You said quite a bit there. That was beautiful when you were counting those. At one time, did you see that part where you got that rhythm going? With the... Yeah. The translation sort of set a nice rhythm there. You picked it up. Or rather, there was a nice rhythm. How many have read that before? About half, huh? Not yet, thank you. What's that sound? .

[01:44]

I think I'd like to start here with this beginning of the work called Bendowa, Endeavoring in the Way. All the Buddha tathagatas who directly transmit Dharma and actualized supreme perfect enlightenment have a wondrous way, unsurpassed and unconditioned. Only Buddhas transmit it to Buddhas without veering off. Self-fulfilling samadhi is the standard. Sitting upright, practicing Zen, is the authentic gate to the unconfined realm of the samadhi.

[03:34]

Although this inconceivable dharma is abundant in each person, it is not actualized without practice, and it is not experienced without realization. When you realize it, it fills your hand. How could it be limited to one or many? When you speak it, it fills your mouth. It is not bounded by length or width. Here's the part I wanted to mainly emphasize. All Buddhas continuously abide in it but do not have traces of consciousness in their illumination. Sentient beings continually move about in it, but illumination does not manifest in their consciousness.

[04:41]

The first point he said, they have an inconceivable dharma. And Buddhas are living in this inconceivable dharma, but there's no traces of consciousness in that dharma. And sentient beings have consciousness, but the illumination does not manifest in their consciousnesses. And then later he says, now the realm of all Buddhas is inconceivable. It cannot be reached by consciousness. And then you know the part where he says, however, all this does not appear within perception because it is unconstructedness and stillness.

[05:49]

It is immediate realization. So the practice, in a way, is to help us realize the elimination of all obstruction to this inconceivable realm. And usually what's obstructing us is our mind and body. The other day I'd like to ask something about knowing things as it is, or something like that. See. See things as it is. So in a way this would say that we never really see things as it is, because the way things are is beyond the way we see.

[06:56]

by working with the way we see, or working with the way we think, and seeing and thinking in certain ways, by thinking in certain ways, by thinking in certain ways, the obstructions to the realm of the Buddhas is removed. We're in the realm of Buddhas all the time But the illumination does not reach our consciousness because our consciousness doesn't reach the realm of the Buddhas. However, of course, the illumination of the realm of the Buddhas we want eventually to reach our consciousness. We want our consciousness to be illuminated so we can be illuminated conscious beings. But our consciousness doesn't reach the realm of the Buddhas. Because even for the Buddhas there's no traces of consciousness in their playground. However, their playground illuminates all consciousness.

[08:04]

So it doesn't go both ways. The illumination reaches the consciousness, but the consciousness doesn't reach the illumination. The consciousness can interfere with realizing the illumination. So the practice is to get the consciousness to stop being an obstacle to the realm of the Buddhas and just be an opportunity for the realm of the Buddhist to work. But first of all, you have to get rid of the obstacles somehow. So the practice, in a way, is like... You know about the practice, right? Baizhang says to Matsu, what's the essential import of the school? So what does Matsu say? Hmm? What does Matsu say to that question? You don't know? Well, just be Matsu and answer the question. It's about time.

[09:08]

Come on, Matsu, answer the question. What's the essential import of the school? I don't know. I don't know? Well, that's close. Huh? Is that the one answer that's to remind us of that? Is that the one? No, that's not the one. The one is, I don't know. She said it. Did you hear? In other words, let go of your body and your life. Okay? Let go of your body and your life. Then the obstructions to omniscience will drop away. And then when we say, Dogen says to Ru Jing, what's the essential import of the school? What does Ru Jing say? This is easy, right?

[10:10]

Huh? Drop away body and mind. Same answer, isn't it? Drop off body and mind. He says... Sanzen, you know, Sanzen, which is literally translated as practicing Zen is dropping off body and mind, or practicing Zen is body-mind dropping off. So the practice is body and mind dropping off. With the dropping off of body and mind, then the realm of the Buddhas that we're moving in is not any longer obstructed, and the illumination of that realm reaches our consciousness. When we drop body and mind, we're no longer trying to use our consciousness to reach the realm of the Buddhas or any realm, and therefore we are illuminated. But we still don't know things as they are with our consciousness.

[11:18]

But our consciousness is illuminated by the Buddha, which is really called Buddha. And when our consciousness is illuminated by Buddha, there's no traces of our consciousness in the illumination. So, Ru Jing says, sansen is dropping our body and mind, and Sanzen is understood in Soto Zen as Zazen. So Zazen is dropping off body and mind. The essential import of Zazen is the dropping off body and mind. And somebody told me, I don't know what it was, they said something about dropping off body and mind, and I mentioned the relationship between dropping off body and mind and the absence of strongly adhering to the imputational character as being the other dependent, that that's kind of the same thing.

[12:24]

Does that make sense? That's dropping off body and mind. Body... well as we will see in a moment all bodily experience is mere concept You don't have sensation. You can move if you want to. But you don't know where you're stopping. Yeah. Is that the sensation or concept?

[13:27]

Do you know? When you do know that they're mere concepts? That concept, yes. Or when you think that that's actually so rather than that's your concept of leg and Zabaton. When you realize that you have just interpreted leg and Zabaton through these concepts and what you're seeing there doesn't exist, the way you see it. Then you're ready to drop off body, and you're ready to drop off body as held by the way you conceive of it. But having lost the distinction is not the realization.

[14:30]

It's not losing the distinction. It's seeing the distinction as just a distinction, not as something that's out there in the realm of bodies and subatoms. So anyway, that's the big start there tonight, for tonight's show. And now there's the sutra sitting there, and so we could stop now and discuss what I've already said quite a bit, but I just thought I would say a little bit more about the sutra, and also I'd probably say a little bit about Also, I said letting go of strong... Let go of strong adhering to the other dependent character of your body and life as being the imputational character of your body and life. I think that continues to respond to Anil's...

[15:38]

Anil's question. As I wrote underneath this thing about bhajan, I said, bhajan says, let go of your body and life. Then I wrote, let go of strongly adhering to the other dependent character of your body and life as being the imputational character of your body and life. Let go of clinging to the concept superimposed as essences and attributes upon the dependently co-arisen concepts of body and life. Okay, and then there's a little bit of history, and I'm sorry about this history, but anyway, a long time ago, Well, you know, down here at Tassajara in 1969, I started studying Abhidharma.

