So, I just want to say again that in terms of texts, you know, a written text that appeared in the world, usually we say that the emergence of the Mahayana in India, when people actually started to see it and talk about it, happened quite a while after the Buddha's parinirvana. And the texts that signaled it were the Prajnaparamita texts, and then following that, many other Mahayana texts happened. For hundreds and hundreds of years, new Mahayana texts came. But the first ones that we really say are the Mahayana texts are the Prajnaparamita. And the Lotus Sutra came not too long after the Prajnaparamita appeared. Without the Prajnaparamita, you might not know what the Lotus Sutra was talking about. The Lotus Sutra doesn't talk

[01:09]

about emptiness very much. So the first wave of Mahayana teachings appear in written form. Our teachers, which, as I said before, they kind of reject the theoretical or conceptual of the Abhidharma. They reject the theoretical, conceptual templates that the Abhidharma offered as a way to study, experience, and realize the truth of selflessness, the truth

[02:09]

of no-self. The first kinds of teachings that really are well-developed and published are the teachings which offer conceptual frameworks, theoretical frameworks, to realize the truth of selflessness. The Prajnaparamita comes by and says, it rejects the conceptual frameworks by which, as a way to realize selflessness, it suggests that we just immediately realize emptiness. In the early phases of teaching, we say that emptiness is at a distance from us. It's selflessness, the selflessness of beings, is right here. So the Prajnaparamita

[03:11]

literature is rejecting the conceptual approach and just trying to say, let's just meditate on the immediacy of emptiness. And we know, most of you are familiar with the Heart Sutra, I guess, where it says, Avalokiteshvara was practicing Prajnaparamita, perfection of wisdom. He's looking at these templates, and he sees that all these templates, all these conceptual frameworks of the five aggregates, they're all empty. And they're empty of, actually, any conception of them. It doesn't say there's no form aggregate. It doesn't say there's no feeling. He just says they're empty of any conception of what they are. So feeling is empty of any idea of feeling. Colors are empty of any idea of color. Which is another

[04:22]

way to say form. Of course, the self of color is that it's color. So form is empty of color, of the idea of color. And then in this emptiness of everything, in everything's emptiness of any idea of itself, then in that emptiness, when you're actually looking at that emptiness, realizing that emptiness, then they're actually, in that context, there are no feelings or impulses or consciousness or forms or anything. So in that sutra and those types of sutras they're just saying, can you look at things and just see their emptiness of any conceptuality about themselves? Can you just look at that, because it's actually right there, coexists with the ideas of them. Or rather than giving you a way to look at them, just tell you that and you just go right at it. And how that happens, and I'm not even going to tell you how it

[05:24]

happens, so that the path is also, the theoretical path is rejected, the Eightfold Path, as a conceptual approach to the Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path isn't rejected, the conceptual approach to the Eightfold Path is conceptual. So practice the Eightfold Path, but we're not going to tell you how to do it. We're just going to tell you that in the way to practice the Eightfold Path is just to immediately realize emptiness. And this is a wonderful teaching, and it worked really well for Avalokiteshvara, but after several hundred years of this type of teaching really thriving in certain circles, while the earlier teaching is still going on. So this new movement is growing, but the old movement is also thriving, where people are using conceptual approaches. And it may be

[06:27]

the case that in the same monastery, some people were doing this immediate non-conceptual approach to practice, and other people were doing the conceptual approach to practice and they were getting along very nicely. It's possible. But still, some of the people who actually received this teaching, this Mahayana teaching, and practiced it, they felt actually that it was time to bring up another possibility, another way to practice Mahayana, which was not to reject the conceptual approach, but to use the conceptual approach in the context of emptiness. To use the Abhidharma, the Abhidharma's conceptual approach, in the context of Abhidharma, I mean, the context of emptiness. So, this sutra that we're going

[07:32]

to recite tonight is called the Sambir Mochana, or the elucidating... Is there a room next to Elizabeth, or is she going to lie down? She's probably going to lie down. Maybe we can get this... Are there more chairs in place for Grace? So, this sutra is the elucidation of the intention of the Buddha sutra, the revealing or the disclosing or the unraveling of the deep intention of the Buddha, when he was teaching in various ways. In this sutra, we now have the construction, a reconstruction or a new construction, actually a slightly different construction, a slightly different conceptual approach, which shows the type of consciousness which underlies the understanding of emptiness and underlies the conceptual approach. So, both the conceptual approach

[08:38]

and the immediate non-conceptual, non-approach, they're both grounded in consciousness. There's a consciousness which knows emptiness and there's a consciousness which knows conceptual categories and uses them to realize emptiness. So, in both directions, both immediately going to emptiness to realize the way, and going through conceptual constructions to realize emptiness, to realize the way, in both cases, there's a conscious being who's doing the practice. And, of course, some bodhisattvas do both. So, they're not trying to give you a... In Yogacara, they're trying to give you a picture of consciousness which underlies the conceptual and the non-conceptual access to emptiness. And they're going to give you a conceptual approach to and a conceptual understanding of the consciousness which realizes

[09:41]

emptiness. Okay? So, now, we can... Is there enough for everybody here? Are these the texts? So, here's the text. It's kind of Mahayana Abhidharmakaya. What's Yogacara? Yogacara? Yogacara is like... It literally means the path of yoga that applies to all Buddhist schools. It usually used to refer to a type of Mahayana practice that provides a teaching, a conceptual teaching about the nature of consciousness, which underlies all

[10:42]

types of understanding. And uses that... Also uses that teaching of consciousness to realize emptiness. And so, one way to look at it was just that the Indian culture evolved from the first introduction of Mahayana to such a point that another type of Mahayana was able to be produced. And this other type of Mahayana, in some ways, was more suited to laypeople. Yogacara, in some ways, was better suited for laypeople. And also, some of the people who led the Yogacara movement, particularly Asanga, felt that the Prajnaparamita literature, as it was being understood, or, this way, Prajnaparamita

[11:44]

literature, that said, give up all theoretical, conceptual approaches to practice, it easily could be understood nihilistically. And if you live in a monastery, in some ways, it's not so dangerous to hear the Prajnaparamita, because you live in an environment where everybody's... The primary commitment that they share, even if they have different things they're studying, their primary commitment is to the precepts, and to help each other practice the precepts. Whereas in lay life, it's easier for some people to have a nihilistic interpretation of the Prajnaparamita, and think the precepts aren't important. And people don't necessarily think that all laypeople are committed to the precepts, but they naturally expect monks to be committed to precepts, and they even know what the precepts of the monk is by the

