According to the school, five are sovereign with regard to four things. Four with regard to two things. Five Eight with regard to defilement and purification. Five plus four plus five plus eight equals 22. Could someone explain this karaka, please?

[01:15]

Roger, could you explain it? What? You're not clearing this karaka? Lynn, could you explain it? Pam, could you explain it? LINDA, COULD YOU EXPLAIN IT? MARK, COULD YOU EXPLAIN IT? OF THE SELF AND SPECIAL MODE,

[02:40]

So what are the four? Somebody know the four? Male and female organ. Male and female organ. Javita and Manandria. Javita and Manandria. And Javita and Manandria is sovereign with regard to what? Birth and prolongation or linking. tying in and prolongation or maintenance. Okay, and what are the, and then the other one is monis, monindri, I mean. Monindri is predominant or sovereign with respect to what? Rebirth and what?

[04:17]

Rebirth and dominance. And what does dominance mean? Dominance means it's dominant, it's big dominance, in the sense that monandria actually is dominant over all the dharmas, all the conditioned dharmas. So this is the sovereign of sovereigns, in a sense. The sovereign of the world of sovereigns is monandria. what dominance means there. And it's also... Well, it's a support for mental consciousness. Right? It's a support for monovigna dhatu. It's not, but it's also, monovigna dhatu always comes with sense consciousnesses. So it's a support of all consciousnesses in a sense. But it's also a dominant in the sense of It's all the kind of consciousnesses.

[05:21]

This is monindria. This is actually the consciousnesses plus the organ for the big consciousness. Monindria is all the consciousnesses and the support of the mental consciousness. So it's very dominant indria here. And it's also dominant with regard to rebirth because it includes Pratisandhi citta, the, or Upapatti citta, the birth consciousness. The consciousness says, yeah, I'd like to do that. I'll take that one. I'd like to be born with that mommy and daddy. Yes? Did you say that the Jigitian man, one of his characteristics was Lincoln? Yeah. It's not the same as the consciousness that is at the birth moment.

[06:34]

I guess linking in the sense that it goes with prolongation. of linking the stream of consciousness, or linking the life stream, in that sense. Plus, also, it maintains the life stream moment by moment. It supports it in the moment and links it across moments. It's almost like a mechanical force of life that sets it up to be a designed new factor. It's the mechanical vitality, which is the karmic... sort of follow through on the basic decision to be alive. So in that sense, Javid Indra is kind of a result of Manindria's decision to be, decision or impulse at the moment of birth, consciousness.

[07:37]

Now there's some debate about this, which we'll see. That's the sense of prolongation and linking. Okay, and then what are the, what's the rest of the character, Mark? Just a second. that are solving with regard to defilement. Right, they're shelters for greed, hate, and delusion.

[08:54]

They're pretexts, they're excuses for greed, hate, and delusion. And this is built into our language, you see. That makes me mad. That makes me mad. Yes? Special mode means that the... Well, basically, that the eye organ sets up the consciousness for that mode, namely, eye consciousness. That's its special mode. And also, in another sense, it says...

[09:57]

such a mode is... That's it, I think. Very simple. And once again, they're trying to make all five have four, right? So it's one way to do it. does.

[11:28]

As a matter of fact, it's part of the definition of the last three. Upeksha is part of the definition of the last three. So you'll see in a little while how Upeksha plays in it. Upeksha can be, though, depending on context, it could be something a little bit sloppy, or it can be really right on. All right, so that's the first Karika. He asked why the shelter is specified as the as the endria rather than the thing that is built up on the shelter, the thing that takes his point of departure from this opportunity, as provided by these various kinds of feelings.

[12:42]

Now, these feelings are, as we say, basic ways. Feeling is your basic take, you know, the basic way you sort of receive data. Yes? It seems like that, but that's not true. You don't have, because you see, first of all, The defilement doesn't have to function at all in regard to the feeling, right? So that shows you that there is freedom, actually. And did you understand what he said, by the way? He was thinking that the feeling or the reception is dominant because it'll determine which kind of, what do you call it, akushala mula will...

[13:54]

arise, whether it be greed, hate, or delusion. But first of all, you know that it is not necessary that some further impulse arise because of that anyway. So I show you there's some freedom. Second of all, it isn't necessarily the case that anger must go with negative feelings. There is such a thing as masochism. But in general, we just say that, you know, that going back from the anger, we go back to say that the thing that anger is based on is a pain. But that pain may not be pain to somebody else's pain. It's a relative thing. So that event there doesn't absolutely determine the emotion. But it is not just a... You know, it is an active thing itself.