[16:43]

And then I went to the city. And then I think I came back here and where she's so in the fall of 72. And after that, I started teaching Abhidharma. After three measly years of study, I started teaching Abhidharma because I had studied it more than anybody else. And so we studied Abhidharma, both the Pali Abhidharma and the Sanskrit Abhidharma, and particularly the Abhidharmakosha. And then I moved on from the Abhidharmakosha to studying with the Abhidharmakosha supposedly by Vasubandhu. And then I moved on to study the 30 verses of Vasubandhu. And I just went back and forth between them for years. And then in the early 1990s, I gave a whole practice period sort of on the 30 verses. And I kept hearing about the Samdhi Nirmacana Sutra, and I knew that there was a French translation.

[17:51]

And I was trying to get a French translation because I knew it was related to this 30 verses. And then finally in the mid-90s, we got three translations. And so we're studying the Samyama Jhana Sutra, but now I sort of would like to go back to the 30 verses. So I'm sorry to give you the 30 verses at the end of the practice period. Just a little tidbit at the end there. It's just 30 verses, but those 30 verses are the There's a great deal of work has been done in those 30 verses for the last 1700 years in the tradition. But so I'm sort of back at the 30 verses again, sorry. But I think it'd be helpful even though it's more material.

[18:54]

But part of what the 30, and the 30 verses are called the 30 verses on the mastery of mere concept, which means 30 verses of understanding how everything we see is mere concept. It's like when we understand the obstruction and we don't see the obstruction as anything more than obstruction. It's not obstruction. It's just a concept. When you understand it's just a concept, it doesn't obstruct you anymore. But it's not really that the concept obstructs you. It's just that when you believe the concept, when you believe the concept, it turns into an obstruction in the sense that you do something, and once you believe the concept is what's happening, then your mind does this thing which really causes obstruction. What it does is it makes your mind start to operate dualistically.

[20:10]

So this treatise says that when you don't understand that what you see is mere concept, then you grasp what you see as out there, separate from your mind. You think you actually see what's something out there, and that what's out there is separate from your awareness of it. And that's not true, but that's the way you see when you don't realize that what you see is mere concept. It doesn't mean there's nothing besides your concepts. It's just that what we experience is mere concept, and when we understand that, we stop splitting ourselves from the world which our mind makes into concepts. So it causes actually a embracing, a harmonious embracing with the whole world, which is not just our own life, our own separate life.

[21:15]

So, in a way, the sutra is really in the background of this text, the 30 verses, and I never heard Vasubandham say homage to the Samdhi Nirmacana Sutra. I don't know. Maybe he did someplace, but it seems like he's closely connected to the sutra, but I don't hear him talking about it. Okay, so I... I'm in the room here with you, and as usual, I'm having some kind of experience, and I imagine that you are too. And of course, it just comes to my mind that when I say you, I mean you, who's not just my mere concept of you, but mere concepts, all I know about you.

[22:31]

And things are changing, and we're more or less aware of that. Temperature is changing, leaves are falling, plumbing's falling apart. People are crawling around various places with pads on their knees. And in the midst of all this activity, which is not just our mind, there is various kinds of activities which our mind is involved in. And then in this valley you have come to, you then hear some messages from the Buddhist tradition about the nature of these experiences you're having all day long. And the message is that all these experiences that you're having, all these phenomena that you're perceiving, they have these three characteristics.

[23:51]

But now, I'm mentioning that another way to talk about this is that, which is coming by going back to the Thirty Verses, another way to sort of emphasize is that these characteristics that you're hearing about, when you hear about them, you're hearing about three concepts about all your experience. That all your experience is basically, one of these three types of concepts, and or all your experience is a mixture of these three concepts, of these three types of concepts. And that these, that these three concepts are representing activities which are going on.

[24:55]

in your life, in our life, by which experience happens. And the activities are, one is like pure imagination, total fabrication, imagining something that doesn't exist. The other is another kind of concept which dependently co-arises or is a dependent co-arising based on conditions and having consequences.

[26:01]

And the other kind of concept is a concept which is attained by thinking about the teachings. And the third kind of concept, when you can see it clearly and meditate on it, cures you from believing the first kind applies to the second kind and removes the obstructions. So R is mere concept in our experience. And these three types of concept, when studied, remove the obstructions to enlightenment. So, in a sense, the first kind of concept, what we call the imputational or the conceptual clinging, is the imagination of something that doesn't happen, that never happens.

[27:28]

Namely, for example, an independent self or something that exists by itself, never happens. But that imagination is going on in the midst of our experience all the time. Then there's another kind of, in a sense, imagination or conceptualization going on And the second kind of conceptualization that's going on right now is the basis for the first kind. The first kind is based on and relates to the second kind. And the second kind is called the other dependent character or the other dependent type of conceptualization.

[28:39]

The first kind is based on that. It relates to that. It's about that. It's the imagination that there's a... that in this other-dependent concept there is a self and another. The other-dependent... Well, as the Thirty Verses says, The consciousness indeed possesses all seeds. Its transformation occurs in a variety of ways. It proceeds on the basis of mutual dependence as a result of which such and such thoughts are born. It's a description of the other dependent. The consciousness indeed possesses all seeds.

[29:48]

Its transformation occurs in a variety of ways. It proceeds on the basis of mutual dependence as a result of which such and such thoughts are born. This is a description of a concept, a kind of consciousness which conceives of things based on seeds, based on past experience. So something happens or, you know, let's say something happens. A concept of what is happening arises based on what has been conceived of as happening in the past. So what is seen is interpreted in terms of past themes.

[31:01]

What is thought is interpreted in terms of past thoughts. So the present experience does not produce itself. It is produced by things other than itself. So it lacks, I won't say that yet, I'll come back around and say that again. So the first one, the first character or the first, yeah, the first character or the first type of concept is empty in terms of character. The second one is empty in terms of production, in terms of self-production. And the... I was going to look at this book that Robert Thurman produced, but Eric Green has it checked out.

[32:10]

And I remember at the beginning of his discussion, he said that the most important word in the Samdhi Nirmacana Sutra is characteristic. it's the biggest, he says, most important word. Characteristic are lakshana. L-A-K-S-A-N-A. Huh? Svalakshana. Svalakshana is the most important word. So, Vasubandhu is categorized as a Satrantika in the Abhidharma-kosha, and In the 30 verses, he's categorized as a yogacaran. And so he's seen as moving from one type of philosophy to another. But at this point, you've heard about how when you understand the imputational character as it is, you understand characterless phenomena.