[12:50]

monastery, because they can find out, usually, what the precepts of that monastery are. So they not only know that they're committed to ethical precepts, but they even can find out what the ethical precepts of the place the person lives is. Like Zen Center, years ago, had to publish some technical statements, just to make sure that people knew what to expect at Zen Center. If something happened that wasn't according to those principles, then people would say, oh, well, I thought you did this at Zen Center, or you didn't do this at Zen Center, but this seems to be happening. It says in this document that you don't do this here. So, Zen Center's not exactly a monastery in all its aspects, but it is a place where we have a community that has to put out clear precepts, and when you're in a community that has clear precepts, you're less likely to slip into nihilism. The people in the society at large, who are kind of on their own, maybe they're practicing precepts,

[13:53]

but then they read the Prajnaparamita and they think, precepts are empty, so I guess I can do what I want. That's a nihilistic misunderstanding of the Prajnaparamita. So, this teaching is trying to protect the practice of emptiness from becoming nihilistic. All right, so would you please open your text to page one, or whatever the page is, first page, and we shall, if you don't mind, we will chant this chapter five, which are the questions of Visalamati. One, two, three. Then the Bodhisattva Visalamati questioned Bhagavan, Bhagavan, would you say, Bodhisattvas are wise with respect to the secrets of mind,

[14:59]

thought and consciousness? Bhagavan, just how are Bodhisattvas wise with respect to the secrets of mind, thought and consciousness? For what reason does the Tathāgatā designate a bodhisattva as wise, with respect to the secrets of mind, thought and consciousness? The Bhagavān replied to the bodhisattva, Nishālamāṇṭhī, Nishālamāṇṭhī, you are involved in asking this in order to benefit many beings, to bring happiness to many beings, have a certainty for the world, and for the sake of the welfare, benefit and happiness of many beings, including gods and humans. Your attention in questioning the Tathāgatā about this subject is good. It is good. Therefore, Nishālamāṇṭhī, listen well and I will describe for you, great bodhisattvas are wise, with respect to the secrets of mind, thought and consciousness. Nishālamāṇṭhī, whatever type of sentient being there may be in this separate existence,

[16:04]

with its six kinds of beings, those sentient beings manifest the body and arise within states of birth, such as egg-born or womb-born or moisture-born or spontaneously born, initially in dependence upon two types of appropriation, the appropriation of the physical sense powers associated with the support and the appropriation of predispositions which proliferate conventional designations, with respect to signs, names and concepts, the mind which has all seeds, brightens, develops, increases and expands in its operations, although two types of appropriation exist in the form realm, appropriation is not too bold in the formless realm. Nishālamāṇṭhī consciousness is also called the appropriating consciousness because it holds and appropriates the body in that way. It is called the basis consciousness because there is the same establishment and abiding within those bodies, thus they are wholly connected and thoroughly connected.

[17:07]

It is called mind because it collects and accumulates forms, sounds, smells, tastes and tangible objects. Nishālamāṇṭhī, the sixfold collection of consciousness, the eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness and mind consciousness arises depending upon an abiding in that appropriating consciousness. The eye consciousness arises depending on an eye and a form in association with consciousness functioning together with that eye consciousness. The conceptual mental consciousness arises at the same time by having the same objective reference. Nishālamāṇṭhī and ear consciousness, the nose consciousness, the tongue consciousness and body consciousness arise depending on an ear and nose, the tongue and the body in association with consciousness and sounds, smells, tastes and tangibles functioning together with nose, ear, tongue and body consciousness. The conceptual mental consciousness arises at the same time

[18:10]

having the same objective reference. If there arises one eye consciousness, there arises together with it only one mental consciousness which has the same object of activity as the eye consciousness. Likewise, if two, three, four or five consciousnesses arise together, then there sure arises together with them only one conceptual mental consciousness. Which has the same object of activity as the fivefold collection of consciousness. Nishālamāṇṭhī, for example, if the causal conditions for the arising of one wave in a great flowing river are present, then just one wave will arise. If causal conditions for two waves or many waves are present, then multiple waves will arise. But the universal continuity will not be broken. It will never be entirely stopped. If the causal conditions for the arising of a single image in a perfectly clear round mirror are present, then just one image will arise. If the causal conditions for the arising of two images or many images are present,

[19:15]

then multiple images will arise. However, that round mirror will not be transformed into the nature of the image. It will never be fully linked. Nishālamāṇṭhī, just as it is with the water and the mirror, depending upon and abiding in the appropriating consciousness, the causal conditions for the simultaneous arising of one eye consciousness are present, then just one eye consciousness will arise one time. If the causal conditions for the single arising of up to the fivefold assemblage of consciousness are present, then up to that fivefold assemblage of consciousness will also arise one time. Nishālamāṇṭhī, it is like this. Bodhisattvas who rely on knowledge of the system of doctrine and abide in knowledge of the system of doctrine arise with respect to the secrets of mind, thought and consciousness. However, in the Tathāgata that designates Bodhisattvas as being wise with respect to the secrets of mind, thought and consciousness,

[20:16]

it is not only because of this that he designates those Bodhisattvas as being wise in all ways. Nishālamāṇṭhī, those Bodhisattvas who arise in all ways do not perceive their own internal appropriators. They also do not perceive an appropriating consciousness, but they are in accord with reality. They also do not perceive a basis, nor do they perceive a basis consciousness. They do not perceive accumulations, nor do they perceive mind. They do not perceive an eye, nor do they perceive form, nor do they perceive an eye consciousness. They do not perceive an ear, nor do they perceive a sound, nor do they perceive an ear consciousness. They do not perceive a nose, nor do they perceive a smell, nor do they perceive a nose consciousness. They do not perceive a tongue, nor do they perceive a taste, nor do they perceive a tongue consciousness. They do not perceive a body, nor do they perceive a tangible object, nor do they perceive a bodily consciousness. are wise with respect to the secrets of mind, thought, and consciousness.

