the amazing teachings of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra. There's a piece of wood hanging next to the altar here. And as you know, we strike that piece of wood to call people to come to sit together in silence and stillness. And traditionally in Zen temples, we use this piece of wood, which is called a han. It's a piece of wood

[01:03]

This is a flat piece of wood. And also traditionally on the piece of wood, there's which says, great assembly, carefully listen, or attention, everyone. Birth and death matter. Birth and death is the way the Chinese Buddhists settled on translating or writing what the Indians called in Sanskrit, samsara. Samsara.

[02:05]

Samsara. Birth, death. Samsara doesn't mean birth, death. It means going around. But it means going around in birth and death. Birth, death. And also in some Zen temples, maybe at the end of the day, time drum, and then they hit the Han, or sometimes they announce and they read the Han to the assembly. Birth and death. Samsara is a great matter. Samsara is a serious matter. Samsara is a great affair.

[03:06]

Time passes swiftly. Opportunity is lost. Awake. Awake. Don't waste time. Birth and death is a great matter. Don't waste time. Birth and death is serious. Birth and death can be difficult. Birth and death is an inconceivably wonderful opportunity for a bodhisattva. It's where they live and where they vow to not waste time. If they're feeling healthy, they are reminded that birth and death is a big deal.

[04:32]

Don't waste time. If they're sick, they're reminded birth and death is an opportunity. Don't waste time. However they are, they're reminded of this. they remember this. Someone told me recently that she had received the diagnosis of Parkinson's Parkinson's is a great affair.

[05:36]

The birth and death of it is a big issue. wake up, wake up, don't waste this opportunity. We had a friend who was diagnosed with Parkinson's and I think lived and very shortly before he died, after 20 years of working with this, I was visiting him And he said, what do you have there? And I said, it's the Genjo Koan. Would you like me to read it to you?

[06:57]

He said, yes. So I did. Birth fully abides in the dharma position of birth and fully includes past and future. Death fully abides in the dharma position of death and includes past and future.

[08:02]

Birth doesn't turn into death, and death doesn't turn into birth. And yet, there is some sorrow. Let's not waste this opportunity. Let's face the music and dance. After reading the Genjo Koan to him, and I had to stop at various points because I could tell he was either losing his concentration or falling asleep.

[09:17]

So I read as long as I felt he was with me, and when I felt he drifted away, I stopped. And when he came back, I started again. In this way, we've completed reading the Genjo Kahn. And when we finished, he said, I love that so much. It's so beautiful. We can love the true Dharma in the midst of our suffering as we're about to die. We can be present for it and we can be not wasted. I don't know how many more moments we are going to be able to be present and awake, but while we can be, let's not waste this opportunity.

[10:29]

This great sutra starts out by telling us about something which is not samsara. The first several chapters are not about samsara. They're about the ultimate character of samsara. The first four chapters are about the ultimate character of all things, about the uncompounded ultimate character of all things. This teaching about the ultimate is appropriate for those who are mindful

[11:47]

that samsara is a great matter. Now we hear about the ultimate, which is the character of all compounded things of the world of birth and death. And we have been reading this sutra for many years, and particularly we've been reading it here recently. The ultimate character of all phenomena, including the ultimate, is the object of purification. It's the thing which when you contemplate it, when you see it, it purifies the obstructions of our body and mind to understanding what birth and death are.

[13:07]

Usually when people look at birth and death, they don't see the ultimate. And they just feel, so they don't understand birth and death, and not understanding birth and death is birth and death, is cyclic unhappiness. All along, every moment of cyclic unhappiness has the character which, if we would see it, our vision would be purified and we would find peace, complete peace with samsara. So samsara is an opportunity, is the opportunity

[14:17]

Birth and death is the opportunity to see the ultimate. Every moment that we don't, we miss an opportunity to see the ultimate. But again, here we go, another moment, another opportunity to see the ultimate. to see what will purify our life together. Living in the world of suffering and at the same time trying to remember all the suffering has a characteristic has an ultimate characteristic, has a final characteristic.