[33:18]

And you've also heard in the next chapter that the imputational character is a lack of own being in terms of character. Right? Remember that part? Sort of? The imagining, the imagination of something that exists on its own the imagination of essences, lacks its own being in terms of character. It's empty of characteristics. And one interpretation of this would be empty of characteristics means it's empty of any kind of fruitfulness

[34:22]

any kind of being able to receive consequences. It's total fabrication. Whereas the other one, the other dependent, is not empty of character. It has characteristics. It has characteristics because it actually is the fruit of past actions and it will also affect and transform consciousness as a result of what it thinks. So it is actually a concept which arises dependently

[35:26]

and doesn't imagine, is not the imagination of something that arises independently, or something that exists independently. It is the imagination and the enactment of experience that arises interdependently. So it is the lack of own being in terms of self-production and it is the concept of dependency. But as a result of that, it is not seeing what is out there. It is seeing basically what? Seeing our imagination? It's seeing concept. And it's seeing concepts in terms of past concepts.

[36:30]

Could you say that it's seeing causes and conditions? Can you say it's seeing causes and conditions? Yeah, you can say it's seeing causes and conditions, but it's seeing causes and conditions in the sense that when you see something, you see the causes and conditions for it. Like, if I see you, by seeing the causes and conditions of you, I see you in terms of my past experiences of you. I don't necessarily think I'm seeing you as causes and conditions, but in fact, what causes me to experience you the way I do is the way I've seen you before. And the way my mind is classified things in the past determines and is the causes and conditions for how I classify you. So actually, when I see you, I am just seeing causes and conditions. That's right. But I don't think of them as causes and conditions. I think of them as you. And I don't think of them as the way I used to see you.

[37:37]

I think of them as the way you are now. But the way I think of you are now is actually the way I've thought of things in the past. So I actually am seeing causes and conditions, but I don't notice that. When I don't notice that, there's another version of... of what? Huh? The one I'm saying is that I don't see that this is a concept that I'm looking at, this particular type of concept. So there's a mixture of concepts going on in our experience. And these concepts are also representing a mixture of the activities of our mind. The part of our mind is to interpret what's happening moment by moment in terms of past interpretations. But we don't think we're dealing with past interpretations. We think we're dealing with the present situation.

[38:39]

And it's true that we are dealing with the present situation. It's true, except that we're dealing with the present situation in terms of the past. And when we don't realize that, then we think we're dealing with the present situation rather than a concept. But when you realize, if you can... If your mind terminates in concepts, then you have these different types of concepts which you're dealing with. One concept is that you're projecting a self on the person or on the situation. The other is you're dealing with it in terms of your past actions and past thoughts. And if you realize those two, then you're getting ready to realize the third concept, that's actually right there too. And that concept represents an activity. What's the activity? But that concept represents an activity which is an activity of meditation.

[39:42]

And it's there all the time. So in one sense it's said to be the way things... You might think that's the way things always are. the third kind of concept, namely the thoroughly established. The way they always are is that our pure imagination, the things we imagine, things that are pure imagination, the things that are pure imagination, in other words, the things that are about something that doesn't happen, totally imaginary, rather than the other kind of imagination, which is about something that's happening, like Tova, But it's an imagination of Tova, too. It's a concept of Tova. It's partly imaginary, in the sense that I'm using my imagination to apply past experiences to this present person. Past experiences of her, past experiences of people, past experiences of dogs, everything, you know? You use all your past experiences to come up with the present concept of the person you're meeting.

[40:53]

But also there's an activity to grasp her That's there too. The mind's got that activity going too. So the imputational's right there too. And if the imputational's operating, then you tend to superimpose that on this other image, this other concept, and say that it is the other one, and this is our problem. But at the same time, it doesn't actually apply. The idea of self doesn't apply. And the idea that also that this person, that I'm looking at the actual person rather than I'm looking at my mind, and that what I'm seeing there is separate from my mind, that also is pure imagination, which you can obviously see, which is obvious when you meditate on the other dependent. You're never looking at something separate from your mind. But if we don't realize that what we're looking at is mere concept, and also the idea that what we're looking at is separate from our awareness is mere concept, then we tend to grasp even the other dependent as being an example of mind and object being separate.

[42:20]

But it's not so. And that not-so-ness again can be seen as the way things are which is separate from your mind. But it's not. It's a concept too. So there really isn't that characteristic of things having this thoroughly established character which is out there separate from you hearing about it. And yet, the realization of that seems to require some effort. It's something we have to accomplish. So one of the translations of... Another translation of thoroughly established would be... Another way to translate parinispana, which is the root of the word thoroughly established, is the accomplished, or the attained, or the fulfilled, or the perfected.

[43:21]

That activity is there too. your mind is actually working with that all the time. Namely, the way things are not confused, the way objects are not confused, your mind is working with that too, all the time. And yet without practice, it's not realized. So the way that mind doesn't reach things is not realized without practice, And that's the practice of realizing mere concept, which is the way things are already. And the fact that they're mere concept is the way they are already, and yet we somehow have to practice to realize it. Because we generally think that what we're seeing is something that's happening separate from our concepts of it.

[44:23]

and what's happening is separate from our concepts of it, but we don't see that. We think that our concepts are this thing which is separate from our concepts. I think what I just said there was... I'll stand by that. So again, here we are in this phenomenal, phenomenal situation. And illuminations of the realm of the Buddhas is like wanting to enter us. And now the question is, how can we let go of our holding to these concepts as being something beyond concepts? How can we let go of that and therefore make a space for illumination? So the Thirty Verses, again going back to the original definition, thus thought involves this transformation of consciousness.

[45:45]

For that reason, What has thus been thought of does not exist. All is mere concept. What is thought of does not exist. So, when I look at Connie, what is thought of does not exist. But it doesn't mean Connie doesn't exist. But what I'm thinking about does not exist. What I'm thinking about is my good old concept of Kant. And I got a variety of them. And none of my varieties are... none of them exist. None of them exist. They are also just dependent arisings and they're just concepts. Even the thoroughly established, if I could see the thoroughly established character of Kani, that doesn't exist either.