[21:49]

When the Tathāgata designates bodhisattvas as being wise with respect to the secrets of mind, thought, and consciousness, he designates them as such for this very reason, and the Narottama spoke this first. He gave the remaining consciousness, deep and subtle, all to see. Flowing like a river were conceived as a sow. That would not be right. Thus I have not taught this to children. This completes the fifth chapter of Viśalamāti. We have copies of this chapter if you like. I'm going to pick it up right here. The clasps are right here. I just wanted to point out something kind of simple, and that is that the Buddha says that Viśalamāti is involved in asking this question in order to benefit many beings, to bring happiness to many beings, out of sympathy for the world, and for the sake of

[22:50]

the welfare, benefit, and happiness of many beings. Chinese translation says, you ask this question because you want aid and comfort in innumerable beings, because you have compassion for the world and want to foster welfare and happiness. This phrase, of course, you wouldn't be surprised if Bodhisattva would ask a question with this motivation. Does that make sense? But I just want to point out that this phrase is found in early scriptures too. So the Buddha says this to the monks in the first turning also, that they ask this question. And that also the Buddha teaches for this reason. So the Buddha has this motivation, and his developed disciples ask questions with this motivation and practice with this motivation. So this motivation is not just appearing in the Mahayana.

[23:51]

From the beginning of the scriptures, this way of talking was pointed out as motivation. And so again, the first part of the chapter presents a conceptual, theoretical framework. And at the end, it says that if you understand this, Bodhisattvas who understand this are wise with respect to the secrets of mind, thought, and consciousness. And he says that's not the whole story. They also understand the emptiness of mind, thought, and consciousness. Then there, that's what I mean by them being completely or thoroughly wise. So he puts the emptiness context at the end.

[24:51]

After building this conceptual framework, he says they also understand. That all these elements of the conceptual framework are empty. And understanding the emptiness, they don't perceive any of this stuff. Because all these things actually, all these things that we're talking about are actually conceptual frameworks. So they don't actually perceive them. But they're there. They're just not perceptible in emptiness. And mind, thought, and consciousness. Mind, in this text, mind is citta, thought is manas, and consciousness is vijnana.

[25:57]

And citta, in this text, is also understood to be alaya, vijnana, or adana, vijnana. And in early Buddhism, they had this citta. And citta is like the support for all forms of mental life. And alaya now serves the same function. It really is the same as citta. And mind, so mind is of course the basis, or the overall embracing of all mental phenomena. And then manas means thought, or it also means reflection, or thinking.

[27:08]

And there's two types of manas in a way. One type is just the simple function of mind being able to be aware of itself, or being aware of its own mental associates. And that function of mind having like an organ by which it can be aware of mental phenomena. Mind is the basis of all mental phenomena, the source of all mental phenomena. They arise with it, it arises with them. But it has the power, or the faculty, to be able to be aware of its own associated contents. And that reflected power is thought, in this case, manas. And the reflected power, what it actually is, is its previous moment of cognition. Which is a very kind of tricky idea, but the idea is that the ability of mind to have like an organ power is that there was a previous moment of cognition.

[28:22]

And that previous moment of cognition also serves a reflective activity. But there's also another aspect of this mental organ, which is that it isn't specifically said in this text, but when Asanga reads this text, he comes to say to us that this manas, this thought, also serves as the locus of defilement. Because when this organ capacity arises with mind, it's associated with the belief in a self. The esteeming of a self, the confusion of a self, and the love of a self. So there's the functional aspect of the organ of mind, and there's a defiling aspect of it.

[29:29]

This chapter does not point out the defiling aspect, I'm just telling you that now. And then the third aspect of minds, which is called consciousness here, are the six sense consciousnesses. The six consciousnesses which operate in direct perception. The five sense consciousnesses and mind consciousness. Mind consciousness which directly perceives things. And sense consciousness which directly perceives things. So these are the... actually eight consciousnesses. Six, seven, eight. Manas is seven. Alaya is eight. And then you have this five sense plus the mind consciousness, those six of the eight consciousnesses. It doesn't say eight consciousnesses in here, but you can see them.

[30:33]

So that's the basic conceptual structure here, the basic conceptual template for studying mind, which is the basis for understanding the next part of the chapter, which is that these things, which are the conscious basis by which we're going to understand everything, including themselves, these consciousnesses are the basis for understanding that these consciousnesses are empty. And in that understanding, we won't perceive these consciousnesses. It doesn't say they don't exist, just that we won't be able to find them, once we can't find any conceptual apprehension of them. Yes. I was talking to a Jehovah Witness about two weeks ago. Yes. And she was discussing Adam and Eve,

[31:35]

and the first sin was when they took the bite of an apple from the apple tree that they were told not to take a bite into from God, and she said that sin started from becoming aware. It's this mental faculty that you're talking about, where the self becomes aware of the self, or consciousness becomes aware of its self. I think it's... how else would you denote that? I think that one other way to say it would be that consciousness was aware, but in some sense I would say maybe that consciousness was aware at the level of direct sense consciousness.

[32:37]

In the Garden of Eden, there were perceiving colors and stuff like that, but they had no conceptual mediation in their awareness. And in direct perception, in the realm of direct perception, we're barely aware. We can negotiate a garden very nicely, and we can learn that this fruit is poisonous and this one's not, but we're barely aware of the objects that we're aware of. But we are aware, and we do relate to them. But when we have conceptual mediation, our awareness becomes much more conscious and clearer, and not, I would say, ambiguous. In direct perception, the awareness is somewhat ambiguous, because you're actually dealing with the actual richness of sensory life,

[33:43]

in which, when you look at something, you're looking at it, it does something to it. And, of course, it does something to you. So in direct perception, actually, you can feel... you're actually in touch with the richness of our life, and it's not so clear whether it's separate from you. So in order to be clearer about that, they had to separate themselves from the apple, and separate themselves from each other, and separate themselves from sex. Actually, that's not correct. According to those witnesses. Right. According to them, it was the awareness that was the sin, by taking a bite into the apple. I agree that it's awareness, but I think there was another awareness before that, which is sort of, you know, what we say, it wasn't... Direct perception? It was direct perception, yeah. But it was... otherwise they wouldn't have been able to find the apple.

[34:46]

It would be no issue. They wouldn't have been able to bite it. And if they were told not to bite the apple, they wouldn't have known. But they sort of knew the apple was there. But if they bit it, they would be actually more separate from you. And then they have what's called, usually, objective knowledge. So when we say objective knowledge, that usually means conceptual knowledge, where we actually know that that object's out there, separate from us. But before that, the separation is... it's not that clear. And really, there is no separation. But in direct perception, you don't really understand that there's no separation. But you can't really... you don't really clearly understand that there is separation. So your knowledge isn't really that firm. Or if you say, the image isn't... you don't have a sharp image of the apple. But when you bite the apple, then you have more... So it is... I agree with that thing of knowledge, but there is some awareness before that. It's just that it's not clear. And we kind of want it to be clear. So there's also the story of Amorans... the story of Amoran Psyche and Greek myth, right?