[14:57]

Vedana is a samskara, you know. It's a made thing too. It's something you concoct. But it's so important and it's such a basic way that we sometimes don't call it an emotion. But it really is an impulse. It's the way, it's your basic kind of, you know, it's kind of like when you catch a baseball like this, like this, or like this. If you catch a baseball like this, you're implying something. If you're running, you're going to fall over. If you catch a baseball like this, that has certain implications. But in fact, you can catch a baseball like this and just catch it, and that's it. You don't have to do any more. But still, there's some... It kind of... It does have certain implications, but they're not... So what you say is true in the sense that it has implications, but they're avoidable.

[15:59]

I mean, I shouldn't say avoidable, but they don't necessarily lead. Depends on the context. Right. You take a certain stimulation, okay. And you can also change it in yourself. You take a certain stimulation and you can get angry from it. So we might say that anything that makes you angry will say that. That's anything you become anger as a pretext of. Anything that you use as a pretext for getting angry, you can say, well, that's pain. That's a negative sensation. But you can also say it's just a sensation and you decide to get angry. And if you actually go back to that sensation, you may find, not only can you not get angry at it sometimes, depending on the context, and other times do get angry, but also someone else might have a whole different set and might not get angry but be attached to it, right?

[17:10]

The actual type of, you know, the thing itself, out of the context, out of the context of your learning and background. But still the Abhidharma could say, And actually, in fact, the Abhidharma question does say negative feeling anger. But if you question them, I think they would say, well, that's the usual case. That's what people usually talk. Because a negative pain is something that people usually avoid. But in fact, if that's something they usually avoid or always avoid, then I'm saying that it's actually that it's defined as pain because you avoid it, rather than the thing itself is pain, aside from the avoidance of it. But you can relearn things. Some people can get angry at pleasureful sensations, as you know. Sometimes a pleasureful sensation in an inappropriate situation, you can say, you know, you get quite angry at it. Like if you're giving a lecture and someone came up to you and kissed you.

[18:12]

You might get angry because they say, don't distract me. But actually the feeling is, the actual experience, you say, it's somewhat, it's pleasurable, but then it makes, like, the concepts associated with it maybe were negative. Like, people will think I'm silly. And maybe you don't like that, but in another situation you could say, well, I do think it's, it's okay to be silly. So, in the end, you see, you come back to say, well, it's, it's, it's disagreeable or it's painful. Even though the thing itself is not so clearly painful, the point is you just want to avoid it. And the thing itself, it can be anything, basically. So to say that all those things are unpleasant feelings, to put all the weight there, I don't think that's worth. Why it's a sovereign. But now Mark's saying, why are they saying it's a sovereign?

[19:14]

Why don't you say that instead of the anger or delusion of sovereign, Well, although I'm suggesting that they do not uniquely determine which of the alternatives are the basic thrusts that you take, in space-time, the basic thrusts we're talking about are towards, away from, and ambivalence. Okay? If you think of time and space and the power of the mind to move around in time and space. Those are the three basic things you can do. Now, a particular feeling does not uniquely determine what you'll do.

[20:15]

However, what you do is usually, in particular when I say what you do, what a self does is usually very much in relationship to that basic way of taking it. Okay? So it isn't that it determines but rather that it's such an important ingredient. So as maybe, to use a social example again, if I go out with somebody to dinner, what I do is pretty much up in the air. I may be quite well behaved, or I may be poorly behaved. However, my poorly behaved or well-behaved is very much a function of this person I'm with.

[21:17]

For example, whether I'm poorly behaved or well-behaved, I still probably think about and relate very much to this person. I'm very much aware of them and so on and so forth. And if I'm not aware of them and I don't pay attention to them, then that's called poorly behaving. If I go to the restaurant and sit at a different table, for example, and things like that. Well, the fact why I'm behaving poorly, I mean, ordinarily to sit at table number three isn't a bad thing to do, but if I go with somebody to dinner and they sit at table number six and I sit at table number three, suddenly it's defined as somewhat rude or weird so it's like that it's it's not so much that that they make me go sit at another table even whether they're obnoxious or not i don't have to sit at another table as a matter of fact they may be very wonderful but i just want to sit at a different table it's just thing i do but still you see the character of what i did is very much determined by the fact that i went out to dinner with them rather than by myself if they weren't there

[22:33]

