're willing to let go of the the concept of duality of the peach blossom, but actually you understand something about the peach blossom that purifies you of all obstructions to awakening.

[42:58]

Just like, again, you see a peach blossom, you see impermanence. I mean, you see the impermanent peach blossom and suddenly you understand impermanence and you're freed in some way. But understanding impermanence isn't sufficient for total purification. Some people have seen impermanence, but have not yet seen non-duality. So non-duality has to be seen as a concept, first of all, in order to help us let go of the concept of duality. Those are the awakening experiences. However, after that, the monk spends the rest of his life meditating on that to take out any duality in that realization. Because that realization is another thing which you can make an object of. And they cook in that realization for the rest of their life, testing it over and over.

[44:09]

Just like if you have an understanding of impermanence, You hear about impermanence, you hear about impermanence, and suddenly you hear about the impermanent, you hear about impermanence, you hear about impermanence, and you study the impermanent. You study the impermanent, you hear about the impermanence, and then you see impermanent things all the time. And you notice that you don't like them, you know? You notice that. You hear impermanence and you get examples of it in the form of impermanent things, and you know you should be liking this lesson, but you don't. You don't. But you still keep noticing the lessons coming. And you know that actually it would be good if you did like them in a way, because they're kind of like helping you. And then maybe you almost start liking them, almost. But anyway, someday you understand impermanence, and then you notice your life changes. because you actually stop believing what you've been believing all along, permanence.

[45:12]

In the same way, you actually achieve this understanding of nonduality, and then your life changes. And again, when you understand impermanence, you can test it. From then on, you can test it by every impermanent thing that comes. Notice that it's different or not. Does it still bother you? Does impermanence still hurt? Well, it probably still hurts a little, but because of you haven't understood nonduality. But if you've understood nonduality, then you live your life and you test to see if you've understood it. Because supposedly, if you understood, there should be no gasping or sighing in your mind. And if there is, check out your understanding again. and again and again, and gradually, supposedly, it will get smoother and smoother because the other dependent will start changing.

[46:18]

The other dependent evolves in relationship to your understanding of the thoroughly established. So what's offered to you as the basis for continuing seeing duality the other dependent becomes less a cohort of the imagination of duality. It starts to offer less and less basis, less and less signs. It becomes actually eventually signless over time. But the way it becomes signless, the way it becomes purged of anything to support the imagination of duality is by having seen non-duality. And seeing non-duality is something you achieve through your meditation. It's not something you can see out in the world.

[47:20]

It's to see, to actually be able to see what's in the self-fulfilling samadhi, to actually be able to see this enlightenment resonating back and forth between everybody. It's not something you see with your eyes. It's something you understand based on some work. Okay, that's a long answer, but that's how I say that. And then the next person was Mako. Mako? No, they're not. But they're the excuse for the attributes. The imputation is a superimposition of essences and attributes upon the other dependent. But the other dependent gives... It is upon the other dependent. It's not like the other dependent is over there and you put the attributes in mid-air. You put them on the other dependent. There is a basis, and the signs then are the basis for the attributes. But the attributes aren't there.

[48:23]

Signs are there, and the signs are there because they are the results of this process of ancient twisted karma, which is now giving us a life which gives us impermanent phenomena, interdependent phenomena, which seem to have signs, which we then project essences and attributes on. So this sutra says essences and attributes. The essences and attributes are not actually in the other dependent, right. We perceive that the signs are the basis The signs are the basis of the conceptual activity of projecting essences and attributes. But the signs are not the essences and attributes.

[49:27]

The signs are actually... The early dependent does have signs, but it doesn't have essences and attributes. So at some point in understanding non-duality, the signs drop away. Yeah. After you understand duality and then you medicate on it, the signs will be purged. in the long course of total enlightenment, there will actually be a purging of the signs. Which would mean at that time, you wouldn't have any, the other dependent would not be supporting the imputational anymore. So then you might say, well then how could Buddha talk? So Buddha would have a problem there. But it isn't, you know, it's just that your own mind becomes purified of all obstruction. Yes? So in the description of authority established as the unclouded, let's say again, the unclouded object of pure vision?