[15:18]

Where is it? Well, it is the ultimate characteristic of here. So it's not exactly right here, it's just that right here has an ultimate characteristic. It's not exactly right now, right now has the ultimate characteristics. So right here, right now, our present superficial experience has this quality. So this place, this time is where we realize it. It's not this place, this time. It's the true characteristic of this place and this time. It's not this suffering. It's not this delusion. It's not it's the true characteristic of all these things.

[16:39]

As we just studied this sutra before, this ultimate, therefore the ultimate, is not entirely the same as samsara. It's not entirely the same as ordinary compounded experience. But it's not. If it were entirely the same, Well, we have lots of consequences which we discussed last month. If it were the same entirely, artificial misery would purify your vision. But it's not entirely the same. If it were entirely different, then it couldn't be the characteristic of everything. So it's not entirely the same or entirely different. In other words, the sutra says the ultimate transcends sameness and difference with phenomena.

[17:49]

Phenomena, however, compounded phenomena, samsaric phenomena, these phenomena do not transcend sameness and difference. The ultimate is not the same as our practice, is not the same as what we're doing here entirely, and it's not entirely different from what we're doing here. It transcends being the same as what we're doing, the same as what we're feeling, the same as what we're practicing. It transcends being the same and it transcends being different. But the practice we're doing does not transcend difference. The practice we're doing is different from other practices. And other practices are different. Or our practice is the same as other practices. So our practice is the same or different from other practices. Practices do not transcend sameness and difference.

[18:56]

But these practices which don't transcend are not entirely different from what does transcend. and they're not entirely the same. Why are they the same? The practices are the same when the practices are done so wholeheartedly that the practices are selfless. When the practices are selfless, then the practices are the same as the ultimate because the ultimate is selfless and it is selflessness. When the practices are done so completely behind them, the practices have the character the same as the ultimate. What's the difference between doing a practice so completely that you can't find Sam, and between not knowing the practice?

[20:12]

What's the difference between doing a practice so completely you can't find it and not knowing? You defined earlier samsara as not knowing birth and death. Yes, so if you have a practice in samsara, and you perform this practice wholeheartedly, you can't find the practice anymore. And when you can't find it anymore, when you realize that the practice cannot be found, you realize the ultimate. Then the practice and the ultimate are not different. If you practice wholeheartedly, you do understand the practice. You do understand. If you practice samsara wholeheartedly, you do understand samsara. You do understand samsara. You understand that it cannot be found. I'm suffering. I'm suffering. And also, part of my suffering is I'm worrying about future suffering.

[21:19]

And I'm really wholeheartedly suffering. And I'm awake and I'm not wasting time. And I'm happy. Suffering didn't go anyplace as far as I know, but I haven't checked. I just found a moment ago. But it doesn't have to go anywhere for you to see this can't be found. In the wholeheartedness of suffering is the selflessness of suffering. In the selflessness of suffering, the suffering... The suffering is the ultimate character of suffering. And when you suffer wholeheartedly, you're practicing wholeheartedness and that practice. When you can't find the suffering that you're practicing and you can't find the practice of

[22:19]

then the practice is selfless, and then the practice is the same as its ultimate characteristic, then there's no difference. You can't find any difference. And also, it's not the same either. You can't find the same. Second, I'm going to read the sutra now. It is also... it is also not easy to designate the whiteness of a conch shell as being that is different from the conch shell or as being a character that is not different from a conch shell. Could you follow that? No? Could you follow that correctly? It is not easy to designate the whiteness of a conch shell as being of a character that is different from the conch shell.