It wouldn't, the whole thing would be different. And in fact, when you see someone who gets bit in the cheek by a parrot and they don't whack the parrot away, you feel there's a whole different thing going on than when somebody does get bit by the cheek by the parrot. In either case, you notice how the person relates to it. And that seems to be the pivot of how you see the quality of the situation. So for ourselves, how the basic way of receiving data, the feeling tone of the situation and the emotions that arise in it somehow, you look back to the feeling tone very much to understand the rest of them. The feeling tone and the other major one is what? Perception. The way you receive and the type of perception, the type of noting or naming

[23:35]

you know, are marking. Those two, very much the whole, they have this whole array of other emotions which are very powerful in terms of making the situation go well or not. But they're very much a function of these two. Especially for human beings that have some concept of self. So with the feeling and the concept of self together, then all these other things are sort of, it isn't that they're determined, they can be anything. But whether they're free or tied, they're still... You see how they're functioning in terms of these other two. These other two are so important. But they're not that they uniquely determine the behavior. In one case, they're important because they show you how mechanical and bound the person is. In another case, they show you how free the person is. So you can see a person trapped within a concept of self You can see a person trapped within a self-image very easily by watching the feeling tone. You know?

[24:37]

You can see, oh, now they have this kind of feeling tone. And sure enough, every time they feel that way, this happens. Very mechanical. Another person you see, they have this feeling tone and they do this. They have this feeling tone and they do that. They have this feeling tone and they do this. And that and that. And you see, it has nothing to do with their behavior. They're completely free. You see them all. No effect, practically. You see a great deal of freedom. And you look, that's where you often look, and that's where we often look for ourselves and for others, to see freedom functioning. It's an easy place to spot it. Another place is perception. Because perception is so powerful, once again, you can see. Go up to someone and you say, you are a blah-de-blah. And to play with these, or you have just been made into a such and such, congratulations, or I'm sorry.

[25:40]

In other words, perceptions, words and things like that, will also be very powerful. And you can see, some people go, you say you're blah-de-blah, and they go, oh. Some other people, you say you're blah-de-blah, and they say, oh, is that so? In other words, they may also say, oh, but, you know. The point is you don't know what they'll do. So with those two, they're very powerful, very free. But they say the feelings here rather than perceptions. Now perceptions will be worked on very much in the next section, the next five. Perceptions aren't so kind of like Perceptions aren't blamed the way or held responsible for the basic emotional tendencies so much. Because the perceptions can be corrected and the emotional tendencies can still be awry.

[26:46]

Okay. In the next Karaka, number 2A, B, by reason of sovereignty with regard to perception of their special object with regard to all objects, six organs. And we discussed this before. Could someone say what this one's about? Just paraphrase or summarize this karaka and what's discussed here. With respect to the sense objects.

[28:35]

The sense consciousnesses are sovereign with regard to the sense objects. Sense organisms. No. Sense consciousnesses are what? In terms of what we're talking about now, what do you call it? What endria? And that's sovereign with regard to the what? To the objects you said, but what do you mean? Well, it's sovereign with regard to much, to everything, really. To monodatu. To monodatu? Monodatu is what? Which injury does monodatu go into? So, it's not sovereign with regard to itself. It's sovereign with regard to dharmadatu, but more than that.

[29:35]

Because, why? Because what objects aren't in Dhamma Dattu? Do you know what objects aren't in Dhamma Dattu? Do you know which ones aren't in Dhamma Dattu? Do you know what's not in Dhamma Dattu? Do you know what's not in Dhamma Dattu, what objects aren't in Dhamma Dattu? Six sense objects. Five sense objects. They aren't in the Dharmadattu, okay? But, Manindriya is sovereign with regard to them. How so? Why? Because the five sense consciousnesses aren't included in Manindriya. Right. So it's all objects are ruled over by Manindriya, in the sense that they're all objects of Manindriya.

[30:44]

but the issues raised here in addition to say why once again they say why do you they're not arguing about the naming anymore they're still arguing about why why do you say that the organs are sovereign over the consciousnesses now why don't you say the objects are and the answer is because of what That's right. That's not the answer here. The answer here is, first, that the organ here is a common cause for all the said types of consciousnesses. So the eye organ is a common cause for all eye consciousnesses. But a particular color is caused for only one eye consciousness. Okay? That's why... Although, in a sense, each visible thing is part of the causal nexus for the arisal or the production of visual consciousness, the eye organ, the eye capacity is always there.

[32:05]

So it's more predominant, so it's dominant, so it's sovereign. And the second point is that visual consciousness varies according to the acuteness of the visual organ. but doesn't vary according to the acuteness of the object. Because an acute object is seen as acute by an acute organ. An acute object is seen as obscure by an obscure organ. An obscure object is seen as obscure by an acute object, acute organ, and an obscure object is seen as obscure by an obscure organ. So the acuteness or obscurity or whatever of the object has no effect other than being itself, on what's seen. The organ is the one that has a variable influence on the consciousness. So it's like the objects are like constants. And in that sense, they're important, but as far as our experience of life and the work we have to do, we're more concerned with the variables.