[35:50]

Greek mythology. Of Psyche getting together with Loho. And they get together, but they get together in the dark. So they're actually having contact and knowing that they're together. But she doesn't know... she's not clearly aware of who he is. She knows something about him. But it's kind of ambiguous, because he's in the dark. She doesn't know that he's a god. She doesn't know that he can fly. She doesn't know that he's Aphrodite's son. She doesn't know that he's really good looking. She doesn't know that stuff. She just knows that this is really important, this relationship. And it's a big thing. She can tell him from other people, but she doesn't really know. So if she puts a light on him, then she'd be more sure. When she puts a light on him, then that disturbs their relationship. So she gets thrown out of the garden. She gets thrown out of her own little nice garden, which is Eros's palace. She gets thrown out of the palace. And she loses him. So it's a similar story.

[36:52]

But there is awareness before. Otherwise there would be no life. So in some sense you could say that the Bible is actually telling something about human evolution at that point. It's a metaphor. It's poetry for the evolution of consciousness from direct sense perception to, I would say, conceptual cognition where we have clear images of things. But the problem is that when you have a clear image of something, it gets confused with the thing. And you think that the image is the thing. And that's wrong. It's not. But it's nice that you have a nice clear image now. But then you get kicked out of... The Garden of Eden is the garden of direct sense perception, in a way. Which is very rich. Then all the apples are different taste and different color and different smell. And now they're different taste and different smell, but they're like talking to you. And you're talking to them.

[37:53]

And there's this kind of very intimate thing, which, of course, that's the way things are. And everybody you meet is that way, too. The way they smell, the way they look, the way they talk. Of course, they can't talk yet. Because we need conceptual mediation in order to talk. So all the people you're not talking with, but that you're just interacting with, it's very rich, very interactive, very ambiguous about who is who and what's what. But it's what they call biological bliss. It's life. It's actually the way life is. It's very interactive. And the world gives us life, and we give the world life. All the plants in the garden are born because of mental apprehension. And we're born of all the plants. And it's very ambiguous and kind of wonderful. And there's all kinds of possibilities, rather than just the one possibility of it being an apple that's bitten into.

[38:56]

So basically it's the same thread. I see a common ground here. Between what and what? Between the stories that you were talking about and the Buddhist theory, which is this awareness is the cause of the suffering. Yeah, exactly. They're very close. And here we just have a conceptual analysis, a theoretical picture. It would give you more information to look at, to make a little temple around the biting into the apple and getting kicked out of Eden story. This gives you some more psychological information about that process. But it's the same story, really. I mean, it's talking about the same event. It's when we get exiled from what it's like in the realm of direct perception. It's hard to get back to it.

[39:59]

But you can get back to it through a process of meditation. Yeah. Yes. I just think in the instructions to Adam and Eve, they had to have a meeting. So it was kind of like before the apple was bitten. It was a bubble that was made of porcelain. Say it again? The instructions to Adam and Eve to not eat the apple. Yes. They had a meeting. They had a meeting. Yeah. Actually, does anybody know, did he say, don't bite him? Or did he say, if you bite him, you get kicked out? He said, don't bite him. Don't bite him. So I guess God didn't want people to evolve into spiritual beings, according to that. How intelligent is that? Pardon? How intelligent is that? How intelligent is that? Well, maybe he wanted to be the only one who knew anything. Huh?

[41:03]

That's pretty dumb. That's very dumb. Yeah, this picture of God is maybe a picture of God who was the only one who knows anything. It's an omniscient one who's not going to have any successors. Maybe it's a test to see if you believe it or not. Hmm? Maybe it's a test to see if you believe it or not. Yeah, well, I don't know. I'm not saying they didn't believe him, but just that God told him not to, but the universe forced him to do it. If you look at the story of Amor and Psyche, there are various forces that pushed her to blow the Nicene. And I think the nature of evolution is that it pushed beings to take this step. And if God told them not to, that's kind of an interesting little twist. Is it God? I don't know if it's God who told them not to. Who ever wrote the story? Hmm? Who ever wrote the story?

[42:04]

God wrote the story. Well, they were going to eat of that tree of the knowledge of good and evil next. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It's a matter of free will, I think, up until that point. No free will. I read somewhere that he actually told that in order for them to actually go ahead and pick fight. Because he knew it was a man of human nature to actually go against the grain. I can't remember if it was C.S. Peirce. I think another perspective on this is that before this happened, living beings were already serving the function of the universe being aware of itself.

[43:14]

But, again, there wasn't a clear objective knowledge in the universe before this step. So this special variety of knowledge called objective knowledge, where the object seems out there separate from the subject, doesn't arise before this point. There's still the possibility of this type of knowledge, but it's not clear because in direct perception, you're actually in the realm of where things are really still kind of mushy and soupy and alchemical. So the universe gains something when beings evolve to this level. It gains a new type of knowledge which it didn't have before. In this neighborhood, anyway. What's the object of the direct perception of mind consciousness? When mind consciousness has direct perception of the object?

[44:18]

Mind consciousness can have direct perception of the same things that sense consciousness are aware of. And mind consciousness can also have direct perception of mental phenomena. In both cases without any conceptual mediation. Because mind consciousness, the organ for mind consciousness is the same, is this manas, is this thought. So the organ for citta is manas. And among these six sense consciousnesses, one of the sense consciousnesses is a mind consciousness. But the condition for the mind consciousness are not the same as the conditions for the sense consciousness. The conditions for sense consciousness are, the three main conditions are, the organ, the physical organ, the physical data, and the previous moment of consciousness.

[45:21]

The previous moment of consciousness is the immediate condition for the arising of the mind consciousness. Or for the arising of the sense consciousness. So if you have a consciousness, and also the consciousness, the sense consciousness are named after the organ, not after the object. So the sense consciousness, for example, the first sense consciousness that's usually listed is the eye consciousness, rather than the color consciousness. So the conditions for the eye consciousness are the eye organ, the physical, the subtle physical organ. The gross physical data, which is perceptible electromagnetic radiation. And the previous moment of consciousness, those are the three conditions for the arising of sense consciousness. The mind consciousness, the conditions for the arising of that, the immediate condition is the same, it's the previous moment of consciousness.