[50:35]

Yes. That sounds very realistic to me. I mean, it's an object. The object that we're looking at is the absence of the imputation of self upon things. We're actually looking at that, which of course is not something you see. It's not separate from the seer, too. Right, it's not separate from the seer. However, the seer, in the initial awakening, the seer probably still has some sense of separation from that, what they've seen, which has liberated them.

[51:42]

There's probably still some duality in the seer. In the dependently co-arisen seer, there's probably still some duality for a long time. But they have actually started to tune into that which will purify the mind. And it's just that some schools would say that that object is something that exists, that non-duality is something that exists. So in that sense, the self-fulfilling samadhi sounds more like something that exists. And what exists there is the absence of duality. Whereas the Majjamaka seems to be more emphasizing that the thoroughly established is just the absence and it's non-existent. Rather than we have Vasubandhu who says, we have an existent non-existence, we have an existent absence or lack of duality.

[52:53]

And that's a wonderful thing called non-duality. And so that's two different views. But still it might be the case that that this understanding that we're talking about now will be the basis for the next understanding. In other words, the understanding of non-duality might be the basis then for the understanding of the Madhyamaka emptiness. Let's see, who is next? Andre? I'm not quite sure if I really understand what you're saying in correlation to the character. See now, what are the signs? So in the previous example of feeling heat, feeling some heat, so this is like a tactile sensation is the basis of it.

[54:43]

And so there was some sense of What was it that happened to me that I came up with this thing of heat? Yeah, also the door open. But I think I also felt it in my skin. Standing up, it's hotter up there. So what happened to me at that time that I came up with this thing? What was the sign there? Mm-hmm. Anybody help me?

[56:09]

What sign was there? But the sign on that molecular activity... What's the sign? So we can say there's this molecular activity, and what's the sign? We can't know the sign. We can only have the imputation of the sign. No, the imputation, what the sutta is saying is that the imputation is based on the signs, the signs of these compounded phenomena like molecular activity in my body and so on and so forth. All that's just happening. And then some sign comes up. So what's the sign? It's something my mind does to the situation. It puts a little tag on it, which then can be the basis for the imputation and then the designation of words to this thing.

[57:22]

So my mind, or your mind, or our minds, they creatively interact with things like skin, interacting with... molecules in the room carrying certain kind of energy with them. And that interaction then, our mind works with and puts a sign on. And that sign then is the basis for the imputation, which then can be connected to words in many languages to say, hot. So what the sign is, it's hard to see pre-verbally what the sign is, but there is some sign that our mind puts on things to set the base, naturally. And that sets the basis for imputation, which sets the basis for conventional designation. I feel like when I'm hearing sounds while you speak, my mind just makes things like located and...

[58:25]

The way all that's happening, which is basically unconscious, serves as a basis for the imputations by which we can make things conscious. I see you, Delia, but there were some other people before you. Roberta. You want to go ahead, Roberta? Roberta and Shoho and Catherine. This isn't what I was going to ask, but based on this previous conversation, wouldn't a sign be like agreements that human beings make, that signs are exactly ways that human beings, you know, like a traffic sign, which actually doesn't mean anything until human beings make agreements to see it a certain way.

[59:50]

So I always thought that this definition of sign is a little bit, it's not what I thought the definition of sign would be. I thought a sign, for example, would be like a thermometer saying a certain temperature. And then the invitation would be it's too hot or I'm hot. You have a thermometer, and then And you look at the number, and then you say, too hot? Is that what you're saying? Well, no, that the sign would just be a temperature, a temperature reading, not the reaction to it. A sign would be a temperature reading. The sign is some way that we identify something. Well, it seems like if I look at a thermometer, first of all, I see, you know, colors. And then I see the colors and I see the red in relationship to the black.

[60:57]

I see that. And then I go through quite a process of like reading, of converting a black into a number and making all those calculations. And now all that seems to be using language and moving me up into the imputational. But the original situation of a thermometer, this object and the colors and textures of it, that has signs, too, before it's even identified as or called a thermometer, right? There's signs before you make conventional designations. So how could there be, it almost seems like a tree falls from the forest descending in here, and how could there be a sign before you apprehend it? I don't understand what you mean by how could there be a sign before you apprehend it? Yeah, what do you mean by it?