[33:18]

organs are variable like now the particular object in itself is a constant of course objects can vary so they're variable in that sense but organs are variables within you know context let's see how Jill does what refer Well, take faith, for example, OK? Faith, how does faith work?

[34:20]

Well, in a sense, all of them, the other ones work this way too, but in particular, the question is brought up here, why don't you consider the object and the pretext for considering the object is, in the case of, for example, the sense consciousness is best made, the case of considering the object as an indria seems to have a strong case in the case of sense consciousness. Because sense consciousness, the object, is really powerful. But not powerful enough to be considered a sovereign. But it's a good question because, in a sense, this character, could it apply to, for example, faith? Namely, which is... See, faith isn't... In a sense, you... You're not calling faith an organ. But in another sense, you could say that the object of consciousness is not as predominant, not as important as faith, for example.

[35:44]

Because once again, the object can be anything and there can be faith at the same moment as any particular object of consciousness is going on. It isn't that a Buddhist has to have a Buddha as an object for faith to influence consciousness. All right? Faith does its job the conscious field regardless of what the object is the object can be greed hatred delusion golden buddhas monsters evils people getting enlightened or people falling from enlightenment faith doesn't lose its effect on consciousness with these variations in the object As a matter of fact, faith often says, goody, goody, when something spiritually, when the spiritual stock market crashes. It isn't that faith collapses and the consciousness collapses when the spiritual objects available become very paltry.

[36:56]

No, it's opposite, as a matter of fact, sometimes. But actually, it's not the opposite because faith doesn't get pumped up by or depressed by the market. If there's golden Buddhas, faith says, right on. If it's trashy devils, faith says, right on. Yep, I told you so. In either case, I knew this was going to happen. It's always like this, isn't it? This is the way stuff goes. That's what faith does. So actually, whether it's good or bad, faith functions. So this would also be true for the other ones in a way, but the example we're just talking about of the one that's cited here is as such. But the case is also made for the other case, for the other ones too, namely. Now that's a situation you can believe in. So we talk about credibility. Of course, she's talking about credibility a lot. But credibility...

[38:03]

is a kind of... deals with transformations of the bodhisattva in the face of people who don't have faith. So you take somebody who doesn't have faith and you sort of molt until you sort of come into a landing pattern with what they can believe in. Because if a person doesn't have faith, then they think, basically, that the object is the sovereign, and the organ is either less sovereign or equally sovereign. That's what most people think, right? So this teaching here is, we have some resistance to learning it because it's opposite of the deluded way of, it's opposite of one of the deluded ways we can think, namely that the object is responsible. So you see a nice shining person, You can believe in them. But some people, some Zen students, when they see a nice shiny person, they don't believe in it.

[39:10]

Because they think a Zen mass is supposed to be a little grubby. But most people think that Buddha should be tall, golden, and handsome. So as a result, for the mass, it's a good idea maybe, alter your appearance when you meet these people, to be as golden, as tall, and as handsome as possible. But for the faithful, such modifications are not necessary because they use whatever you look like as an opportunity for religiosity. And by the way, I think that The word religiosity for faith is better than faith, for shraddha. Religiosity for shraddha is better than faith. Religiosity has this connotation of Jehovah's Witnesses or something.

[40:13]

My sister's Jehovah's Witnesses. Excuse me if there's any here, but my sister's a Jehovah's Witness Minister. But in a way, that kind of religiosity or fanaticism is part of what faith is, you know. It's a little fanatic. In other words, you say, no matter what it is, that's what it is. It's not going to knock me down. I'm going to say, I'm going to be there for that no matter what happens. My practice is going to work. You can't wait? Does that mean you will wait? I'll tell you a little bit more next week. Just let me say a little bit more about this, and that is, as I said before, the faithful, when they see their teacher or somebody, they see all kinds of beautiful things, right?

[41:22]

They see all kinds of... all kinds of wonderful things. It isn't that they're making them up. It's that everything that happens, they see an opportunity for reiterating the fact that their great joy is what's happening. You see? It isn't that they look at this grubby old guy and they say, boy, he really is cute. No. They see this grubby old guy and they say, this grubby old guy is this grubby old guy and that is really golden. The fact that a grubby old guy is a grubby old guy is gold. Gold, you know, is indestructible. It's an element. It doesn't get tarnished. So the gold is the fact that this person, whatever they're like, they got a pimple, it's a pimple, that's it. And that pimple, the fact that the pimple is a pimple is gold. So that's a gold. So that's the meaning of gold. So the faithful see that. Isn't that they... It isn't that they transform the thing into something pretty, something else.