[46:53]

Now, some people say, I think, Vatsubandhu thinks that the thoroughly established character does exist. In other words, that the absence of duality, that there is a presence of the absence of duality, So we can talk about that more later. But basically, I'm suggesting at this point just to work on that. So that's what it's saying here. Another translation would be, this transformation of consciousness is a discrimination. And as it is discriminated, it does not exist. So, everything is perception only. Now, when it says, this transformation, it's referring back to earlier verses, which we can go over if you want to, maybe we will, but where they're talking about the way these consciousnesses evolve.

[48:12]

But I'm just starting in the middle of the text with the definition of mere concept. And then after talking about how this transformation of consciousness is a discrimination. And as it is discrimination, as it is discriminated, it does not exist. And so everything is mere perception. Then it goes on to say, consciousness is only all the seeds. So that's struck just now, that consciousness is only all the seeds. So right now, as usual, you are like chock full of seeds, and what you're seeing is just your seeds. You've got a seed head. And so there you are. You've dependently co-arisen at this moment.

[49:13]

Here you are. Buddha says you're dependent co-arising, and you arise as a seed pod. And then you're going to interpret the experience of being a seed pod, and guess what you're going to think you are? Huh? Well, yeah, but what? What something are you going to think you are? Yeah, but what do you... Tell me more. I gave you a hint just a minute ago. What? Yeah, but what is it that you're going to project? Tell her. The seeds. You're going to project the seeds. The seed self. The seed self. And you've got a lot of seeds, and you can use all those seeds to say what's happening. Because there's Carol, and she arises in the moment. So, Carol, what's happening? She says, well, looks at her seed collection, and she says, blah, blah, blah.

[50:15]

She doesn't know she's looking at her seed collection. I mean, she thinks that. No, no, Carolyn does know. Most people don't know. But Carolyn has attained mastery of her concepts. So she knows when she's looking at somebody that she's just consulting her seed collection. She knows that. And then she's saying, I'm using the seed collection to say what's there. She knows that, but most people don't. It's true. And if you don't know that you're consulting your seed collection, then if your mind doesn't terminate on realizing you're dealing with your seed collection, then the tendency of the two-furrow grasping does not cease. In other words, this proclivity, which is another one of the seeds, it's part of the seeds to do that, because that's a concept. We have that ability.

[51:16]

We've done that in the past. We got it available. And we're going to use that as the basis. That's one of the reasons why this... I'm talking about the dependent core rising now, right? The consciousness with all the seeds is the other dependent. It's talking about something happens, okay, you don't just meet naked, you've got your seed collection to interpret, or you've got a deck of cards, you know, a huge deck of cards with zillions of concepts which you've worked out with other beings, and they work pretty well, a lot of them. And, you know, you spent years going through virtually infinite experiments to get these things to work out with the other people. So you watch like you watch little kids, you know, You know, like Maceo is like constantly talking to try to get this stuff straightened out, you know. I talk to him more than anybody. He's like nonstop trying to get these seeds lined up. You know, and using me and his mom and everybody to like zillions of tests.

[52:17]

He's got all the seeds. He's got like, he's been working with us now to match them up. This is dependent core rising. But he doesn't understand that and most people don't. Then after a while it gets to working pretty well, and then you use this collection, just go ahead and use it, and you forget that you've just been using what you were born with to interpret the world. And one of the things you're born with is the big seed of self-other split, and that one is a total fabrication, and that's the basis of coming up with this idea. How did you wind up talking? Did I call on you or something? What happened? You interrupted? Is that seed? I see it. I'm not arguing, but I didn't know about that one. So what was the question? It wasn't a question? You just jumped up there and you had something to say?

[53:20]

I can't either. Okay, so again... Again, I'm just proposing that this meditation on what's, you know, that we're swimming around in those activities. We're swimming around in the activities of our mind, of these three types of activities, and we have concepts which represent those three types of activities, and those three types of activities are making concepts about life and body. So, just study them. Is there anything that you want to talk about? Yeah? This is a question that's been sort of a haunting discussion for a while. A haunting question? Yes. There is this situation, just describing this brain energy, describing some other things there.

[54:21]

What happens or how is it when we actually meet? Pardon? What happened? When do we actually meet? Yes. But the possibility by actually me, rather than the situation, or along with the situation of it's my story, and it's Sal's story, and it's my story about Sal, and it's Sal's story about me, and both of our stories about each other, and our story about our relationship, and blah, blah, blah, blah, and all of these things. But then sometimes we actually meet. Is there such a situation? And what's happening with that action? So is your question what happens when we actually meet? Well, what do you think I'm going to say? Yes. I ask you a guess, not a story. Meeting is another story? When we actually meet, what am I going to say is going to be another story.

[55:23]

It's going to be a good one, but it's another story. When we actually meet, what happens is we actually meet. And also, when I ask you a question, when do you think we actually meet? Always. Always. Always actually meet. In other words, in the realm of the Buddhas, we're always meeting. In the realm of the Buddhas, we're always meeting. We're never not meeting. We're like nothing but meeting. We're not like, you know, not meeting. We're not like, I'm over here and you're over there. This is like the two-pole grasping. Okay? The realm of the Buddha is everybody working together in a very meaty way. So, the meaning is occurring all the time. That's the way things are. So what about when we understand? And the consciousness does not reach that realm. Look at that section of the Vendā-vā, where he's talking about what it's like in self-fulfilling samādhi.

[56:30]

In that samādhi, you're just seeing how everything's meeting. You're seeing how the hell-dwellers are helping the Buddhas, and the Buddhas are helping the grasses, and the grasses are helping the Buddhas, and the grasses are helping the Calvians. Everybody's working together, and there's reasons for why things are going that way. They're now all mixing together, working together. There's nothing significant, everything's working. And the question is how to get into that realm and work it. And the Buddha said, you are working. All you got to do now is drop off body and mind and you can like, then that realm will illuminate your consciousness, but your consciousness will not reach that realm. So when you say, with the story, when you say, well, what's it like, when do we meet? That's like, how can you get your consciousness into the place where you meet? No story reaches, no story I tell you, I tell you unique. Yes, I tell you unique, but I'm saying also that the meaning is inconceivable. No concepts reach it. But if you realize that your concept bound, that your conception bound, that, in other words, that concepts are not going to stop working the world.

