they can talk and think to make it clear. And as they progress toward being Ahab, they continue to be able to. So it's rather interesting. If the definition of Ahab is continuous and pulls attention to that which has been observed How could you make up something to observe? How could you make up some concept like that? I can understand this in terms of... That's because what has been observed. The particular nature of what's been observed is why you can make up any more thing for it. Because what have you observed? you've observed a very special event. Namely, you've observed that whatever, whatever anything is, it's not that anymore.

[01:02]

So you've got some concept in your mind that you applied to all? Yeah. I understand. You knew for a moment there, all concepts were destroyed. They all moved and shifted fundamentally. Now, there's various ways to simulate that event. Example, you know, see yourself all changed before you did. That's not exactly a concept. That will work against certain concepts. Anything that will work against rigid concepts, anything that will disturb your set towards life, that will remind you of what happened when you first saw, the first known truth, the first basic frustration in your life. Any way to rephrase that from many, many points of view, that could be before you now. Bring it back to yourself again and again. So would you be seeing things in the way that the Abhidharma explains things, like you could see yourself as the five skandhas?

[02:06]

Yes, you could do the five skandhas meditation, or you could do the ayatma meditations or the doctor meditations. To do the doctor meditations will promote seeing again, remind you of what you saw before. doing the doctor meditations will break just as nirvana when you first saw it broke the doctor meditations are linguistically the simplest to talk about because as I said before last week when you see for the first time nirvana That's breaking the lineage, which is Vasubandhu's definition of the dhatus. The dhatus are gotra to Vasubandhu. The dhatus are lineage. So when you first see nirvana, it breaks the lineage.

[03:10]

the long lineage of all the eighteen Dattus of your life stream, of your history, at that moment, all broken. So, then to continue to study the Dattus, you continue to see the lineage again and again, and you present it to yourself in that way, and that promotes, once again, They're broken, they're broken, they're broken. That is our most basic practice. Yeah. Then your meditation could be, actually your object in that case, would be following your breath. Your breath would be your object. Your eyes would be open. You could shut your eyes, too. The same meditation doesn't care whether eyes are open or shut. Just as you know, if you close your eyes, you go to sleep. That's the problem. But aside from that, you can see just as well as the eyes open or shut this process, this thing.

[04:19]

So the lineage meditation, all I want you to do is just learn it once, and it's available to you forever as a possible template through which you can have insights to this lineage. But you're not actually concentrating on the dhatus in the cellula. You could be concentrating on your breath. So all these different Buddhist analyses, or you can learn, as we're doing now, you can learn these these various dharmas that make up the state, as the Dhamma-sangani produces them, to study this analysis, to learn this analysis as you memorize it and it becomes familiar to you. That's there, and that's a Buddhist object. Buddhists are the only ones who did this dharma theory like this, who laid all this stuff out this way. So the Buddhists study these things, And this whole book then becomes the object of the supermundane path of meditation.

[05:23]

Before all the other kinds of meditations, all the other states, they aren't looking at this stuff. If you become Buddhist and you start studying this Abhidharma, you are in a supermundane state. So according to this, you are all Buddhists. The fact that you've studied this means you're all Buddhists. And actually, according to this, you are all Buddhists. But it's hard to believe that none of you ever will fall away from Buddhism. It's not hard for me to believe it. Maybe each one of you, some of you have some difficulty believing that you're completely safe now. That it's just a matter of time. You're on the track and you can't fall off. But one of the reasons why we had that trouble is because we're Mahayanas and we know that you can fall backwards. We've also been trained to be very wary. It's not so simple. Part of the reason is that we're not also following 256 rules or 343 like women have to follow.

[06:29]

We're not doing that. So we feel more insecure. But in another way, we should start now thinking about, in what sense are we one of these kinds of saints? Before this, that's a funny word, saint, okay? It says here that Buddhists are saints. To be a Buddhist is to be a saint. So it's a little bit of a funny word. I don't know how many years was the average before they had their first insight, when they followed these rules. It's not so important to me, anyway. More is to make sense out of how it is that there's a difference now in these emotions when they occur to us, when we keep before us Buddhist objects and Buddhist teachings.

[07:34]

So the emotions still come up. It allows that these saints still have these emotional outbursts. For example, it also allows, as you know, that these, not the first, but the second and third can have children. Do you remember how it describes that? Oh, children are brought about by rubbing your glimpses together? In other words, it's not, they say, these people must still have great outbursts of, they must not be so small, these emotions that they have, because they have children. The response is that having children can just come from rubbing of limbs. So, something, things go on, yet somehow they're different. There's some difference in you. You get angry still, but it's a different anger. there's some... it's not wholesome anymore either, you can't say it's wholesome because you're not doing something good, you're not creating karma.