[62:03]

Before you apprehend heat or the thermometer, how could you call it a sign? It wouldn't I mean, you know, I can say red, but I don't think a dog or a cat would apprehend red. They don't apprehend the color. So in this particular scenario, signs do not mean words. It says that the other dependent is the basis for the imputation for conventional designations. It's not... It's not itself a conventional designation, although conventional designations are dependent co-arisings. The other dependent character of phenomena is the basis for the imputation, and then based on the imputation, we make the designations.

[63:08]

Okay, maybe it's a different... I think it's a different definition of science. I don't know. Okay. Shiloh? Okay. Ana? Well, I have a difficulty in the same vein as Roberta said, because when it actually says that signs are compounded phenomena, are they of a dependent character? Yes. So the signs and the bases, that's all in one line. Yes. To me it seems to be talking about the first split. There has to be a separation for any perception to start.

[64:10]

Is that what is talked about here? And I also think of like, I'm not sure how Buddhism describes that in terms of individual development. I think the separation is, what do you call it, I think that's an imputation. But there's some basis for the imputation in the other dependent experience of our life. So for example, the thing of some tissue of a living being responding to, for example, inanimate physical objects, that interaction, in a sense, that is a justification for a separation. But there's not actually a separation there. But you could say, you could build a separation on the interaction between your tissue and light, So that part of the dependable arising of our existence is that we respond to the physical world.

[65:18]

We organic creatures respond to inorganic energy. Big part of our life, right? There's not actually a separation there is an imaginary thing. Separation is what our mind comes up with. But there's some basis of it there. And the basis of it is the other dependent. But the other dependent sponsors. See, again, I think this is... I find this very helpful that the other dependent does sponsor the imagination of things that don't exist. And it even sponsors, of course, the belief in them. So, in a sense, the other dependent does, in a sense, give some excuse for the imagination of duality. Because when things are interacting, you could say, well, there's this and there's that. But there really isn't. You could imagine so. So these concepts have some basis, but they just go too far, that's all.

[66:24]

And then to believe them, rather than just use them, then the problem really starts to get severe. Yes? When you talk about signs, you just said there is no separation. Right. There's no sign of separation in the dependent core horizon. There's no sign of separation. There are signs that you can use to come up with the concept of separation. But the sign is something else than what it is for, right? Well, you see, the signs are also, part of the dependent core arising is the way our mind puts signs into these situations. So you have an interaction between organic tissue and electromagnetic radiation, and you also have a mind there arising in that interaction.

[67:32]

And the mind looks at that interaction and puts a sign on it. That's part of the dependent core rising. But it hasn't established separation. But this mind also becomes a basis for a metamind, a conceptual mind, which now rises up and says, there's separation down there. So there's not actually separation. When two things meet, there's not actually separation. When two things that are living together and interacting, the interaction here is actually what gives rise to the consciousness. The tissue by itself, the organic tissue, or the electromagnetic radiation, neither of them are seeing, and neither of them are consciousness. But when they start interacting, consciousness has arisen. So these tissues that are stimulated and responding have been the place where consciousness has arisen in this universe.

[68:35]

That's a story, right? But anyway, that's a story. And then when this consciousness arises, it then puts signs on this interaction. And based on these signs, now you can imagine that there's separation between these two things, which are intimately interacting in order to create consciousness, and a consciousness which arises out of this interaction, totally interdependent. But in the way the interdependence is operating, you can see in the interdependence, somebody could imagine that there's separation in our family. We're totally interdependent, but I could see how somebody would say, actually, those things are separate. But it's a mental creative accomplishment in that sense upon the actual situation to give rise to even the basis for the imagination of separation. And the basis for the imagination of separation is the signs. And I'm talking to you about this, and my mind's being creative with this, right now I'm doing this, right?

[69:47]

So this is all, this is part of why we're really studying our mind here, in this whole thing. uh okay okay well that's another story i have to offer which is jeffrey hopkins in his big study on the secret He actually, I find, explains sign as that which is, let's say, a predisposition. And I find this pretty interesting. So under his correction, for example, I feel implies the sign could be something we could grab, like an object. Or also, as a sign. that I feel he says, due to the fact that we, he actually says, accountless lives have been so used to grasping things based on language.