[42:26]

It's rather that they, because of faith, they say, I make what's happening into what's happening. Namely, I don't do anything. And that's the best thing. So the object can be anything. And the fact that it's what it is has no influence. But that's also wonderful that it is. So it's a pretext, but it's not. Yes, Amig? What's not a sentence, the karka? Yeah, I can't, I can't figure it out. Yeah, the karka is not usually... The karka is a poem, you know. You should rewrite these karkas and to make another poem out of these poems.

[43:27]

No. I think that if they're better translated, that the Sanskrit would make sense by itself. It would be poetry. It would be verse by itself, and you would understand it if you were Abhidharma master. Yeah, until you know the context, you may have to write in the context. You may have to keep in mind the explanation. Like in this case, the issue is basically that the objects are not sovereigns. Putting the weight on the organs or the injuries that are associated with consciousness, not the object of consciousness,

[44:46]

That's the main message of this karaka. And you can memorize that or keep that in mind by underlining those two objects in the karaka. Okay, so that's the main message of this karaka that we've just been talking about, that the organ is, first of all, you start with the organ is the sovereign, not the object. And then the other enryas that are not organs, but are various kinds of other faculties or feelings, they are sovereign with regard to the object and in regard to influencing consciousness and not the object, like faith. So you may just tell you, I think it means with regard to all objects, the six organs are sovereign.

[46:14]

What is sovereign over? And then it says, what is the sovereign? We'll say that again louder. This Karaka and the next three seem to have a similar structure of how they're written. One question that says, how then should one understand the sovereignty? So we might write that in above 2AB. How then should one understand the sovereignty? Okay, and the next one is, by reason of their sovereignty... Were you going to ask something else now? Oh, this actually... commentary actually comes into saying that the objects are sovereign in some way in regards to consciousness.

[47:43]

The organ's sovereign over objects, but objects are also sovereign in certain hierarchies over consciousness. Yeah, we don't want to say the objects have no function because they do have a causal influence in the situation. But From the point of view of understanding life and practice, we don't call the objects sovereign. See, the organs are sovereign over the consciousness and the objects. And the objects are not sovereign over the organs. The organs are sovereign over the objects. I guess in this vein of thinking, I would have What he just said is really important, you know. That we expect, we feel like our general attitude is salt shakers compared to consciousness.

[48:55]

There's no debate. Consciousness is boss. Manendria includes consciousness, and it's dominant over everything. But now we're saying that salt shakers or whatever, or white or blue, is dominant over consciousness, all not to mention the organ. So there's inter... You see, actually, there's interplay between dominance. This dominates that, and that dominates this. What's the story? In fact, consciousness arises out of the interplay between the organ and its field. That's what gives rise to the consciousness. That's what makes the consciousness you've got. That gives it. Okay? However, then consciousness turns around and becomes dominant of everything. So in one sense, consciousness is the source of all problems

[49:59]

It's also the source of all solutions. But consciousness is the source of all problems in the sense that it's been determined by other things which are the karmic effect of previous moments of consciousness. So it's just one endless cycle. You can't really... So the mind is dominant over everything. The mind determines how you see things, how you hear things, how you think things. But these objects and the way you receive them give rise to the consciousness. is in the mind because these objects aren't karma. These objects aren't doing anything. These organs aren't doing anything. The organs give rise to consciousness and as they first give rise to it, there's no problem. Except for the fact that the reason why they're giving rise to it is because somebody chose to be alive. Somebody committed the karmic act

[51:04]

chose to be alive, and now organ and object give rise to consciousness again. Now you've got consciousness. And with consciousness, you can do more karma. As a result of more karma, you can get more sense objects and more sense organs and more mind organs and more mind objects, and then you get more consciousness, and then you can create more karma, and then it is it. the pivot is in is in our mind but the mind is determined is dominated by these other things which have been created by the mind so it means that although the mind creates these things now that they're created you're you're subservient to them and you can't stop them because in fact they give a rise to the mind and they're out of your control because you already made them and not you made them that you cannot change the mind that they determine And they determine your mind at a very basic level.