[46:23]

The object, however, is not the sense, it's not the object. Even if the mind consciousness is aware of the object, the object's not the dominant condition. It's not the object consciousness. It doesn't have object consciousness. Because it determines from its inside, it determines what the object will be. And it has, excuse me, it does have object consciousness, I take it back. I'm talking about the next type of consciousness. It does have it. But its organ is not a physical organ. Its organ is the mind organ. So its organ is the mind organ, the same as the other one, but the mind organ is the previous moment of consciousness. So its organ is the previous moment of consciousness, and its immediate condition is the previous moment of consciousness, and its object can be the object which the previous consciousness had.

[47:24]

So if the sense consciousness preceded it, that would bring that information, but also the concurrent sense consciousnesses which it arises with, it could also be aware of those. But it could also be aware of other mind consciousnesses, and it also can be aware of mental data that arises with it. That's a little bit about the basic structure in this chapter. The next big chunk is to talk about alaya, and for your information, last winter I spent quite a few sessions talking about the evolution of where alaya came from, probably sort of the history of this concept. Again, this is a conceptual concept about where the concept of alaya came from.

[48:24]

So if you want to hear about that story, you can hear about it by listening to those tapes. Does anybody have a reading list here? There's also a text on this reading list called Ocean of Eloquence. It's listed under O. And the Ocean of Eloquence has a discussion, it's basically, the whole book's about it. The main topic of the book is alaya-vijnana, as the history of how the concept arose, and Tsongkhapa's, the Tibetan teacher Tsongkhapa's understanding of alaya. So if you want to learn more about alaya, if you want to learn a lot about alaya, that's a good book to start with. Now the guy, the author's name is...

[49:31]

The author's name is... Gareth Sharma. No, Sharma. Sharma. Gareth Sharma. It's listed on this reading list. So I don't mind going over it again, but I spent several classes on it last... We wouldn't, you know... I think it may be better for you just to consult that. Pardon? I think it's S-H-A-R-H-A-M. S-P-A-R-H-A-M. It's on the reading list under O, for Ocean. Do you have a reading list? Yeah, okay. So anyway, it's a good book on alaya. There's lots of other places, but that's one of our specialized topics.

[50:34]

Okay, so... We can say a little bit about alaya by reading the text. Initially, in dependence upon two types of appropriation, the appropriation of the physical sense powers associated with the support, and the appropriation of predispositions, which proliferate conventional designations with respect to signs, names, and concepts, the mind, which has all the seeds, develops, increases, and expands its operations. So this is talking about... This is an old story about initially. Initially what? Well, initially, whatever type of sentient beings there may be in cyclic existence, with its six kinds of beings,

[51:35]

in early Buddhism they had five, in Mahayana they had six, whatever types of beings there may be of these six types, those sentient beings manifest body and arise within a state of birth, such as egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, and spontaneous-born. So this is saying whatever kind of being are born, initially, at the beginning, they do so in dependence upon two types of apprehension, apprehension and appropriation, and these appropriations happen through this alaya-vijnana. In early Buddhism they just had a type of citta, a type of consciousness, which they called birth consciousness. They just called it birth consciousness. But they didn't go into much detail about the nature of that birth consciousness, it's just a laya-vijnana. Yes, did you say something? Yeah, here it says the appropriation of physical sense powers associated with a support.

[52:41]

Do you know what is meant by associated with a support? Do you mean like a body that would support the physical? Did you hear her question? She said, do you mean like a body? I mean like a support. It's a reasonable question, but my saying no points to the fact that the teaching is that the body is a sixth sense organ. That's what the body is in Buddhism. So it's actually saying the body. All right. What's the support for that? Support for the body? No, for the sense organs, what's the support? Because they are the body. What's the support? Mind. Yeah, it's mind. So it's a laya. So here it says, initially there's an appropriation of sense powers associated with support.

[53:46]

At the beginning of birth there's an appropriation of sense powers, which are associated with a support. The support is a laya. So initially at birth these sense powers arise in dependence on mind. So they're saying the mind is a support for the arising of the actual functioning sense organs. Okay, so the mind... That's the first type of appropriation, is actually appropriation of sense organs in support by the mind. So in some sense it's the mind appropriating the sense organs, but then the body gets sense organs too. In other words, the body comes alive in dependence on mind, and mind apprehends the sense organs. So the mind seems to almost be a precondition for the sense organs. Yes, a mind is a condition for sense organs.

[54:50]

Does it pre-exist? It doesn't pre-exist, but there have been minds before. But this mind isn't like the minds floating around waiting for the sense organs, but because there have been minds in the past, now mind and sense organs arise together. And again, if you read that book or listen to the tapes, originally they came up with this theory about a laya to explain how consciousness could go on in certain states of very, very profound meditation, or states of coma, or states of, I guess coma is a good example, states of deep unconsciousness. How did life go on? How did consciousness continue to exist? And they came up with the idea that consciousness can actually rest in the sense organs, even though it's not operating, it can live in the sense organs. Which is not different, doesn't contradict early Buddhism,

[55:54]

because consciousness arises out of the sense organs, which are always living in this field. Sense organs are always living in the field of gross sense material, and they're always resonating with it. They're always interacting with it. And if mind lives in the sense organs, rests in the sensitive part of the body, the life can go on, even though none of these other mental factors are arising. That's part of why they came up with this. But now they're saying at birth, it's not that the laya is sleeping in the sense organs, because the person is coming alive now. You have this condition of some kind of materiality interacting with the environment. And based on having a laya as support, there's apprehension. You get the sense consciousnesses activated.

[56:56]

They activate. The actual powers are turned on. It's kind of like, you know, when you get a credit card, you call in, and they activate it. It's like that. I have another question, if I could. Okay. I don't know if this has been covered earlier. You can tell me. Most of this stuff has been covered earlier. This has been going on for several centuries. Well, it's mentioning a laya as the appropriating consciousness. Well, actually, it is, in a sense. But actually, in this text, they have a different word for the appropriating consciousness. At birth, they call it adana. Adana means appropriating. So at birth, in a sense, a laya is called adana. After birth, it's called the laya vijnana. So one of the names for a laya is appropriating consciousness at the time of birth.

[58:01]

Because it appropriates. It appropriates the sense consciousnesses. It activates them. It turns them on. And then after that, after that, which I really like this part of the text, after that, it shares the destiny of the sense organs. It shares the risk and the benefits of the sense organs. Sense organs get in trouble, a laya gets in trouble. A laya gets in trouble, a sense organ gets in trouble. So this consciousness and the body are closely allied from then on. Well, the question is... One other little detail is that the body can deteriorate and disperse. And there's no causal continuity between this body and other bodies. This body disperses and doesn't make more bodies, any more than the mountains make more bodies.