[70:58]

That is basically pre-verbally established in the mind as a sign to then start the imputation process. So I find that very interesting and kind of helpful, not as something I necessarily believe, but as a metaphoric way to think about this process, a sign to be. Yeah. It's a metaphoric play to help us understand what signs might be, right? So I kind of said that before, that the sign is something the mind does to the situation. And you're emphasizing that it's something the mind is predisposed to do. But it's a... In a sense, it is more basic than the imputation of separation.

[72:07]

But anyway, it allows the imputation of separation and then it allows the belief in the imputation of separateness. But also, it allows... the realization of the absence of the imputation. In the situation of the signs of compounded phenomena, there can be the realization of the absence of the imputation of separateness. So it is both the basis for the realization of enlightenment and it's also the basis for the realization of ignorance and suffering. Cathy? It's related. I really liked what you said. But I was thinking from what Roberta said about color, when you said cats and dogs, dogs. Well, apprehend color, I thought of bees, and while one might say they don't apprehend color, they go to certain colors, and they go to certain smells.

[73:22]

And so I was thinking that whatever it is that they're going to is the signs of the, of the, of the other dependent. But what you're saying is, is that that's not the sign. What you're saying, Chuck, you're happening to say that's not the sign. The sign is something that they're... It's a predisposition. Yeah, that topic of color is very interesting because there's not colors out there in the world. They're in our mind. They're something our mind creates. They're not actually out there. But, you know, it's really interesting.

[74:27]

Let's see, any other? Oh, Everett and Shoho. What I was going to say is kind of already said. I was looking at the example of heat. The example of what? Looking at the example of heat and the mind, and I think just the perception of heat implies a difference, which is the sign that allows us to create separation of self. The body has a certain temperature that it's accustomed to. We perceive heat as something hotter than what we are accustomed to. That perception in and of itself is the sign that he is something popular than this fellow. I think you've already said that. Well, it could be the basis of that. First of all, there could be like a sense of difference in the thermal situation.

[75:30]

So there's a response to a change in thermal energy. And then the mind interacts with that in such a way, or rather I should say there's a change in the thermal situation and the mind responds to that by saying there's a difference and signing it as different. And then based on that, there can be then a sense of separation between the different temperatures. That the changes are different from each other and separate from each other. Although the separation isn't in... If you have this temperature and then you have a different temperature, there isn't really a difference in those two temperatures. You have this thermal kind of energy, and then you have this thermal energy. Okay? Really, what you have is you have this one and you have this one.

[76:36]

But because of our mind, we can say, oh, that one's different from that one. And that's part of, you could say, the reason for the origin of mind is that the organism's responding to something, and then it became sort of another kind of life, or it became life when there became, rather than just responding, there became some comment on that. You know, like this response is different from that response, or this response and then that response. So there's different things, and then becoming conscious of difference And then that becomes the source of that these differences are separate. And then the mind which arose from this situation is different from the things it knows. So again, you can see that this is part of the evolution of the sense of difference, the sense of separation, and the sense of duality.

[77:43]

So, then now, with that kind of background, one might be ready to try to plan an escape from this trap. How can we start to reverse the process? What kind of instructions can we give each other or listen to that would help us open up to the idea the concept that how things appear is actually absent in what is appearing. So we look at what's appearing and we understand that how it appears is not in that which is appearing. And we think about the possibility of giving up

[78:52]

believing that how it appears is what is appearing. And then in that process see if that is, even in the short term, if that's encouraging. So I use the example, you know, During the brief doksans, I asked a lot of people, but not everybody, the same question. Some people I didn't ask because they seemed to have another agenda right away that they wanted to talk about, so I just let them talk about that, which was fine. But for the people who hesitated for a little while... I had this question. The question was something like, do you have any story about our relationship? And if they said yes, I would say, ask them to tell me.