[23:30]

It's not impossible. You might be able to pull it off, but it's not actually that easy. Well, the whiteness is different from the conch shell. From a white conch shell. It's actually kind of hard to to designate the whiteness that's different from the conch shell. Or it's also being a character that is not different from the conch shell. It's kind of hard to say, well, the whiteness is the same as the conch shell. It's not different. Both ways are kind of hard to do in the realm of this sutra. As it is with the whiteness of the conch shell, so it is with the yellowness of gold. Also, it is not easy to designate the melodiousness of sound of the viña as being either a character that is not different from the sound of the viña or as being of the character that is .

[24:39]

Also, it is not easy to designate a fragrant smell of the black agaru tree as being a character that is not different from the black agarwood tree or as being a character that is different from it. Similarly, it is not easy to designate the heat of pepper as being of a character that is not different from the pepper. ...language but they went to some effort here to put the word character in there which makes it kind of more difficult but it's not easy to designate the heat of the pepper as being of a character that is different from the pepper. You could also say it's not easy to designate the heat of the pepper

[25:48]

as being not different from the pepper. But they had the word character in there. It's also not easy to designate the heat of the pepper as being different from the pepper. So either designating the heat of the pepper as the character being the same or as the character being different. Doesn't work. As with the heat of pepper, so it is also with the astringency of the Myrobalan Arjuna. Myrobalan Arjuna is, you know, is something which one could try to simplify into some other kind of expression, and the Chinese did that.

[26:56]

It's a tree. No, no. It's an important medicinal plant. So it's simpler to say, as it is with the heat of the pepper, so it is also with the astringency of a medicinal plant. For instance, it is not easy to designate the softness of cotton as either being of a character that is not different from the cotton or a character that is different from the cotton. For instance, it is not easy to designate clarified butter as being either a character that is not different from butter or a character that is different from it. And then it says, suvisudhimati bodhisattva, for instance, it is not easy to designate the agitating character of desire and the character of affliction

[28:19]

a character that is not different from desire or a character different from it. Know that just as it is with desire so it is with hatred and obscuration. To designate the agitating character of desire and the character of affliction as being a character that is not different from desire or a character that is different from it. And then the same could be applied to hatred and obscuration. In other words, it's hard to separate the the hatred and the affliction that comes with it.

[29:22]

And it's hard to also separate the affliction that comes with obscuration from the obscuration. And it's hard to make them the same. Some people feel that the affliction of hatred is exactly the same as the hatred. It's kind of hard for us to see that. But it's also hard to separate hatred from the affliction. That's what's being said. Can you give me an example? An example of hatred? Affliction of hatred. Well, you feel hatred and you feel somewhat uncomfortable about it. Yeah. Or you might feel tremendous pain of hating someone. And yet, somehow you don't feel it. It's almost as though part of you maybe feels, well, it's almost like I could hate this person without the affliction.

[30:28]

In other words, it's almost like hatred is not... It's almost like hatred ...that comes with it. We sometimes feel that way. That there's hatred and affliction with it. And that they're different. Does that make sense? No? In that situation, it does. The situation you described, and then how are they the same? Well, also they're not the same. The first example is how they're not the same. You feel anger, you feel hatred, and you feel uncomfortable, but you don't feel like the hatred, the affliction, or the pain of hatred, you don't feel like they're the same. So then you might think they're different. But they're not really different either. And that doesn't really work either.

[31:34]

Are you saying they're just an independent horizon? Yes, but also there are two different phenomena. There's hatred and there's affliction. And there's desire and there's affliction. And there's obscuration and there's affliction. But in each case, it's hard to say that they're really the same. But it's also hard to say that they're different because hatred comes with affliction. Hmm? Do they always come together? I don't know. What? I don't think pepper always comes with hotness. What? Pardon? It doesn't have to always come together for this to work. When the pepper is hot, when hatred does have affliction, when desire does have affliction, when agitation...