[52:14]

But once again, the pivot, the only hope, the only place you have anything to do other than just experience this stuff, is in the mind, because then you can at least finally say, this is what I got. And that's the beginning. This is what's happening. And not do anything. And then you don't implicate yourself to further organs, which give rise to further consciousness, which give rise to further organs, which give rise to further consciousness. The realist school. If this was being looked at by Mahayana, would that change it at all? It doesn't really change it because the only difference is that you say In Yogacara, for example, you say then that this object, which is not other than mind, is an aspect of mind which now determines the type of consciousness.

[53:16]

Okay? So instead of saying that there's an object, external object out there that is an organ which is not mind and an object which is not mind, and they determine a sense consciousness, You now say you have an organ which is mind, which is just mere mind, mental construction. You have an object which is mental construction. And these ideas, these constructs, then will determine the type of consciousness you have. So the predominance in that case is the same. But now you have mental concepts determining mind, which of course that makes sense. You say these are mental concepts, mental constructs, just mental constructions rather than actual external realities. the whole universe is just a mind. But that whole universe, once it happens, gives you the kind of mind you have. Now that you've got this kind of mind, now what are you going to do about it? If you do something, then you implicate yourself to another whole universe, which will give you another mind.

[54:19]

It's the same system. It's mind which is originally creating the external object. Yes. So, how could those external objects... I mean, it turns around and affects the mind again, but still... How could those... The initial thing is the mind creating objects. Right. Mind creating mental objects. Mental action creating mental objects, creating consciousness, which gives the opportunity for further mental action, which will give implications for further mental objects, which can give rise to consciousness, and then further karma, and like that. So it's the whole world is the mind evolving in the Yogacara. Whereas in the Abhya Dharma, it's more like there is external and internal and they interplay to create our experience. And external is not just a mental conception. It has a certain reality aside from mind, as you see from the chart.

[55:22]

It's up there next to mind. It's not under mind. But the karmic situation is just basically the same. In both cases, it's beginningless. You can never figure out where it started. Was the mind first or the object first? Was the conscious first or the mental construction first? In both systems, they're beginningless. Because the only way you can find a beginning is how? There's only one way to have a beginning. How do you do it? Mental construction. That's the only way. by mental construction it's the only way to have a beginning by some discrimination what does that do? it does make a beginning anyway it is beginningless this experience doesn't have a beginning but it does have an end but the end is the same as the beginning so really it doesn't have an end either

[56:32]

Because the end is just another mental construction. That's why bodhisattvas don't have ends. They have a beginningless greed, hate, and delusion, beginningless dharma, and endless practice. So we don't have those mental constructions happening all over the place, but the world isn't really linear, you know. It's enfolding on itself infinitely. Three worlds mind only, we say. Three worlds are just the mind. Yes? Is it important that the word here for perception is not Sanyam? Yeah, that's important. The word there means instead of perception, the word you're using is grabbing, grasping. And a perception is something like grasping, but this is a more... Perception, grasping and perception specifically means the grasping of the mark of the thing.

[57:43]

It's a different type of perception, more general term, which will apply to all these situations. Because you see, most of these entries are not... Actually, none of these... these injuries are really perception in the abhidharma you know the abhidharma word isn't really happening although perception always happens concurrent with their functioning all right so then the next one we said before that they're um that the male and female organ are sovereign to sovereign with regard to the distribution of living beings and the differentiation of living beings. It says here in the explanation, separately within the organs termed chi-endria, the organ of touch, there are two sexual organs.

[58:48]

These two organs are not distinct from chi-endria. They are tangible things. They recognize tangible things. But there is a part of the kaya endria that receives the name male organ or female organ because this part exercises sovereignty over masculinity or femininity. Femininity is the physical form, the voice, the bearing, the dispositions proper to women. The same for masculinity. The difference of these two natures being due to these parts of the body. We know these two parts as sovereign through their two natures. Hence, they constitute endrias. So what they mean is something that has a sense of touch, something that's part of the envelope of tangible sensitivity.

[59:57]

that surrounds our body at some indeterminate distance and sometimes seems quite close to the skin and sometimes seems to go out an inch or two or three or four miles. It depends on the person. And also goes inside the body, you know, because you can feel inside too. So the body surface, you know, goes in and around all, has a certain range. You can feel, you know, your liver and cut yourself open. You can feel inside there, too. So that whole sensible feel, which is much more dense, it seems, and articulated inside the skin, but goes out somewhat, too, is what's meant by the kaya endria. Okay? But then there's a certain part of the body which needs to be located around the sex organs that has an influence over our... width of the hips and so on.

[61:00]

So it must include the hormone centers and things like that too as part of what they mean here. So Buddhism, Abhidharma recognizes the importance of the difference between men and women. enough to point this out and make these into enryas. Next is, by reason of their sovereignty, with regard to duration of existence, the defilement, to defilement, to purification, one considers enryas, as enryas, vital organs, the sensations, and the first, and the five, the first of which is religiosity. So the vital organ goes with the duration, the sensation goes with the defilement, and those five go with purification.