[57:40]

But if you don't get fooled by them, If you keep training yourself, everything is mere concept, including suchness. This text says, and it is suchness. And being suchness all the time is mere concept. So even the thoroughly established character, even emptiness is a concept. But it's a concept which, when you know it, cures you from believing misconceptions. It's a medicine, which will cure you of ignorance. Because ignorance is a concept. It's a concept. Ignorance is taking a concept and believing it. Take the concept of self as an ignorance. But believing, believing the imputation as applying to your life,

[58:42]

So we don't even make emptiness into like ultimate reality that's like not just a concept. And then on top of that, we have a little meditation work to do to develop a non-dual relationship with this concept of emptiness that can really work through the situation. So anyway, back to your question again. When we really meet this all between, how we realize that is to realize that everything that happened is a mere concept. And a mere concept, it helps, maybe it helps to realize that mere concept has these three basic types. So you know what kind of concept you're running into. Then it's easier maybe for you to find out, oh yeah, this is mere concept and it's of this type. And [...] zowie, someday it'll be of the thoroughly established type. And now you're not. Destructionist, huh, Harry? Now you've got destructionist.

[59:45]

Now just hold still right now. Hold still. Now you're like looking at the film and you've got unconstructedness. Unconstructedness. The absence of construction. Unimputationalness. The absence of imputation. Now you've got it. There's no imputation here. There's no construction. This is the concept, too. It's a concept, too. But this concept, if you meditate on it, it'll protect you. Not protect you from the temptation, but protect you from belief in it. It'll protect you from ignorance. But we don't even make emptiness into something more than just at the pinnacle of rising. And that, when you really meet, is all the time when you realize that's how you really meet all the time.

[60:46]

You have this country, how it could be. You are in the Buddha's world with the Buddha when you realize that, when you understand, when that's structured to that meeting with the Buddha. Right? Instructed to the way where all meeting all the time is removed. But the concepts keep coming up there, and they're hard to not get caught by, aren't they? Very hard. So we're training ourselves to, in the concept, OK, what type are you looking at right now? All three activities are going on, but you can look at one or the other. You can actually see the concepts. So you can see suchness. But what you're seeing is the conceptless. There's no light, let me call it. There's like electromagnetic radiation and mechanical waves in certain media, air and water.

[61:47]

There's thermal activity. There's gas, gaseous activity, mechanical activity, with pressure and stuff. But there's not another thing out there that's a sensory thing. called emptiness. Emptiness is a mental thing. It's a mental medicine. Mental medicine. And it can work. You can get it. You can get it. You can get the concept, and then you can meditate on it. And then you can watch yourself get transformed on that. And then you can realize the meaning that's been going on all along, beyond all these concepts. even beyond the dependent co-arising concept, even beyond dependent co-arising. Dependent co-arising is, in this case, the other dependent character phenomenon. Not the dependent co-arising, but the other dependent character is the dependent co-arising of things, but the dependent co-arising of things is that the way things depend on the co-arise depend on the past in a big way.

[63:00]

which is why you're basically seeing things in terms of your own mind. And what they are is ignoring the conditions, but it's not what you see. So that's a mere concept, too. What it is like not training, training, training is studying the mind. When you understand your mind, then it's no longer an obstruction. Yes. The grasping of knowing and knowing. Yes. But if it's just that it's not the feeling... If it's not the feeling, is that still a concept? Is it still a concept to understand? I think that the question about this, in that section there, that chapter is about learning the structure of the mind, right?

[64:09]

There's three different types of mind, which are mind, thought, and consciousness, I would say. Which I think what people usually say that is, and the consciousness is, they say it's the apprehending consciousness and the storehouse consciousness. So it's learning those doctrines, and then, but this isn't all that makes the bodhisattva wise with regard to the secrets of mind, thought, and consciousness. What they also have to do is not perceive this stuff. What does that mean, that you don't perceive it? You think the truth is only to you? Not believing it? Not believing it? That's close. Say it. You mean they don't say it's a mere concept? Well, they don't say it's a mere concept, but they have achieved mere concept. Right, but they can't say, now, this is a mere concept. Right, they don't do that.

[65:11]

But before that, did they realize mere concept? In order to not see it. Yeah, right. They've achieved mere concept, and this is what they mean by they don't perceive it. You don't perceive the color. You understand the perceiving concept. Then they're lost. Then they're not fooled into thinking that they know what's out there as a real object, separate from their consciousness. They realize that there's nothing that they're working with is the object that's not separate from their consciousness. So then the two-fold grasping doesn't happen. So then they don't perceive, and then they're lost. OK? But there's still appropriation. There's still appropriation? Yes. There still might be appropriation. But I think that one of the things which is emphasised in Prabhupada's translation... See, it might be on... There's two translations.

[66:35]

As long as the consciousness does not terminate in mere concept, so long will the dispositions for the twofold grasping not cease. It's okay to apprehend as long as it's not a disposition. As long as the consciousness doesn't terminate in mere concept, As long as you don't understand mere concept, you stop there. You don't mess around beyond that understanding. So if you don't get to that point and you go beyond that, then you do perceive objects as out there separate. But what's even more important is so long it was a disposition for the twofold grasping, not cease. Even if you're not grasping it, to have a disposition is a real problem. could play the game, but they don't have the disposition for it anymore.

[67:50]

But in our translation, which I think helps too, it's almost the same. For as long as consciousness is not situated in perception, the residual of dual apprehension will not cease. Okay. Hands over there. You're quiet over there. Two? Okay. Yeah, I thought, you know, because just a couple of days ago you said emptiness is not a concept. I'm really saying that. I thought, well, Mike's probably going to have a good one. Yeah, yeah, no, emptiness, emptiness is the concept.

[68:55]

Like, you know, a big emptiness, like, this is the school of emptiness, right? Yeah. And now we say art school based on just a concept? Really, really, really. No, no, art school should be based on something that's already there. Really? Is there something beyond that? Huh? Something beyond that. Beyond what? That concept. Is there something beyond it? There's getting up, there's going down, yeah. Yeah. Definitely. This is a big program. They ran with us. They ran with us over to Bodhisattva. But we'd be saying, yeah, there's the realm of the Buddhists, and the realm of the Buddhists, the price of admission to the realm of the Buddhists, and it's taking those emptiness pills. Even with emptiness concepts, meditate on that concept. But we're not going to make that into the big thing. Emptiness is not the, you know... But the money, we understand that.

[70:01]

Because the money has been liberated and justified by the obstruction to... But that we like. But in some sense we don't like emptiness too much because we like too much it comes into a wall again. Just like in this text it says, right after it says a thing about another concept, it says, this is the best way to think then, not go back to your day. Indeed, one who on account of one's grasping were to place something before themselves, saying, this is mere concept, would not stop at nearness. So if you think that emptiness or mere concept, that that's really something, then wall they look at you. And illumination can't come in to this life. So emptiness is just a mere concept. Now, is there really some emptiness hiding behind a mere concept of emptiness?