[32:39]

does have affliction, then it's hard for us to say they're the same. But it's also hard to say they're different. And you say the same thing about skandhas, the five skandhas creating... Five skandhas are creating the hatred, and they're also creating affliction. Affliction is, in a sense, a formation. The affliction is pain. It's a feeling. of pain. But I'm just, yeah. So what are you having trouble understanding now? I'm just, I don't know what I'm having trouble, I'm just trying to put it into a different framework that I'm familiar with. What framework? The Skanda framework. You're going to put it in the Skanda framework, okay. So you can do that too. You can say, but then, yeah, you can use the Skanda as an example. What do you want to use?

[33:43]

No, I'm saying that the pain and the affliction, the affliction seems like a skanda of the pain, of the thing. The affliction seems like a skanda? It does. It's like a formation. Affliction. Maybe the pain is a formation as well. So you're saying that To you the word affliction is a formation? Yeah, pain is a feeling. Pain is a feeling, yeah. Is it a formation? No, not necessarily. Well, the word formation, are you talking about the fourth skanda? Is that what you're talking about? Because the fourth skanda, formation, it really means something that's put together. That applies to all the skandhas, but there's a certain group of formation category. But feelings also is a formation.

[34:44]

All the dharmas are formations. But if you want to say that if you want to put something in the fourth skanda, that's But there is no dharma called affliction in the fourth aggregate. There's no dharma there called affliction. Did you know that? I'm still feeling that an affliction is a formation. But all these dharmas, all the aggregates are formations. But not all the aggregates go in the fourth category which is called formations. So one of the got a name for all the formations that don't go in the other skandhas because all the skandhas are formations but they just chose one category for all the formations that didn't go in the other formation categories.

[35:54]

But they're all formations. So hatred goes Formation aggregate. And lust goes in the formation aggregate. But affliction is not in there. That's not actually in that aggregate. If you look at the list of the things in the formation aggregate, there's no pain in there. It goes in the third aggregate is where the pain goes. Feeling of pain is aggregate number two, actually. The fourth skandha doesn't have feelings in it, doesn't have suffering in it, doesn't have dukkha in it. Skandha has dukkha in it of different varieties, three varieties of dukkha. And when the thing in the fourth aggregate, hatred, comes up, the affliction that comes with that hatred

[36:57]

It's the same as the hatred. It's hard to see that something in the fourth aggregate is the same as something in the second aggregate. But it's also hard to see that they're different because they're together so intimately. So their relationship is like the ultimate and all these other phenomena. So, yes. Is this about the merging of difference and unity? Yeah, it is. Dogen wrote about it. It was Shurto. Shurto. Okay. Have a safe journey. May I take this off? May you take this off? Yes. Johnny? Johnny?

[38:04]

Well, I've experienced it. I wonder if it applies to this. When I was in clinical practice, it seemed I was being asked many times, tell me how I can have my worry about the future but not the fear. Resent that guy but not the anger. And at some point I said, well, maybe the fear is the signal that your mind is in the future and the anger is the signal that your mind is in the past. And as long as you're doing that, you're going to have fear and anger. And that seemed to have some kind of . So I'm wondering if this is the kind of actual experience that you referred to, about reflection and the actual intention of mindset. I think I must admit I didn't follow what you said. Want to try again? OK. People would come and want therapy because they're worried about the future.

[39:11]

It was troubled by all the fear they were experiencing. Okay, so you say they're worried about the future, but that seems redundant. We're worrying them. They actually seem to have scripts of worry, which they like. They just didn't like the fear or the company. Right. But worry is... Worry is hard to separate worry from fear. Partly because they're synonyms. People are not aware that worry is a synonym for fear. So, when worry... When we think about the future... We're usually vulnerable to worry dash fear. Take away the thoughts of the future and worry drops and so does fear. So they're different in a sense, but they're inseparable. So it's hard to distinguish fear from worry. Yeah, it's definitely hard to separate them because they're synonyms.