[80:05]

And after they told me, I would say, Either would you like to let go of that story, or would you like to be relieved of that story? And a number of people said that the story they had was a story of a student teacher, which sounds like kind of an okay story. A lot of people like to have a story of a relationship that's a student-teacher relationship. They kind of feel like, I'm glad I have a student-teacher relationship. I'm grateful that I'm involved in a student-teacher relationship, some people might feel. But even those same people might, at the same time as you ask them, would you like to be relieved of that story, they still might say yes. And a lot of people who had a student-teacher story, actually, if I asked them would they like to let go of that, they said yes. Now part of student-teacher in some cases is the teacher knows more than the student.

[81:11]

That the student is less wise. That's part of some people's story was. So you might see that they would be happy to let go of that. And yes, most of those people said yes, they would actually be willing to let go of that. And then sometimes right after saying that some people said, oh, but that's scary. it's scary to let go of the story that the teacher's wiser than me. Because if the teacher's not wiser than me, you know, there's, like, if I'm not too wise, and the teacher's not wiser than me, then nobody of wise people are around here. If I'm not too wise, but the teacher's wiser, well, that's some safety or something. But there's various possibilities you might get scared of once you consider letting go of the story that the teacher's wiser than you. Some other people actually had... I asked them if they had a story of their relationship with me, and some people said, well, no.

[82:17]

Some people said they didn't. Or almost... Which was similar to that they didn't even think they had a relationship with me. Almost like the story was so minimal that it was like it hadn't even registered as a relationship. You know what I mean? Like some people you know, but you don't really have a story of your relationship with them. It's very simple. It's like, well, we're on the same planet. That's about it. So in those cases, too, I would ask the person, would you like to be relieved of that? Would you like to be relieved of not having a story? or with a story that you don't have a story. In other words, that maybe you do have a story would come into the space. Maybe we do have a relationship. If you have a story we don't have much of a relationship, could you let go of that one and then see what else would come?

[83:24]

Because in some ways it's kind of safe to have a story that you don't have a relationship with me. or not much of one anyway. That's kind of like no problem in a way. But if you let go of that... And when I thought of this story, And I can't find it. I can't remember the name of the sutra. And I thought it was in the Middle Link sayings. But anyway, one time Buddha was sort of off by himself. Sometimes the Buddha was not traveling with a group. He would leave his group and take a walk by himself sometimes of some considerable distance. So this is one of those occasions. And he was walking along and it got to be towards... and for some reason or other he didn't want to stay outside that night.

[84:28]

I don't know, maybe it was winter or something. But anyway, he was looking for shelter, so he went up to this potter and he said, you know, could I stay at your house tonight? And the potter said, yeah, I have a shed. You could stay there, except that there's already somebody staying there. Actually, it's a yogi staying there. So you'd have to ask him if it's all right if you stayed there. So the Buddha went and asked this yogi if he could stay in the same potting shed with the guy. And the guy said, sure. So then as night approached, the Buddha actually sat in meditation and noticed that this other guy was sitting in meditation too. And as I remember the story, he thought this guy sat quite nicely. And then as time went on, he said, I guess, you know, he said to the guy something like, how did it go?

[85:30]

Yeah, but I don't know if he said that part. I think he said this part first. I'm not sure, but I think he said to the yogi, he's wondering who this yogi's teacher was. So he said to the yogi, who's your teacher? And the guy said, you know, under whom are you studying yoga? Under whom are you studying meditation? And the guy said, I'm studying under Shakyamuni Buddha. Not disrespectfully, but kind of like, you know, yogi to yogi. Um... And then the Buddhist said, I think, probably in his mind, he said, well, this guy is studying with me.

[86:38]

He might be able to hear a little talk. So then he said to the guy, suppose would you like me to give you a little Dharma talk? And the guy said, yeah, go ahead. Lay it on, man. And so then they gave a talk. And about, I think, approximately three-fourths of the way through the talk, the guy kind of understood who was talking to him. He thought, this is an awfully good talk. It's like one time I was driving home to Green Gulch late at night, I turned the radio on, and I heard these people talking. And it sounded like a play or something. I couldn't tell exactly. And I couldn't follow what was going on exactly, but the language just really struck me how beautifully these people were talking to each other.