[59:03]

But the mind, which was associated with the body, it has a causal continuity to create further minds. So the minds you have in this life and the bodies you have in this life, as long as the body's collected and together with the laya and so on, there's continuity for both. But when the physical situation develops such that the physical elements disperse, that doesn't cause another body. But the mind does cause further minds. So there's a different continuity, different process of continuity, for mind and body. That's why the mind is important for the birth of the body. This is what I was going to ask. No, that was just a side point. What did you say? How does what? How does the mind cause further minds? Well, like I said, the conditions for the arising of a consciousness

[60:09]

is a previous consciousness. The main conditions for the arising of consciousnesses are an organ power, which for sense consciousness is physical organs, and for mind consciousness is mind organs. And the mind organ is a previous state of cognition. The just previous state of cognition is the mind organ. So the organ-like power of your mind is that consciousness is just deceased. And the other main condition for the arising of consciousness, which is called the immediate condition, is also the immediately antecedent condition. So a consciousness just before this consciousness is the cause of this consciousness. It's not the same consciousness, it's a different consciousness. But it is taught as a condition for this consciousness. And all the different schools agree on that point. In other words, consciousnesses don't come out of nowhere,

[61:12]

they're conditioned by a previous consciousness. And they also need an organ, which is the previous consciousness. In the case of the sense consciousness, it's the sense consciousness, which has been activated by a previous mind consciousness. So you have a previous mind consciousness, which is a condition for the sense consciousness, and you have a turned-on sense consciousness, which is dependent on a previous sense consciousness or mind consciousness. So you have these two living things, which are conditions plus an object. And in some cases, the object is not, in the case of conceptual cognition, the object is not an external object. It's not really an important condition. The important condition is the predispositions of the mind in conceptual cognition. Because it comes up with images from itself according to its own predispositions. Yes. So when the physical elements disperse, and the conditions of the mind in the next mind proceeds, or...

[62:23]

Say it once again, please. When the physical elements disperse, and they're not linked anymore, the mind in the sense organs... The mind and the sense organs are not linked anymore. Right. That's, by the way, why we don't mind cremating people. But we don't burn the mind. We just burn the body. I wanted to know about how the mind that produces or is conditioned for further minds, how that works exactly, once the physical elements are dispersed. The... You want to know how it works exactly? We all would, yes. Well, the way... I think... I'll start by saying, just to offer this for discussion, that it operates the same way that minds worked before. In some minds... and minds don't need physical sense organs.

[63:24]

So if you lose a body, there can still be evolutions of minds. So, the body's been dispersed. The last consciousness, at the point before it sort of got dissociated from the mind, so the body and mind become dissociated. We're not going to go into something permanent here, right? So we have body and mind dissociated. The body's no longer got the sense organs. It's all falling apart. But you have, now, the last cognition associated with the body. Now, that cognition can be... It could be the antecedent condition for another state of consciousness. And that state of consciousness can't be a sense consciousness. Because... Actually, it could be a sense consciousness once. Maybe. Because it could be somewhat...

[64:27]

It could be associated with sense, because it could be associated... It's associated with the previous moment of cognition. The previous moment of cognition could have been a sense consciousness. So in that sense, it could still be connected to sense a little bit. But more likely, I would say, is that it's going to be a mind consciousness. So it's going to... Its organs are going to be the previous moment of cognition. Its antecedent condition is going to be the previous moment of cognition. And its object is going to be something coming from itself. From its own predispositions. So conceptual cognition would be handy at that time, because conceptual cognitions don't even need any objects. It can just refer to the causal continuity of imagination. So that could be the one right after death. When you've got that, well then you can have another one, and another one. And if the repertoire of this consciousness, this last consciousness, that was associated with the body, had all these concepts for practice, and these predispositions to choose those concepts of practice to guide the mind,

[65:30]

then there would be a causal continuity with that. So the mind could actually then... This doesn't last, but there could be this causal continuity of minds, which aren't connected to a body. And then... And a lie is there too, right? So this is the causal... I just said the causal continuity. And the resource of imagination is a lie. So you have a lie which has all these images, the seeds for all the images, plus predispositions for how the seeds are selected. And if it was a practitioner, there would be predispositions to select those kinds of seeds which would promote practice. Without a body. And that would go on for some period of time, until this lie then apprehends another set of senses. It apprehends the sense consciousness, which before a lie apprehends them,

[66:35]

they're not turned on. But when it apprehends them, they become alive. And it becomes... Then it gets settled into and joins this set of sense organs, and we have what we call birth of a sentient being. Now the sentient being could be quite developed, however, in some cases. So the sentient being could be a Bodhisattva. Not a Buddha yet, but highly developed. And some of these consciousnesses, when at the moment of conception they go, OK, here we go again. Yes? I wonder if what you just described was a new understanding for you, because it seemed a few years ago, I remember you maybe incorrectly, emphasizing that the consciousness will only exist with the body. Sort of in line with the question Roberta first asked,

[67:36]

if this support was actually a body, and that there was, between body and body, there was no actual mind. Does that seem different from before? That seems different from what you just said. It does, but I don't know if I actually said that, but maybe I did, I don't know. So this just feels new from the things you've said before. With this body that you have, you could have experiences where there's only four skandhas, right? However, you still have a body with sense organs that, just as the sense organs, are not operating. They're not always operating. You could be happily meditating on the infinity of space or something, and your sense organs would not be turned on. They wouldn't be functioning. However, you could come out of that trance and they would be turned back on. Okay. So, there can be just four skandhas. That seems like not what I was asking.

[68:39]

That seems separate from what I was asking. So I'm saying if there can be just four skandhas, it's possible that the sense organs are dispersed, and there's a causal continuity of four skandhas producing four skandhas producing four skandhas. A causal continuity that way. And that would be a story of the process of rebirth. Where there would be a causal continuity of consciousnesses. And the Buddha did not say that the consciousness gets carried over from one birth to the other. He said that wasn't right. But he didn't say there wasn't a causal continuity, because he said there was rebirth. And the karma of one life visits the next life. So this is a story about how there could be causal continuity in consciousness from the death to the birth. Without saying the consciousness lasts. Because he doesn't want anything to last, because then we get a self. And by the way, I just tell you that there's another big wave

[69:41]

in this... in a sense, this Yogacara tradition, where they actually, like, stop talking about a laya vijnana. Because they feel like it's just too easily considered to be a self. But this is the first phase of the Yogacara, which we're trying to become familiar with. And the next phase we'll get to later. I don't know when. So the leaders of the first phase are Asanga and Vasubandhu. The leaders of the second phase are disciples of Asanga and Vasubandhu, Dignaga and Dharmakirti. So all these people are historical Indian sages who presented conceptual approaches to realizing emptiness and practicing the Bodhisattva way. They're all part of the Bodhisattva tradition. The latter two prove things which Asanga just says.