[40:14]

But the thing that's not a synonym is thinking of the future It's not. You can think of the future without worry and fear. However, when you're afraid and worried, you are thinking of the future. So peppers are not always hot. When they're hot, it's hard to separate the pepper from the heat. Thinking of the future, Buddhists can think of the future, Bodhisattvas can think of the future without dabbling in fear. They can do it. But when they're afraid, when Bodhisattvas are afraid, they're not afraid. When they're afraid, they're thinking of the future. When they're worried, Bodhisattvas, generally speaking, when they're worried, they're thinking of the future. And when they think of the future and they're worried, part of bodhisattva is to separate the worry from the thinking of the future.

[41:26]

And it's hard to separate the worry from the fear, when there's fear. But it's not actually necessary. It's not always the case that thinking of the future is frightening. The key factor there is When you wholeheartedly think of the future, you're not afraid. And when you're wholeheartedly afraid, you don't think of the future. Because all your energy is going into right now being afraid for future fears. So wholehearted being in the present, you can't think of the future. in a way that you'll become frightened. But if you're in the present wholeheartedly and you think of the future, there won't be fear. There won't be worried. Some element of the future you're looking at excludes others, and that might be a cause of fear.

[42:28]

That's a half-hearted way to think of the future. And that's a way to find something. Yes. And when you've got something, you're whole-hearted with it. So, then it comes back, if you were able to be whole-hearted with the phenomena, then the ultimate would not really be that phenomena, because when you're whole-hearted with phenomena, They're selfless, like the ultimate. If you're half-hearted with phenomena, then you suffer. So then it's hard to say that this phenomena is the same as the ultimate. But, right? Because you're not being wholehearted and the phenomena is not selfless. It's a self that you're grasping.

[43:30]

And you're grasping because you're not wholehearted with it. So at that time, it's hard to say that this phenomenon is the ultimate. As a matter of fact, you might be tempted to say it's different. But it can't be different because the wholeheartedness of the phenomena is the ultimate. Is the ultimate? Yeah, the wholeheartedness of phenomena is their selflessness. So if you're half-hearted with things, it's hard to realize their selflessness. So then it's hard to say that the thing's the same as the ultimate. So you might say, well, I'll say it's different from the ultimate. Okay, let's try. Because the ultimate is the character of everything. So you can't really make it completely different. Matter of fact, if you would practice with this thing in a certain way, you would realize that it's not different.

[44:32]

But you can't really quite say it's the same. It's just the same under certain circumstances, but not totally the same under other circumstances. It's not the same. It requires the practice to be completely unified with the phenomena for the ultimate to not be different. But again, it still can't quite be the same because it transcends sameness. I'm just wondering, is it possible that fear or worry arises by itself? Nothing arises by itself. No. That is not happening. Nothing arises by itself. Things do not rise. by themselves, not even one iota does anything arise by itself or due to itself. Everything arises depending on what it isn't. Everything arises depending on others and nothing arises even due to self and a little bit of other, no, due to others' self.

[45:41]

And nothing arises from a lot of self and a little bit of others. So things don't arise from self, And they don't even arise from others. And also they don't arise from self and others. However, things also do arise from others. They totally, but actually from others. They depend on others. That's the only kind of things we have. That's not the ultimate. That's an instruction about how to realize the ultimate. You are wholeheartedly afraid? Yes, if you are wholeheartedly afraid. What is the difference between being awake and being taken by the fear?

[46:43]

If you're wholeheartedly afraid... What is the difference? Part of wholeheartedness means that you're awake to your wholeheartedness. If you're awake to your wholeheartedness, you're not taken by anything. There's not a you to be taken anymore. You're totally accounted for in the wholeheartedness. And there's no place you can be taken. You can't be taken by the fear because there's no you in addition to the fear. If there's you in addition to the fear, not quite wholehearted yet, which is another thing you can be afraid of. As you start to become, you know, kind of wholehearted in your fear, you might think, what would happen to me? I'm afraid already, but what would happen to me if I was like totally afraid? then you can get afraid of that. On top of your fear, you can get afraid of what it would be like if you really went with the fear.