[08:57]

What is it? What is it? What is it in this state when you're not creating karma and yet sort of emotional responses or emotional content is rising up? It doesn't mean that you don't fall back into your consciousness. It means that But this doesn't open the state of .

[10:02]

But we can in the spirit of the states Does it mean that he doesn't ever have a new chart of space of consciousness again, or just at that moment? It would seem to me that just at that moment, and then he can be in any of these space of consciousness, except that those particular don't respond. Well, the particular two fetters that he had is eliminating. But see, those aren't names of diamonds. Okay? No. Those aren't names of diamonds. They're more overarching terms.

[11:02]

They must be described in something more complex. They can't have the dharmas associated with all. They can't have the dharmas associated with all. They can't have the dharmas associated with all. What? Yes, but conventional morality is not a dharma. Resentable. So conventional morality is practiced in the Kambu Achara. One place is practiced. It can also be practiced in the rupa. When you're in rupa jhana, you're not breaking any of the rules, probably. So the Sotapana, what we were talking about before, did the Sotapana go back to the Kama Wachara in the realm? And he does, because in the next stage, the once-returned, he still comes back to be born. What he's fighting, what he's loosening, is Kama Raga, or the Greek for the Kama Wachara.

[12:03]

He just doesn't come back to the first, second, fifth, sixth, and a letter type of practice. Wait. He's never gonna go to any of those states. Any of those 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 11th, but you could, let's say the 3rd. These states are unwholesome states. He's never going to be in his unwholesome states. Never going to be an idiot? No, just in this. Why? Yes, but conceit, that's what I'm saying, isn't it?

[13:04]

maybe we should forget about this teaching here if it's too confusing because they're not going to at this point they're never going to fall into an unhosted state of consciousness again they won't do it They say they put this correspondence here, but that's the point, is that I just told you that when they entered this first download, they eradicated all the basic emotions that you find present in those states. They don't have any, they must be talking about something else, is what I'm suggesting. So why do they do that? And these fetters are not, they're putting some relationship between fetters and states of consciousness. But just to say that when the fetters are suppressed that the states of consciousness are, let's see, when he eradicates those states of consciousness, they're not going to fall back into any other states of consciousness from this mundane path anymore.

[14:20]

However, they do continue to experience, as we saw with the Buddha in our house, they all continue to experience at least vipakas for some time, the results of previous action. Even though this is a bad moment, still, all future states are participating and are going to be And you see for one thing here? Yep. You can't create karma anymore. Well, excuse me, but he, once this insight has occurred, he never falls back from it. So what does that mean? That means he doesn't create any more karma? Arhat clearly isn't going to create any more karma, because all his states are over on the other side.

[15:25]

What? I don't know. I believe that. [...] So, if you're reborn in the next moment, or in the next life, or whatever, how are we going to look at it? Buddhism doesn't say that the Self is reborn, that the Self is not reborn. But anyway, there seems to be another moment of existence. or another light.

[16:30]

The person doesn't necessarily know that they're a Buddhist saint. If you have robes on, you might have the information that Buddhist priests wear robes or something, their shaved head, you might think, oh, oh yes, I must be a Buddhist priest or something. So without, if you didn't notice that equipment, You wouldn't necessarily know that you had insights. Just a question of whether then you'd remind yourself, and it turns out that we're being taught we're supposed to do that. Wouldn't you do it naturally? Why do you have to be told to do it again if you do it naturally? Why does somebody have to tell somebody to cultivate what they've seen before?

[17:31]

Why won't they just naturally see it again and again? I think it's just like... It's just like... You know, it's something that I don't want to do. It's just like, you know, it's something that I don't want to do. It's [...] something that I don't want to do. So I'm wondering, if we come into the field and somebody's throwing seeds out there or somebody gives us some seeds or whatever, hardly anyone say it. If we don't know that we know how to do it, then why, if we don't know that we know how to do it, yet somehow as soon as we start doing it we do it that way, we put them in some pattern that will work quite well, then why would someone tell us to do it?

[18:44]

The moment when we consciously put the place, the moment between we have the first place in the garden, [...] Did you understand what you said? What did you say? I'm trying to get at what these states are. I feel differently. My approach to studying these is different than my approach to studying other states.