[87:48]

And I thought, this must be Shakespeare. Although it didn't sound like Shakespeare at all. It was just that there was this beauty coming up through the radio. I didn't hear any names of any characters or any plot line or anything. They were just chatting away about whatever. I couldn't hardly follow what it was, but it was just... All I could tell was that it was beautiful. And, you know, I kept listening to it. I never did know for sure, as I listened to them, that it was Shakespeare. I never heard any kind of signs... that I could tell other than his beauty. And then they said, you know, it was Shakespeare playing. So this guy's listening to the Buddha, right? And then he understands three-quarters of the way to talk that it's his teacher that's teaching, that the teacher who he's studying under is now giving him a talk. However, he doesn't say in the middle of the talk, okay, stop, I'm sorry.

[88:53]

I'm sorry I didn't recognize you. He didn't want to interrupt the talk. Buddha wanted to kind of finish what he had to say. He felt like, I'll let him finish. So he finished. And then when he finished, he said, you know, I'm really sorry that I didn't recognize you and I talked to you that way. And then he said, at that point in the sutra, I realized that it was my teacher that was talking to me. And... So I'm not saying that somebody's a Buddha. I'm just saying that we don't know who's talking to us. We don't know what's talking to us. And so I think it is kind of good to, you know, if you think you've got a teacher, fine. Then just let go of that story and see what comes. And if you think you don't have a teacher or somebody's not your teacher... Just give that story a rest and see what comes.

[89:59]

And rather than waiting until somebody gives you a really good Dharma talk before you kind of like get it, you can do your own work to get ready to be able to apply these teachings that Buddha gave a long time ago. Because in fact, you know, there was such a Buddha, I shouldn't say in fact there was a Buddha, but we've heard that there was such a Buddha that if that Buddha was talking, you would get it. But now, since there isn't necessarily that kind of Buddha walking around, we can apply the teachings so that we get the same thing that the people who had the Buddha there got. So if you apply these teachings of not strongly adhering to the imputational as being the other dependent. For example, not strongly adhering to the sense of separation, which is based on the other dependent, as being in the other dependent.

[91:04]

This kind of meditation, listening to that teaching and going over that teaching, could start to loosen us up and get us ready for the... to realize the great accomplishment to really understand the concept of the absence of the imputational. To understand in such a way as to be freed of obstacles to enlightenment. And then again, and again, and again, keep meditating on this suchness. Is the great accomplishment a concept? Yeah. Yeah, it is concept, yeah. All three of these are concepts. All three of these are mere concepts from the Yogacara point of view. And maybe from Nagyamaka too.

[92:06]

I don't know. But these are concepts that you can use. But one of the concepts is the concept of the attainment. It's a concept of an attainment. However, even the attainment is just a concept. Otherwise, you're making some dualistic statement about the attainment. But that attainment, which is just a concept, or that concept of the attainment, can purify your mind of obstructions to enlightenment. So see if you think that's not true. See if you think suchness is really something other than just a mere concept. Vasubandha is saying suchness, since it's that way all the time, is just a mere concept too.

[93:14]

Is there a real suchness beyond that? Well, Vasumana says there is an existent absence of duality that really is such a thing. And he also says that it's a mere concept. Because an existence of the absence or the existence of the non-existence of duality means the existence of things as something more than mere concept. Because if it's more than mere concept, then you have duality. Just like if impermanence is more than impermanence, you've got duality.

[94:23]

You've got impermanence and the impermanent. Right? Or you've got dharma nature and dharmas. But dharma nature is another concept which helps you become free of the dualistic understanding of dharmas. But then if you make Dharma nature something special in addition to dharma's, then you kick duality back into action again. There's something really comforting to me about the concept of the entire universe relating to the lady, the flowers bursting and the bees going and I've seen it all.

[95:29]

No, it's all happening. And there's something kind of sad about just saying that Clint is a human being, like, all I can see is the concept of that. All I can like understand and talk about with somebody else. is my concept of it. And it's somehow comforting to think that I can possibly experience that and talk about it. Do you say it's comforting that you can experience it and talk about it? There's something out there. No, there's not something out there. But there is the other dependent character which is not out there. And as a human being, my experience of the other dependent character will always be conceptual? Well, your experience of the other dependent character is the other dependent character, again, until you're completely enlightened, it is kind of confused.