[47:45]

Huh? Yeah, right. On top of fear, I could also be crazy. You could be afraid of becoming crazy. You could be afraid of becoming crazy, and then if you thought you'd become afraid of becoming crazy, then I'm even more likely to be crazy than if I was kind of like, hey... I don't like being afraid of being crazy. That will help me not be crazy. A lot of people try that, as you may have noticed. They're afraid of being crazy and think, if I would resist the fear of being crazy, that might work. But to go with it 100%, you know. Of course, people who are afraid of being crazy are a little bit crazy. It's mental illness to be afraid of being crazy. I'm not. I'm not crazy. [...]

[48:45]

I'm not crazy. [...] This is what people do that are afraid of being crazy. Don't call me crazy. This is what people say when they're afraid of being called crazy. So for others. What about being afraid of becoming crazy? I'm not crazy yet. So there's one, being afraid of being crazy, and then there's being afraid of becoming crazy, and also being afraid of having been crazy. Being afraid of other people being crazy. These are all possible fears. And if we are wholehearted about them, in order to be wholehearted, you have to really be there. and you have to be awake and being that way with fear you realize there's no ability anymore or grasp self separate from the fear and now we are with the object of purification now we're with the ultimate which is not entirely the same or different from the practice we're doing except at this moment it's in practice

[50:01]

But it's not completely the same because if we flinch, then we've got a different practice and that's not the same as the ultimate. Yes? First of all, I've just confirmed this deep suspicion. If I went fully down this path, I would be irretrievably weird, you know? Irretrievably? No. Give me a second. I didn't confirm that. I just gave you a chance to bring that up again. I don't confirm that. You're not irretrievably anything. Just because, but I'm not saying, when I say you're not irretrievably anything, I don't mean you are retrievably something. Okay? So, I'm not saying if you're irretrievably weird that you're retrievably not weird. And actually, being retrievable or not.

[51:03]

But you're definitely not retrievable, irretrievable. Now, if you can retrieve something at a particular point, that's fine, but that's, you know, that's going to change. That illusion is going to change. Irretrievably weird means no way to not be weird. Weird, by the way, the root of the word weird means fate. It's a Norse word. It means fate. So to say irretrievably fate, fated, is saying to you, you are not irretrievably fated. You're not, in other words, it's not fatalism. Buddhism's not, Buddha Dharma is not fatalism. But it's also not saying that you're without causes. So Buddhism is not strict determinism. It's not irretrievable destiny. But it's also not saying, hey, no destiny.

[52:05]

There are causes and conditions. We are influenced by causes and conditions. We do come to take forms, which are sometimes called destinies. But they're not irretrievable. But if you practice this way, although I wouldn't say, I don't confirm that it would be irretrievably weird, if you practice this way, you would be doing something which is quite rare. It is uncommon for people, human beings, to suffer wholeheartedly. It's uncommon for somebody to have illness wholeheartedly. It's uncommon. But if you do, you're not wasting this moment. You're not wasting time when you're wholeheartedly what you are, what we are. Wasting time. And this is the path of using the opportunity that's being offered by this illness, by this suffering.

[53:12]

I just have to check this out. So just from a practical example, so when it's bumpy, I'm afraid and I'm suffering because I'm waiting for the big bump, right? But when there's a really bad turbulence, I'm so afraid that there's really no suffering because I'm just so in the area of fear. Correct. That's it. You know, you're half-heartedly with the little bumps, and then the big bumps you say, okay, I'm switching to wholehearted. I'm like going to be totally with this big bump. And then there's no fear. And there's no you. And there's no bump. So there's no... Well, there is thinking, but you're totally thinking. You're totally thinking, that was a big one. Oh, that was a big one. Wow, this is like world-class bump here. And you're totally doing that. You're so totally doing it, you're not doing it anymore.