[70:47]

He does debate a little bit, but he's not really trying to prove it to the same extent as the later people do. So the later tradition bring in, actually, they become... These people are epistemologists, Asanga. There's epistemology in this text, but it's just basically taken on the authority of Buddha. So the first two great teachers in this tradition, Asanga and Vasubandhu, they're called the Yogacara people according to the scriptures. They just tell you what the scriptures mean in this great way. The second way, they actually follow reason and analyze and debate. They tell you why it's so, and they use logic rather than just referring to the sutra to tell you why the other schools are wrong. They prove to you why the other schools are wrong. Yes? Isn't part of why alaya was taught as to explain how there could be this rebirth

[71:50]

without an object, not a sense object or even a method object? Yeah. How there could be rebirth and how there could be transmission of karma. Because alaya holds the consequences of past karma as seeds and predispositions. Seeds for images, seeds for all the images of everything that you can imagine, plus the predispositions to access seeds in certain ways. Even though you have a tremendous amount of seeds for images, depending on your practice, you access those seeds in different patterns. So one of the consequences of practice is accessing seeds in a wholesome way. So that's a conveying of the consequences of practice from life to life, or the consequences of not practicing very well from life to life. Which will then of course also,

[72:52]

even before they had alaya, they still were saying that different karmic patterns would cause you to choose different births. So this poetic image of these beings called Gandharvas, which are the name of the type of consciousness that's in this causal continuity between having bodies. And these Gandharvas actually choose their parents according to their predispositions. Some think humans are really interesting, some think cows are very interesting. If you think cows are interesting, then that might influence who you hang out with. You might wind up in a cow-negros. Doesn't mean you shouldn't love cows. Yes? How might we help Gandharvas? How do you help them?

[73:53]

Well, again, like I said, you don't burn the mind. You don't want to burn the mind up. You want to teach the mind. The basic thing you teach the mind is take refuge in Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. So after somebody dies, you want to keep telling them to take refuge. That's the basic instruction. Now, if you're pretty confident that they got that part done, you might give them other teachings. But actually, just in case you're mistaken, you know, you think, oh, this is a great teacher, you know, so we don't need to talk about Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. We can just do the Prajnaparamita for this person, because she's really totally into Prajnaparamita. We'll just chant the Prajnaparamita for her to remind her to keep meditating on that, just to make sure that we're not overestimating her understanding. We'll do Buddha, Dharma, Sangha on a parallel track. So one group of people chanting Buddha, Dharma, Sangha for the person, and the other group of people chanting the Prajnaparamita,

[74:56]

and some other people doing the Yogacara. You have different teachings. So you have advanced ones, so that, you know, what do you call it, they hit the ground running. But just as an insurance policy, make sure that the Buddha, Dharma, Sangha thing is coming there, because that's much simpler. Almost everybody gets oriented by that instruction. So that's going to work for everybody, but if you wanted to give somebody a more advanced teaching, you could do that too. But I guess if you have to choose, just to make sure, do Buddha, Dharma, Sangha as the person's dying, and after they die. And we say, you know, we say this 49 days. There's something about that. The Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree for 49 days. And we say, 49 days, by that time, if the person's going to be reborn, they have. Now you might be overdoing it, they might be reborn very, very fast.

[75:57]

They may have actually a plan to get born quite soon, because they want to study with one of their students before the student dies. Or, actually, not even before the student dies, but they want to study with their student, and there's an opportunity to be born somewhere in the neighborhood of where their student teaches. So you see the opportunity to get born really fast, because they might not get another chance in the same neighborhood as their student. You see what I mean? And it's, you know, partly they want to receive teachings from their student, which they will, but also they want to keep an eye on their student. Which is similar to receiving a teaching. When you're watching somebody teach, you know, then you're receiving it too. So that's one possibility, that you do very fast if you had that ability. But apparently, nobody goes more than 49 days.

[77:00]

And one of the possibilities of that is that some people don't get reborn. Buddha didn't say everybody gets reborn. He just said there is rebirth. And he also says, and obviously sin, but definitely not everybody gets reborn. Our hearts don't get reborn, and the Buddha didn't get reborn. But even people who aren't great sages, some of them don't get reborn. Maybe. But some people do get reborn. And that's why it's really good to practice, because that will help you get in a good practice situation next time. Yeah. I'm curious about the alaya in the body. Someone was telling me recently that they know somebody who got a heart transplant, and before she got the heart, she didn't like margaritas at all. Then she got the heart, and it's true. It's really like margaritas. It's like the alaya. And they found out the other person liked margaritas. Yeah, she went out with the family, and they were like, oh yeah, so-and-so loves margaritas.

[78:04]

So I'm just wondering what the body is up to. But it is taking in the storehouse, right? It's storing something. It's in communication. It's like the horse ride or something. Or the alaya. It's like storing that. Well, I just want to say that there is a difference between the heart organ and the sense organs. But I don't want to make some statement that the sense organ is a subtle material. So the sense organ doesn't have to be totally limited to the stuff around our eyeball. It's not really the eyeball.

[79:06]

It's just that it's located around there. It's not the eyeball. It's the sensitivity. It's the ability. If you can play catch with somebody, that's more like your capacity. It's not really you, the physical body. It's the ability to catch the ball. But the ability to catch the ball is somewhere around your body. But you can extend your body with a mitt. Right. But some people have a mitt on and they can't catch it. Some people don't have a mitt on and they can't catch it. It's the actual ability to catch it that's the capacity we're talking about. So the sense organs don't have to be so strongly associated with some part of the body. The most fundamental sense organ is the skin. It's tactile. So there is skin in a sense. There is tactility around the heart. The heart does have a sensing surface. I don't know if it has eyes or a nose.