[71:07]

Well, there is not. Wait a second. Did you wrongly say something? It's not that we're saying, though, that emptiness is nothing. or that impermanence is nothing, or that Dharma nature is nothing. We're not saying that. We're just saying that emptiness is not something in addition to or beyond empty things. And emptiness is not something in addition to or beyond... Just say things again. Huh? Impermanence is not something in addition to or beyond impermanent things. And the nature of things is not something in addition to or beyond them. The thoroughly established character is not something in addition to or beyond dependently co-arisen things. It's not something in addition.

[72:10]

It's just something that you understand, that you come to see about them. And you get to understand the emptiness of empty things. the sterile-established character of the pinnacle arising, the impermanence of impermanent things. You understand that? But that thing is not actually anything in addition to those things. It's like, it's not really something. It's not nothing either. It's a concept. It's something that you can see, and you see it and you understand something. You understand? Impermanence, emptiness, Dharma nature, and so on. It is really great. And you become... three obstructions. But if you make any of those things into more than that, like something in addition to this stuff, up there by itself, floating up, haunting the world, then it's a wonderful thing that you've gotten out backwards. We don't want to make impermanence and emptiness and dominature or anything else into some additional thing on top of our life.

[73:19]

A head on top of the head, as we see it. Now, should I sweep way over to the left, or should I stop and boot? A while ago, you made this differentiation between the forms of conceptualization, like the incutational as a concept of something that doesn't exist, and then the other dependent as the seeds or as like the deposit or whatever, like the past working. So I'm not clear how this differentiation works, because isn't it always mixed, or isn't that the problem?

[74:26]

I mean, aren't the seeds kind of in the form of cells? My question is maybe not clear, but I cannot really separate this. Well, usually people do mix them up. Yeah. We can actually observe, for example, our feelings, our thoughts, falling leaves, other people, and stuff like that. We can observe these things and we can see them change and so on. So they're part of our experience. I mean, our experience is like that. And then we interpret that through our past experience.

[75:31]

We classify things due to past experience. We put them in classes and categories, concepts, and so we do all that. And that's not based on nothing. There is evidence for all this stuff, the leaves and the people and so on. But do you call out now? Do you call out and see if you can get somebody to answer the idea of self? There's nobody there to answer. There's nothing there like that. There's no evidence for a self or for a permanent thing. Yes. But, I mean... And you have no past experience of it also to use to have the experience of a self.

[76:36]

So that's a difference in the flow of events. So, and I think that I could work this point some more too, and that is that the way that the saltrantika and the Abhidharma Kosha, the way that they define a characteristic or a lakshana of a thing is the receiving of a gift, receiving of consequence. That's how things are defined in terms of their character. Their fruitfulness. That they are fruitfulness. They are fruits. And they have fruit. That's why dependent core rising things have character.

[77:39]

And not only that, but the way they exist is by their own character. Namely, they exist interdependently, and that is their character. They exist depending on things other than themselves, so they do have that character. What they don't have is independent existence, which is obvious. They don't exist by way of their own being. But they do exist in terms of fruitfulness. And fruitfulness has to do with checking to see if concepts work on situations. You've got past concepts. Can I use those today? And being able to categorize you as a woman is a fruit of having categorized you as a woman in the past. So the characteristic of what I experience here, depending on categories and past experiences, that characteristic or that lakshana, that's the lakshana here.

[78:48]

But then the fruitfulness... Excuse me, so that's the lakshana of other dependence. That's the character of other dependence. And in addition, the character of other dependence means that it's just a concept, because I'm using concepts which are fruitfulness, which are fruitful concepts, I'm using them. So I have that character, plus I'm... But in the other case, I'm not using concepts from the past to do it. I'm using an imagination of something that doesn't exist, that there's no evidence for, no past experience for, and has no future. That's kind of my question. I mean, the self is also somehow something from the past. I mean, that we make this up is kind of happening right away. I mean, that happens even before language, right?

[79:50]

The sense that the self is from the past, okay, I think that's the other dependent character, the sense that it's from the past. The self doesn't really have a past. But the sense that it does is part of the other dependent. The self is independent of past and future. It doesn't have a past. There's not an old version of the self. Everything else there's another version of. So actually there's no new things. It's part of the situation too. Dependent core arisings are not really that new because they're dependent on the past. So you don't have an independent new existence. Can I ask how that fruitfulness is characterized?

[81:05]

It is like fruitful in terms of... Because when you say the self is all fruitfulness, I mean like... Here's the definition of the other dependent in a way, in the 30 verses. Consciousness possesses all seeds. Okay? So you got all the seeds, all the possible things that can happen, you got them already. Nothing's going to happen you don't have seeds for. Nothing new is going to happen in this moment. That's what that's saying. Of course something new is happening. Of course something new is happening. But you ain't going to see it. You're going to see seeds. Because you're dependent on the seeds. I mean, you are the consciousness. You, the consciousness, has all the seeds. Its transformation occurs in a variety of ways. It proceeds on the basis of mutual dependence as a result of which such and such thoughts are born.

[82:07]

So the term from the Abhidharma Kosha is, which I can hardly read here, The term is receiving the gift of fruit. So the character of things is... Namely, you have the fruits, you have the seeds, the seeds become fruits, this kind of thing. The seeds become the fruit. The fruit is what you think is happening. It's the fruitfulness of the seeds. So the conscious being in the world of conscious beings arrives with the seeds and the seeds come to fruit as what?

[83:21]

Huh? Concept, yeah. As the fruit of such and such as thought. Hmm? Not out of themselves, right? Not out of what's happening. And the thing doesn't make it up itself. It's making it up in terms of the seeds that it comes with. And then the next fast, the next one is... Right after that. As a result of which such and such thoughts are born... So that's the character, that's the other dependent character, that's the other dependent character, that's the lakshana of this type of concept. And then karmic dispositions together with the two dispositions for grasping produce another resultant, another other dependent consciousness when the previous one has waned.

[84:31]

the residual impressions of actions, along with the residual impressions of dual apprehension, cause another maturation of seeds to occur where the former maturation has been exhausted. This is how the other dependent character of the process is fruitful. And that's why this is not called a lack of own being in terms of characteristics. It has this characteristic. It operates this way. The other one is said to lack character because it does not operate this way. The imputational character does not operate according to the way it says things operate. It says things operate independently. It says that subject and object are split. This character of the other dependent doesn't say that they're split.