[54:14]

It's just your mind and body are totally with your mind and body, and then there's no fear. You totally give yourself to the moment, and there's no fear. Next moment. you know, things are smoothed out a little bit, you say, oh, well, I can hold back a little bit. And then the fear comes back. So holding back, reopening, half-heartedness, this is samsara. Yes? So things do not arise from self or from other, or from self and other. Do they arise? Do they not arise? Do they arise? They actually don't arise, yeah. But the way they exist is dependent on others, not on self. And also not really on both self and other.

[55:17]

And I'm not saying that, well, first of all, let me say, of course I'm not tattling on Shakyamuni Buddha. When I tell you that he had back problems, I'm not telling you that so you'll think less of Shakyamuni Buddha. I'm telling you that to say the Buddha took human form and had back problems. But he was still the Buddha having back problems. and I didn't hear the disciples going around, how come our teacher has back problems? Maybe he's not a really good teacher. No, there didn't seem to be a problem. They said, well, yeah, well. He never said that his body was not going to be good. This doesn't contradict his teaching. And I just also want to mention that I heard, and I'm not saying this to tattle on, but the Dalai Lama eats meat every other day, I've recently heard. In other words, these noted teachers are living in samsara.

[56:20]

Now, the thing is, are they wholehearted about it? Are they really compassionate about it? That's what we want, and that's rare. However, the proposal is that this rare practice of being compassionate towards all beings, this condition of having a body, which has pain in it or whatever that needs nourishment, being compassionate with that wholeheartedly, being compassionate with it wholeheartedly, that's the way to realize the ultimate. And also the instructions about what the ultimate is like are indications about whether you're wholehearted or not. For example, if you're not willing to listen to these instructions about the ultimate, you're not wholehearted with your karmic setup right now of being in this room reading this sutra to you.

[57:21]

And also, if you notice that you think the ultimate is different from, you know, really different from, totally different from, you're suffering, then you're not wholehearted. And if you think it's the same, you're not wholehearted. So this is telling you about the ultimate, but it's also telling you about your practice, about whether your practice is lined up with the ultimate. So that's one benefit of this discussion about the character of the ego. It is a way to test whether your practice is in accord with it. In other words, whether your practice transcends being the same, completely the same, or completely different. It transcends that. So it's kind of like, it's not the same and it's not different. But there's an intimate relationship there. Yeah, since the practice is a moment-to-moment thing, then it would be a moment-to-the-moment

[58:35]

contemplation of the relationship between our conduct and the ultimate, which transcends, not transcends its relationship with our practice. It doesn't transcend its relationship. It just transcends the kind of relationship it is. It transcends any kinds of categories and any kind of sameness or difference, any kind of argumentation, all that kind of stuff. It transcends that in its intimacy with our practice. So we're like this. Yes, almost. full-heartedly see you as you express this oneness.

[59:37]

And that's what it is. And I need help, abundance of help, when I lose this oneness. That is where I lack. That's where I drop. When the separation comes you need help, abundance of help. When separation comes we need abundance of help. When there's no separation we need abundance of help. And when there's no separation we have received the abundance of help. That's what wholeheartedness is. Receiving the abundance of help. Abundance. Receiving it wholeheartedly is wholeheartedness.

[60:45]

And when we're not receiving it wholeheartedly, we need abundance of help to switch and open up. So our ability to open to abundance of help is not something we do by ourself. We're open to abundance of help through an abundance of help. So now that we're on that topic, are you people helping me or what? Are you abundantly helping me? Even those of you... Are you abundantly helping me? Are you abundantly helping me? You. No, you. No, you. Are you abundantly helping me? Are you abundantly helping me? Not you. Her.

[61:49]

I know, I know. No. Are you abundantly helping me? Yes, by God, yes. You don't know? I didn't say I didn't know. I just was sort of on this topic, so I thought I might ask, are you helping me? Because I do need quite a bit. I need an abundance of help, so just wondering if you knew that and whether you're sort of with the program. And if you're not, of course, that would be abundantly helpful. Anyway, thanks for your time. And shall we continue? Yes. All right, let's do that then.

[62:53]

One, two, three, Connie.

[62:55]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_80.71