[80:08]

I don't know about that. Maybe it does. But if it could respond to light and smell, then that sensitivity at a certain point, if it was strong enough to give rise to a consciousness, then there would be organs in other parts of the body that we're familiar with. Does that make sense? It's the ability of the organ to be sensitive enough in relationship to gross material that a consciousness will arise. So it's possible that this heart has some association with the organ of touch. It's possible. We usually think of certainly this part of it. But there's also internal touch too, right? And the heart may be part of that. We know we have pain in our heart. Lots of organs around pain. So it may be that something about sense organs got mixed up there and that alaya was somehow in that sense organ and got moved around with the sense organs, got stretched from one body over to the other body.

[81:12]

Because it was actually living in that sense organ. It was living in the heart as a sense organ. I mean, the heart was a sense organ, which alaya was in. So when you moved the physical organ, alaya came with it. Part of alaya came with it. Part of that person. So part of the person came into the body of that person. So the person maybe has two... Somebody else's alaya in their own body because he moved the sense organ where the alaya... The alaya is actually living in the sense organ. It's located in the body. So if you move the body over here, the alaya goes with it. But alaya isn't just... Alaya, although it's grounded in the sense organ, it isn't totally there. It's all over the universe too, right? So, consciousnesses are not located in the sense that they're just there and not all over the place. But they are associated with the body. So if you move the body around, alaya goes with it.

[82:15]

So that's why this thing about, you know, we're careful about moving bodies after they die. And again, some people, in some cases, you know, you can move the body because alaya is not there anymore. But some cases it is for a while. Alaya is not a person. Alaya is not a person. It's not a person, no. Well, I don't know, maybe it is a person. But it's not supposed to be a self. So anyway, that is possible. Especially if they move their heart right after the person dies. It's possible. It's also possible if you move the thighs. It's possible you can move the person's alaya. So alaya is associated with these five organs, right? And when the organ moves over there, another alaya can move with it. But if you move one organ over there, and another organ over there, alaya can go both ways, right? So you move one organ to ulta, and then move another organ to palo alto, alaya wouldn't have any problem going with them. To a certain point.

[83:20]

To a certain extent. Especially if alaya got moved over and connected to another body that was animated and held together by another alaya. So it would be able to move into an environment that had enough force to keep another body home. But the alaya originally couldn't keep this body, couldn't keep it associated with this body, but it maybe could find a home in another body. So it might be possible to have two people living in one body. Or, you know, to really make it complicated, you have somebody who's alive and is receiving multiple donations, you know, they need new eyes, new ears, new mouth. That's Steve Martin. That's Steve Martin. Martin played a part. This is possible. It's possible. There's something like that going on right now. When you say two people, it's predispositions.

[84:21]

It's like this heart. Alaya has karmic predispositions or inclinations. The karmic predispositions. The alaya. Somebody else's alaya could get somehow into your body in that way possibly. I'm just thinking about this with you, right? Now, again, you can't transplant usually the whole skin organ to somebody else. Somebody needs a new skin. It's not a very popular transplant, except for skin grafts, right? Or for, like, Aztecs used to do that, right? The skins of somebody else. But it wasn't that the new person's skin was their skin organ. It was just like a mask that they put on. But unintentionally moving a heart, you might also bring touch sensitivity with it. And so the alaya of the other person, although they're dissociating with the rest of the whole body as a whole, it is possible that alaya would inhabit.

[85:22]

I mean, it's not just possible. It does happen. Alaya does inhabit bodies where some of the sense organs can't be activated, right? We know that's the case sometimes. Somehow it takes up residence or apprehends sense organs, but it doesn't apprehend all of them. But the one that almost always, as far as I've ever heard, I've never heard of it apprehending a body where it didn't get the skin organ, the touch. So if Helen Keller had touch, but she didn't have vision or hearing, right? I don't know. Did she have smell and taste? Yes. The story is found for eating. But she definitely had touch, right? I've heard some story about it. So I'm just saying, it's possible that alaya would inhabit a body that only had skin, skin sensation. So if it can do that, then it's possible that it could get moved to another body

[86:25]

and stay and find a ground for the sense, the skin thing. But you'd have to have the rest of the conditions for the person to be alive. So you've got to be careful when you get a transplant. I think there's something to it. You could speculate about this, and there's some reasonableness to it, according to this theory. This isn't too difficult for you, is it? Much better than doctors. Oh, it's after nine. But... I read about this in an article that had to do with the expansion of memory by muscles. And I was wondering if alaya has... Could you look that up? Okay. The literal teaching is that alaya doesn't exactly go into the muscles.

[87:34]

It goes into the sense organs. But the muscles have sense organs. So it wouldn't really be in the muscles. It would be in the sensitive... It wouldn't be sort of in the muscles' ability to contract. It would be in the muscles' ability to be sensitive to the world. The sense organs are the part of our... are really the body as it relates to the environment. It's the body in relationship. It's not the body by itself doing its own stuff. It's emphasizing the sense... It's emphasizing that materiality can be insensitive to relationship to materiality, which isn't so sensitive. The gross materiality doesn't demonstrate the sensitivity that the subtle does. So you could say that memories are in tissue. But really memories are more like in the sense organs because the sense organs is where alaya lives. And alaya has memory. It has the residual of past action in it. So you have mind living in the body.

[88:36]

And in the muscle... In the part of the muscle that's the sense organ, you have alaya living. Alaya lives. We have a mind that lives, that takes up residence, according to this teaching, in sense organs. But it's not in... It's not necessarily... In the teeth, it seems to be a place that never really seems... Well, teeth have nerves, all right. So anywhere where there's sensitivity, where there's touch sensitivity, alaya would be there. Okay? And so a memory would be there. And so you could touch part of the body and you'd stimulate alaya because it lives there. And it's not limited to there, but it's associated... It's limited there in the sense of... I mean, it lives there in the sense it's associated with there. Mind is not located. The mind is associated and in a sense lives in the body.

[89:38]

In the sense that it shares that which it's associated with. So that is possible. All that's possible. Okay? That's past nine, so we're through. Stop. You can ask me afterwards. I never go to bed. I would ask the group. Do you want her to ask you a question? No. Yes, yes. I am not a question. A favor. Some people are getting up pretty early in the morning. They don't want you to ask them a favor. May our intention and equity extend to every being and place with the true merit of elders, pray. Needs are numberless.

[90:40]

I offer to save them. Visions are impossible. I vow to end them. Dharma needs are boundless. I vow to end to them. Buddha's way is unsurpassable. I vow to end to them. Don't forget to apply the last part of the chapter in the Bhagavad-gita tonight. Thank you. Thank you.

[91:18]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