[96:39]

Because it's got all these signs in it, which can be the justification for imputations. But in fact, the other dependent character does not have The other dependent character does not have any duality in it. It actually doesn't. It doesn't. It actually is everybody, like, grooving together. That's really what it is. That's the other dependent character. It's like totally working together here, you know, giving each other life. That's what it is. However, it's a kind of confused situation because there's signs in it. which you then can get tripped up on, and converting to images which are not actually in there. So this situation, although it's really working very nicely altogether, all the birds and the bees and stuff, right?

[97:41]

It's got these signs in it, and then these signs become the basis for the invitation of duality. And we can realize and understand the dependent core arising, the other dependent character. Yes, we can. However, your realization of it now will be realizing a somewhat confused image, which is constantly offering the opportunity to flip into misconceptions, which we will keep flipping into for some time, and there will be a reason for flipping into them for some time. The reason is that we are predisposed to create signs which are the basis for this imputational activity. Our imagination, when it looks at the other dependent character which has signs in it, it naturally gives rise to how it exists.

[98:43]

And how it exists is duality. However, how it exists as duality is not actually in it. That's error. That's a wrong. But the situation is conducive to error. It's conducive to that error. However, you're still living in that error-conducive situation very harmoniously. Actually, that's going on already. But if we would understand that the imputation is absent, then we would be able to enjoy the other dependent in an unobstructed way, in an enlightened way. The obstructions to our enlightened understanding of the other dependent would be removed little by little by meditating on the absence of duality in it. And so then you, although this lovely scene that has been painted in various scriptures, is not something we perceive.

[99:49]

We actually do live there and speak from there. Live there and speak from there. It sounds like something familiar. Live there and speak from there. What does it remind you of? Is it Samadhi? Yeah. People to speak with you and leave you? Yeah, yeah, like that. It's like that. It's the self-hypnotic samadhi. So this is unconstructedness and stillness. So unconstructedness and stillness. Unconstructedness, you realize the absence of the constructed, of the imagined in stillness. And although it's not fabricated, it's not without speech. You can talk about it. But what you're going to talk about then is going to be probably full of signs for people when they hear it. and they're going to make invitations and stuff, but you can still talk about it from that place.

[100:54]

Although it's not fabricated, it's not without speech. It's like a jewel mirror. Yes? Something in what you're saying makes me want to clarify that I didn't say I wanted to give out my story. I said I didn't know anything. Mm-hmm. Yeah, sometimes I would say, are you willing to give up your story? And sometimes they say, do you want to give up your story? And some people said yes, and some people said, I'm afraid to. And there's various responses, but I think it's a good thing to look at whether you're willing to or would like to be relieved of your story about everything you meet. Would you like to be relieved? Which would open you to realizing the suchness of the situation. Yes? Can I talk conceptually about something that I'm concerned with?

[101:57]

Of course. You just did. I know. The leap you're talking about and the understanding you're talking about? Yeah, a leap. I'm talking about a leap in a sense, yeah. Why not? This event is just depending for this event. And... The leaping is a dependently co-arisen event? Sure, sure it is. All events are dependently co-arisen. I didn't really hear what you said. Would you say it again more slowly? And louder or something? I'm having trouble hearing. With the Hinayana, people had these categories of those uncomponent phenomena to base and extinction to discernment and extinction to memorizing.

[103:22]

Okay. And there's also phenomena itself, but what extinct is, is what those are. My understanding is that there's a gap depending on what's happening. Like the guy sees the color of the flower and then he says, you know, depending on what's happening, there's a normal implication, there's a normal happening and you can see that then. So the guy, so first of all you said, and did you follow the first part of what she said? No, first she said Hinayana, but anyway, in the Abhidharma they have these uncompounded phenomena, which are space, two kinds of nirvana. And what was the point there? I just feel that the extensions are for you like activity.