[85:40]

It says that they're not split. It says that the other dependent character is saying that what you come up with is really just what you think it is. It doesn't say there's nothing there. It just says it's just what you came to the situation with. So it's just all the seeds. And then that thought then has influence to turn the wheel of dependent core rising again. So that's why that's the character of that. It does have a character, so it doesn't lack character. In other words, it is in accord with its character. But it lacks independent existence. It lacks own being in terms of producing itself. The other one, of course, also doesn't produce itself. It's a dependent co-arising. It's a dependent co-arising. It's a dependent co-arising of what? Of the imagination that things don't dependently co-arise. It's an imagination of something that doesn't exist. It has no character.

[86:43]

It's a thing of no character. It's empty of character. Is that getting a little clearer, Anna? Yeah, I think I have the two on it. You can chew on it. It's a very slippery kind of chew. Slippery chew. Okay, and then Roberta. And then time check, Tova. Time check. Yes? So, towards the end, this picture speaks of bodhisattvas who basically don't perceive, well, they don't perceive phenomena, and they don't perceive their thoughts. So what I'm wondering is, how does that function in conventional reality? If I'm looking at a sunset and I say, what a pretty sunset, what would this Bodhisattva see? How would they respond? When they're looking at a sunset, how would they see?

[87:45]

Yeah, what would they see? They don't perceive phenomena. They don't perceive their thoughts. I thought we already said. I thought we already answered that question. Don't you remember? No, sorry. Do you remember the discussion before about that point of not perceiving? I'm just sort of like checking here the history of the world. Yeah, there was a discussion in the question ago. But you didn't really get it? No. Okay. Did somebody get it? I hope it was kind of over in this area. So what does it mean when bodhisattvas don't perceive? What are the things they don't perceive? They don't perceive colors? What is it they don't perceive? So is it that they don't perceive subject and object? They don't perceive duality. It says they do not perceive tongue, nor do they perceive taste, nor do they perceive tongue consciousness. They don't perceive those things.

[88:46]

So they have an experience like, what did you say, a beautiful tongue waterfall, a beautiful tongue sunset? Like you said? So they have the experience of a sunset. So what does the bodhisattva perceive? They don't perceive the eye. They don't perceive the colors. They don't perceive eye consciousness. They don't perceive that. So what do they perceive? They're having the experience of the sunset, right? So what are they perceiving? Hmm? Hmm? Pardon? They perceive that they only have a concept. Yeah, that's right. They perceive they only have a concept of it. They're out there with the sunset, which is great, you know. But they only have a concept of the sunset. And just like everybody else. It's just that they understand that they only have a concept of the sunset. So it's like they know that they're deluded.

[89:50]

Pardon? So they know that they're deluded. They know they're deluded, right. They know this is a deluded version of a sunset. And they know that this deluded mind will not reach the Buddha realm sunset. The sunset Buddha realm. It's the name of a new mortuary. Pardon? The sunset Buddha realm does reach them because they know that their deluded mind... So they're sitting there in the sunset knowing their deluded mind is not reaching the Buddha realm of this sunset. But the radiance of the Buddha realm is reaching them. because they've realized mere concept. But they don't perceive, you know, the eye, consciousness, the eye and the colors. They don't perceive that. They don't perceive that. They know about this stuff. They've studied this stuff. But they also know about mere concept. So they know they don't perceive this.

[90:55]

And then when they know they don't perceive it, well, they don't perceive it. And nobody else perceives it either. You do not see... What does it say? The thought evolves... Thus thought involves this transformation of consciousness. For that reason, what has been thought or seen does not exist. Therefore, all is mere concept. Sitting, watching the sunset... Thus, thought involves this transformation of consciousness. For that reason, what has been thought of as the sunset does not exist. What is thought of? We're not saying the sunset doesn't exist. We're saying what is thought of doesn't exist. And when you understand this is mere concept, this is what they know, so they don't perceive that stuff. Do they perceive mere concept?

[91:56]

No. You understand it. To perceive it would be put mere concept on top of mere concept, which is the next karaka, the next verse, is if you would put mere concept right in front of you and say, here it is, you just now are back into perceiving things as though what you're seeing was actually a perception of something. Now, is there a perception? Yes. What's that? Yeah, right But there is perception just like there's waterfalls and sunsets and people We're not negating that we're not negating that we're not negating it we're not negating that there's these objects and What we're denying is the existence of the object reflected as it is in your consciousness.

[92:57]

We're not saying these people aren't up there. We're just saying that the way that they're reflected in your consciousness doesn't exist. Except in your consciousness. As a concept. Which is fine, right? And now if you got that, Are you noticing that some obstructions to enlightenment are starting to kind of quiver a little bit? They can fall over, you know. If you've got your mind like a wall, you can mow down other walls. Okay, so... These folks thoughtless do not perceive their own particular thoughts. It doesn't say that thoughts don't arise. It says that they don't perceive it. That's interesting. Well, it doesn't say that thoughts don't arise here, but later it says they don't arise.

[94:00]

That's another little twist there to test your understanding of your concept, whether you can hear about that in Chapter 7. Bernd? Time check, Bernd. Yeah, I think it's time for the concept of self to go from the concept of the bathroom. Okay. Just a moment. Okay. The instructions to enlightenment might drop a little. On this little journey, just keep meditating like that. Now, you know, I think that probably it's time for a time check, right, Tova? We're doing great. We're doing great? Yeah. We have about a few more minutes. Well, in that few more minutes, let's practice dropping our body and mind, shall we?

[95:07]

Ready? One, two, three. People do have emotional reactions to this. So the sutra doesn't tell how scary people get when they come over to the edge of mere concept. Like, they actually try it on, like, okay, one, two, three, mere concept, mere concept. Yeah, people do. They step back, they flinch, they... they flip over into thinking thoughts and then not realizing those are mere concepts too. And those sometimes thoughts are a little bit scarier than the ones that you usually have during the day. You name it, whatever, you know. There are certain kinds of fear that you don't get unless you look at these issues.