[19:52]

We're not talking exactly about psychology now. Something else is happening. We're talking about psychology and not psychology in these states. We now still have our dharma lists where things are being described, but somehow it changed a little bit. Fitaka changed, for example. we can figure out certain things. Particularly, we can figure out psychological events. For example, we know that according to this definition of these dharmic descriptions, we know that a saint can talk and think and hear. We know that psychologically from these dharma lists. But some other things are happening here too, which are a little unusual. We have a new dharma called the Dharma of Believing. It hasn't been a dharma before, has it? It's not on any dharma list. Not on any dharma list.

[20:54]

And we also have now right speech, right action, and right livelihood. All three. So at this point, somehow this book changed. And it took on another dimension beyond psychology, it seems to me. For example, now also, joy, the joy which is the factor of great awakening, concentration which is the factor of great awakening, a component, the energy which is the factor of great awakening, Now all these dharmas have a new characteristic. Now they've all changed their nature. So I'm wondering now, what states are possible after this kind of insight?

[21:59]

And I'm also wondering, if you're born in the next moment, you don't know that you've had insight, if you don't know you're a Buddhist, then why, and I have several questions, you know, is there any need to tell a person what to do after that? Why do we talk about reminding ourselves if we naturally remind ourselves? And what states are possible? Is there anything that wouldn't happen now? Or if it happens, then is it different? Or how is it different? Can these people experience unwholesome states? And can they experience wholesome states? Do they want to actually induce certain kinds of jhammas? Well, they're not supposed to necessarily, according to this description here.

[23:02]

They're not supposed to be practicing jhammas anymore, necessarily. If they're not, then does that mean that they won't experience them? We're describing a state of consciousness, and we're also describing a state of consciousness that has a practice embedded in it. Now, if that state of consciousness is doing that practice, how could the person then ever, how could they experience an unwholesome state? Could they, in the next moment, experience an unwholesome state? Could a series of vipakas intervene, not quite naturally among them, and could they go off? But then would there be running through all this, some kind of insight? And how can insight be expressed outside of a dharmic moment, a moment of dharma?

[24:04]

And how is insight expressed dharmically? What in the dharma list shows insight? Where do you see it? Vitaka is described somewhat differently. But it's still called Vitaka. Were those possible before? Yes. Possible. The previous states or in the previous realms that you see, we pay attention to consciousness by itself. And now that right action, right conduct, Sheila, or reality, or outside world or something is,

[25:13]

In here, it seems that what it's implying is that there's a harmony of consciousness with the world where there wasn't before. Yeah, there wasn't necessarily, but now there necessarily is, because of those three dynamics. And one question of yours was, why do we forget things? I mean, why don't we, if that's the case in one instance, why are we in harmony all the time? Anyway, that's where I have a question. I don't... See where to go from there, of having that insight or being in harmony or samadhi.

[26:19]

All I've been thinking now is that, I guess at the Zen thing, although you don't understand, do not hinder that, which seems to be like there's fetters or defilements overcrowding your insight. But the insight is there. And the Mayanis say that that's there for everybody. Like, that we're late in Goudis. We're... The Theravannis. Didn't believe in a late in Goudis. They didn't. Or... I don't think I'm going to say that. Maybe they suck off the body. But I don't know about the Theravallis. I don't believe in... Seems to me that they probably did. Seems to me that they said that Some people might say that certain schools have talked about this thing, a person that can't be enlightened.

[27:34]

But I can't remember exactly where they talk about actually something like that, that people have all the basic qualities necessary for a good. Anyway, what happened when we have this insight? What kind of state of consciousness are we talking about now? What's the difference between this and the other ones we've been studying? So it says, you see some difference in the Daimalist. You see the right action, right speech, and right livelihood, which were not all present before, but now they're all present. And we see as we progress through these stages or these moments that these different fetters are dropped as we progress. And that the last five attachments to the jhanas

[28:43]

form jhanas and non-form jhanas, and conceit, and restlessness, and ignorance are, um, we got rid of them. These are, uh, they're all non-form, non-usual, nonsense. So this kind of nonsense is dropping before the fence was dropped. So, does this happen in... I think before we were talking about the psychology of the jhanas, my opinion was, as I said, that these are not Buddhist practices, and is there any place where there's a closeness between Buddhism and these jhana systems that first access and preparation

[30:02]

It's preparation for any of them, but particularly preparation and access to the first jhana. Losing the breath instead of the sena. Well, today's source, I think, is that the boundless forces might take them in order to be found, except by the sole cause of attaining your basic meditation, meditation is going to be able to be acquired when you pull it over your mind. Okay. If we explored that question last time, that approach I think only I have to turn to you. What is your point now? The sole cause of attaining of the piano. Wow. According to the good sort of sequence.

[31:12]

So...

[31:18]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_48.51