[62:12]

All right, so the vital organ is sovereign with regard to prolongation of existence until death. Not, as the Vibhashikas say, in that which regards connection of one existence to another. This connection depends, in fact, on mind. Okay, so this is what I mentioned before. that the Vastavandhu disagrees with the Vaibhashikas, the Sartrantikas. Okay? So this is a case where the Abhidharma Kosha has a different teaching about this particular aspect of transmigration than the Vaibhashikas did, than the Sarvastavadhanas did. Sarvastavadhanas say, that Javid Indriya is dominant over the intermediate realm, too. Death, and then intermediate realm, and then birth. So they say that in the bardo, that the Javid Indriya is important, but Vasubanda says, no, it's the mind.

[63:16]

And in fact, he means Manas here. Because why? What? Is he saying, he's not, he's saying that it's not that Javid Indriya is not there, It's not there. He's saying it's not there in the bardo state. Well, the vaibhashikas also say it's not there. It's not in the bardo state, but they say it's also dominant between connection between. That's because the vaibhashikas say that there's not a, they don't say that there's a bardo. They say it's medium. They say that discontinuance is not continuity there. So that So that they say Javita injury goes to the death and starts at the life. So it covers the connection, too. But the Abhidharma Kosha, you see, this is interesting because Abhidharma Kosha was much more influential in Tibet, for example, than the regular Abhidharma.

[64:21]

Of course, it was much more influential in China, too. Because it's much smaller than the Abhidharma literature. It's big, but it's still... The other Abhidharma literature, although you can find stuff, still stuff's also distributed all over the place. So it's hard. You have the experience of learning one thing, one space, and then you get contradictions over there. And there's 20 theories for everything. Not 20, but... Abhidharma kosha, at least you get one coherent message. Whereas the regular Abhidharma, you just look at it. It's so big that you really come away with... You have to be a scholar to appreciate it. It has to be sort of your business. So this position is, Vasubandhu's position is the position of the Tibetan Buddhists and Japanese Buddhists and Chinese Buddhists and Korean Buddhists. Excuse me, are you making a distinction there between like Vasubandhu is saying or implying there is no bar of state and what Vasubandhu is saying, you're saying there is a decent line.

[65:31]

No, in Chapter 3, Vasubandhu clearly discusses the bardo, the antarabhava, and how it works. And is that in distinction to the vashatis? Do they acknowledge that too, or do they say it? They discuss antarabhava. Yeah, they discuss it. But the way they understand how it works is quite different from the way Vasubandhu understands it works. So the teaching he gives on Antra Bhavas based on the sutras. Because the Buddha does talk about it. But the Vaibhashikas have a different way of understanding it. Okay, so Javid Indriya is dominant for the life stream. And we have some debate about what happens in Vardo in between lives. five sensations are we already said are dominant with regard to defilement and the five pure the five cardinal virtues or the five pure faculties or whatever you want to call them the five faculties are dominant with regard to purification okay then next we come to number four our reason of their sovereignty with regard to ascending

[67:02]

acquisitions with regard to nirvana and so on, the anajnyatthama nyatsham, sham, sham, shami, shami indriya, and the adhnyaya indriya, and the adhnyata vini indriya, no, vini, vini indriya, are likewise. Likewise, that is to say, these three are likewise considered to be sovereigns. They are the pure sovereigns, defined in Karaka 10 AB. The first is sovereign through acquisition of the second. The second is sovereign through acquisition of the third. The third is sovereign through acquisition of nirvana. That is, the near For there is no power in nirvana when the mind is not limited.

[68:18]

This is the famous new Upadi Sesha Niroda, which you've all been wondering about. So basically it means, near means, means no. And Upadi means coming up. And Sesha means residue. And this means extinction. This is the great extinction with no residue coming up anymore. And this is also closely related to what's called That's exactly the one.

[70:01]

There's no coming up of the stuff, the remainder. And this is the apratisamkhi, this is the nirada that happens by virtue of things not coming up. And then the other one is the apratisamkhi nirada. Okay. So. This is the nirvana that we have, that some of you had last Tuesday, we'll have next week or something.

[71:10]

Congratulations. And this nirvana has a residue, we still have five skandas. This is defined as Vissam Yoga, Pala. certain defamance. And when you enter in the Buddhist path, when you're a stream winner, and you have darsana marga, then this is what happens. So this goes with darsana marga, abbreviate DM. And so Darshan Marga goes with Andrea number 20, no, yeah, 20, right?