[96:13]

You have other kind of fears, right? of your social standing or something. But this is a new variety of fear that could arise if you flinch from this meditation and make this into something again. If you can tolerate these bumps in the road, it's a rougher road. The sutra doesn't tell you all the difficulties that happen on this path. People do get scared often. Do you have a concept right now? I have what? You've got a concept right now. OK. Can you take any questions? Okay. One more. One more. Okay. I want to test my understanding. And is that okay? All right. So yesterday we were talking about sign. So I want to bring that in.

[97:18]

Yeah. It seemed like the same conversation as we're having today. So using the example of sign meaning... implying that like it appears to be so but isn't necessarily so let's say like right now i might think that you have signs i might perceive you as having signs to be angry and i might believe them and hide under the table then i might um at some point gain an understanding or realize that those signs that appear to me to be as though you're angry which is all in my perception you're not necessarily angry. And then I might not hide under the table. I might see that that was just that that sign was actually a mistake. And I have a much wider range of possibilities in my interaction with you, just based on knowing that This sign was just not fictitious, but something created out of my own seeds, as you said.

[98:23]

And do you see Ron tying it into the point of the day? I do, yeah. Okay, because it feels like it just hits. And then, what's the last one? Oh, then at some point, I might not even perceive, as I get to know you better and I know that you're not actually angry, you're just frowning or raising your eyebrows or something, then I might not even see those as signs of anger. So that's the last one, the elimination. Right there you kind of slipped a little bit. You said, as you get to know me better. Oh, is that good? But you are, in this case, you are a represent... I'm using you as a symbol for... As you get to know... As you get to know... the way your mind manifests these signs. And I get to know myself better. Yeah. Yeah. And you get to know the way your mind, your own mind is working. Your own dispositions are manifesting, your dispositions are manifesting as these little signs, these little bright lights on certain things, you know. As you get to know that better, your relationship with me opens up.

[99:28]

So that's where the Bodhisattva proceeding of sunset comes in. It's the last one, the elimination of signs. I would just be like, wow, what I'm seeing no longer is definitively or even suggestive of a sign of anger, you know? Did you say elimination of signs? Yeah. the elimination of the signs, in a sense, happens, the signs are like these dispositions, these tendencies in the field. And the more you meditate on mere concept, the more these signs are, what do you call it, are subdued. The more the impulses towards the old habits calm down. And finally they cease so that you don't have to, you're not caught by these signs anymore, these dispositions that are manifesting in this field of interpretation.

[100:32]

Wait a second, I thought you were going to say to stop. No, we're always going to ask her questions. No, this is like reality TV or something. You heard her say one more question, right? And now she wants to ask a question. True letter? I thought you were going to go to the bathroom. Yes? Well, what Jamie was just working with in terms of recognizing the way we... believe signs to be real, in a sense, just has tremendous implications, I think, in how we communicate. Can I say something right at that point? Yeah. She said the way we believe signs to be real, okay, the signs are the things that appear, you can kind of see them, okay, and your disposition towards that sign is the sign.

[101:53]

So you're kind of disposed to, the fact that you're disposed to believe something about what you're seeing is the sign. You see a color, a certain pattern of color or something, and the disposition towards a certain way of relating to that color. That is the sign. The sign isn't the color. The sign is kind of your bias from your past towards that color, or towards that form, or towards that idea. So, in fact, the disposition, the tendency to believe it and the tendency to then act a certain way based on that belief, that's the sign. It's not so much disposed towards the sign or believing the sign. It's the belief in the reality of something is the sign. And those signs are the basis for the imputational. And that's why the imputational is somewhat, like I say, it's based on the other dependent because the other dependent has these tendencies to believe something rather than another thing and to care for something more than another thing or be more excited about one thing than another thing.

[103:08]

Those tendencies, those predispositions, those are the signs. And those can be calmed down so we aren't so compulsive. And that lack of compulsion also gradually removes the basis for the big compulsion of the imagination of separation. But I picked up on that little detail there, you know? That's very helpful. Where I was going was, And how we create stories about an event, a conversation, and then we believe our stories, and then we are not able to... Okay, just say it right there again. Believe in the story, the tendency to believe this story, that's the sign. So how would you word it? So if you would, I adhere to the sign, or... Adhering to the sign is similar to adhering to the story. The part of the story that you get stuck on, in some sense, is the sign.

[104:11]

So there's like these little, the signs are like the little Velcro places on the story. So some parts of the story, you know, when you can tell a story about what's going on, and then somebody else is around, and then they want to mess with your story and start changing it. Some parts of you say, yeah, go ahead, we can change that part. And in some parts you won't let change. That's the sign of the story. That's a sticking point, right? But the funny thing is that we need to use signs to receive the teaching. This is also dealt with in Chapter 8. is you have to use signs to, like, get the teaching in and get it straight, you know? And, like, this is the correct understanding of the teaching, you know? You have to use the signs to do it. No, no, we're not going to accept that one. You can't change that one. So part of the tough part of practice is you have to get the story straight in this traditional way in order to use that story to take the signs off everything else, including the signs off the story of practice.

[105:18]

That's one of the difficulties of the study. But that, again, basically what we want to do is learn what places in our stories about what's happening. Where's the sticking points? Where's the points where we won't let the story change, where we won't give up, where we're like perceiving the thing as something other than a concept? It just seems to have tremendous implications for how we get along. Tremendous. It's the difference between war and peace, basically. And this is why, you know, it'd be nice to have some enlightened people who could, like, get in there and work with this story, and then if they were able to do it themselves, they could show other people how to do it and the benefits of it. It makes for tremendous workability in the flow of events to not be caught by them. It's tremendous. So that's what we're trying to learn. So all these different, this sutra and thirty verses, in fact,

[106:27]

So again, I studied the 30 verses and taught the 30 verses. And then I wanted to go study the Samadhi Nirmacana because I felt like it would help. And it really has changed my understanding of 30 verses. And now the 30 verses is now helping me change my understanding. So the sutra helped me understand the 30 verses, and the 30 verses is now helping me understand the sutra. And then there's another text by Vasubandhu on the three natures, which... is next to be dealt with. And, you know, it's been translated into English. So, that's coming up next on the horizon in this getting going deeper into this teaching and getting it clearer and clearer. Is it getting a little clearer? Yes. I have to apologize because I think I've made a screw-up. Did you hear that Tovo's apologizing for making us a little late? And everyone appreciates you making us late.

[107:31]

I think that was a very nice question. Worth the inconvenience to the Eno. And now, of course, we're going to stop, right? But I see your question, Joanne. So I know you've got one there. I'll get to you someday.

[107:48]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_85.16