[104:29]

Extinction is an activity? Yeah, it sounds like the dependent core arising of an uncompounded phenomenon, which is the absence of arising. Yeah, I guess that does sound like just an absence, like an extinction. Okay? It's a dependent core arising, but it's not compounded. Okay, and then we have the example of a monk seeing a flower open, yes, and then And there is a moment by his form of practice, his concentration on the other dependent, and actually was totally concentrated on the other dependent, and then there's this absence coming up. Well, he's probably not just been meditating on the other dependent. He's been probably meditating on the other dependent, flowers and things like that.

[105:32]

And he's also probably meditating on letting go of adhering to his imputation of duality upon the other dependent. He's probably been meditating that way for quite a while. And he's probably actually seen and accomplished he's actually seeing the absence of the invitation for quite a while. He's been meditating on that. And then he, by that meditation, the obstruction to enlightenment occurs. I mean, the obstruction to enlightenment drops away because he's meditating on the absence of what he thinks, what he imagines to be duality. Was there a question about that? The question was about if the leap itself can be described as basically a training of an other dependent training.

[106:39]

Yes, it's an other-dependent training. So the other-dependent, a dependently-coordinated training of training ourselves to not strongly adhere to other-dependent phenomena as being the imputational. And get familiar with what the imputational is so you can see what not to believe does apply to other-dependent phenomena. You train yourself at that, and then you've actually come to actually realize, to accomplish an understanding that the other dependent is absent. In the other dependent, there's an absence. And you study that absence of the imputation on the other dependent. You study the absence of how things appear in what is appearing. You're studying what is appearing, you're studying what is appearing, but also when you study what is appearing, that's mixed in with how things appear. But how things appear is not in what is appearing.

[107:42]

You listen to that teaching and you practice that until you start to, like, not adhere to how things are appearing as what is appearing. And you accomplish basically the absence of how things are appearing in what is appearing. You accomplish that. you become convinced of that. In other words, you realize emptiness. And then you meditate on that, and meditate on that, and now you meditate on that. At a certain point, it clears the obstructions. And then so you see a color or something, and you realize you're actually... Not only have you been meditating on the absence of the invitational in the other dependent for a while... But you're no longer caught by the invitational. You're no longer trapped. You're free. But it takes a while to be free of meditating on how it's not there.

[108:46]

And that's what we're training at now. We're training at this. We're training at mere concept. We haven't... There's a... What do you call it? Vasu Vanda's work of 30 verses... are called vijnapti-matratas-siddhi. This is like downtown vijnapti-matra. So this is the mastery of vijnapti-matra, the mastery of understanding mere concept, the mastery of understanding that how things appear are not actually in what's appearing, even though what's appearing is the basis for how things appear. So what's appearing is a dependent core arising, and it's the basis for what doesn't appear, for what's not existent.

[109:53]

But also the accomplishment of suchness is based on what is appearing too. So this is our training in learning this, train, train, train. And the more you train, the closer you get to realizing the thoroughly established character. Once you realize the thoroughly established character, and you meditate on that, and then obstructions start to drop away. Like in the stories. And so a lot of stories are about how the teachers are encouraging people to not adhere so strongly. And sometimes, I guess you could make a theory that they'd been practicing that in various ways, but there's a little bit left, a little obstruction left, and then a little bit more meditation on a particular point clears the final... or a major chunk of obstruction, and then we have realization.

[110:57]

But we know that sometimes there's other chunks that have to be removed too, but sometimes big chunks drop away. Yeah, like earwax. Yes? Oh, okay. We should stop about now. Who has a question? Judith has a question. So she doesn't have a question. Do you have a question? Even though we have to stop, you have a question? Okay. Here she goes, ma'am. Thank you. You did a good job, Deputy. Yeah, you can risk it. Judith, of course, is a great Bodhisattva if you gave it up. A disappointed Bodhisattva. A disappointed Bodhisattva.

[111:58]

So is it okay? You can be a go-for-it Bodhisattva. Well, so I'm thinking back to your description of hearing states. You're on the radio. Yeah. So is beauty how things appear? And I mean, what is beauty? Dependent for arising. Dependent for arising is beauty. So when you're enlightened, is there any beauty? When you're enlightened, let's see, when you're enlightened, is there any beauty? Glad you asked that question. What happened to the Eno?

[113:03]

In an adventure, you break into a deadly tunnel.

[113:09]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_84.64