[72:18]

And then number 20, Andrea number 20, produces or leads to endrea number 21, which then, of course, goes with buvanamarga, abbreviated BM. And buvanamarga, and then endrea number 21 leads to endrea which is, which is, which is, uh, happens on a, abbreviated AM. Huh? A shayksha marga. A shayksha marga, a shayksha means one who has finished their job, one who has not

[73:27]

under training, in our house. Okay, and the Shaikhsramartha finishes off with, I'll practice something on the road or just near, near Kupadi Shesha. that goes there's no difference between these two well they happen at the same time but they're talking about two different aspects one talking about the aspect that nothing's coming up in the first place the other one's talking about that it's extinction through nothing coming up the other one's saying that there's no coming up of any remainder so one's just sort of talking about the basic nature of things namely that they don't even come up

[74:27]

talking about things being gotten rid of because they don't come up a certain way of thinking about reality okay the other way is talking about as in the process evolution of nirvana you have some nirvanas some nirodas some extinctions but they extinguish they cut certain bonds but there's still five skandas there now this is talking about the end of that path when you finally gotten rid of all the stuff complete obliteration of all defilement, of all affliction, no remainder. So they happen simultaneously, but they're talking about two different points of view. This is, it's like this is preeminent. This is the way things always are before anything happens and during and after, okay? But this sort of puts an emphasis as being at the end of the path. But this is also, the end of the path is just the way things always are, which shows the path doesn't even go anyplace. which is fortunate because we don't want to do anything.

[75:30]

But if we do things, then we have more stuff to do. Is the last one a step that a bodhisattva would not take? Well, a bodhisattva would take that happily. Just don't do it by yourself. May you come back? And don't And don't do what anybody else is doing by themselves. Tell me a minute later. Yes? End of the Ashaikshamarga, end of the Arhat path, is this.

[76:32]

Okay, you can be an Arhat for a while. It isn't that you're an Arhat and you go, pfft. You can attain Arhat-ship before you evaporate. It's the end of the AHA path. It's after you've finished the AHA path. The AHA path takes some time. It takes some space. It takes some money. OK, now, so you understand this? Now, the next thing is, which is quite helpful, is what we learned. So we see how these work. Now, can I erase this? I can read this, but I'll write them on the board anyway. If you take, actually I can write the numbers since you all have this chart right. So if you take nine, Enria number, Enria number nine,

[77:53]

15, which is religiosity, 16, 17, 18, and 19. Take these, these enryas, okay? There's nine of them, okay? Put them on the darshan amarga. And of course, That equals Andrea number 20. Put him on Bhavana Marga. And that equals Andrea number 21. Put him on Shaiksha Marga. Okay?

[79:05]

So this is the relationship between the path and the enryas. Enryas in the path, in the enryas. And so what we learn by this, this is very helpful because we learn what kind of stuff makes up darshanamarga. What are the actual kind of pivotal elements in darshanamarga? Of course, all dharmas can be there, but what are the sovereign, what are the real influential factors in darshanamarga? We see they're these. Mind, pleasure, pleasureful feeling, feeling of satisfaction, feeling of equanimity, religiosity, energy, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom. These are what's in Darshana Marga, these kind of things.

[80:13]

And it also tells us about Karka, I mean, Andrea number 20, what it's like. Now, its name is the idea, the thought, the conviction that I will know that which I have not known before. For I have known the unknown. I will know the unknown. The conviction, the determination, I will know the unknown. That's what this is called. That is the way, that's a way of talking about how you are on the Darshanamara. And it's a way to talk about how these endriyas, how these dominant factors are organized. They're organized under that kind of kind of a mood. It's the mood in which these elements are organized.

[81:22]

These elements in themselves can be either pure, anasrava, without outflows, or impure. with outflows. So here, when they're on the darsana marga, they don't have outflows. So in other situations, they will have outflows. Before you have, according to this, before you have the insight into the path, before you have insight into the path and have the first cutting of the bondages, you have not entered darsana marga, And these then have outflows still. And they also won't probably, in our point, they probably never find them all packaged together like this before they're in Darshanamara. I'm not sure about that, but I'll put that out for right now.

[82:24]

This combination actually is Darshanamara, so probably we won't find this combination someplace else. You have this combination. You have Darshanamarga. And similarly, it tells you what Bobanamarga is. Is it time to end the class now? Huh? It's 10 o'clock, isn't it? Wanna sit down here? Okay, well. and a quag.

[83:08]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_82.23