the Prajnaparamita talked about the language. Sounds pretty similar to what Satyantikas said. Basically, language is, once again, sound plus, sound plus karma. Well, are you ready to study chapter, carcass 66? Did anyone look at the 89 kinds of consciousnesses of the Theravada?

[01:35]

How many have seen that chart? How many have not seen that chart? Okay, well, the Theravada has 89. do this, but one of the ways it increases numbers is, well, we'll talk about that right now. So here's 12. This is, you could also make other classifications of consciousnesses too, couldn't you? What are some other ones that you could make? Some simpler ones, for starters. Sastravanas. Sastravanas. Sastravanas. Any others? Yeah, that would simplify this one.

[03:06]

Instead of breaking down this chart into two categories of neutral, you could have one category of neutral. Do you know what this A stands for? What does it mean? So which one's defiled, which one's undefiled? Oh, undefiled. Anybody yet not understand these two names? Do you know what this means, Nina? The N here? Defiled. Defiled nature, right. Do you know, Rosemary, what the A-N means? Right. means defiled.

[04:23]

It's like klishta. Similar type of word. So this is defiled, neutral, undefiled, neutral. This is good, defiled, neutral, undefiled, neutral. Good, undefiled, neutral. Defiled, neutral, undefiled, neutral. What's S? Sashava. Sashava. Sashava. Anashava. What's Sashrava? I mean, what's Shaikhsha? S is Shaikhsha. What? Both of these are pure. Both of these are Anasrava, over there. These two. S and A-S are Anasrava. Anasrava means what? What? Without out of those. What's S mean? Shaikhsha. What? Right. So S means what?

[05:25]

I know. What does it mean in English? In training. In training. Shaksha means in training. And Asha actually means not in training. Or training has been finished. A graduate of the program. And I'll be down to graduate. Which is called another of salt or what else is it called? An arhat. The one who's dried up all of those alfos. The shayksha's still drying them up, but it's definitely starting. It's the beginning of the end. It's just a matter of time. Okay, so those are the kind, this is the classification, first classification of Abhidharma Kosha.

[06:30]

And as you see, there's another one that breaks these down further, which is 20 minds. And maybe sometime we'll talk about 89, but the 89 actually are just mainly blowing up this section in here. and breaking up these into four layers. They distinguish. See, this actually, in the 89 system, these three would then be multiplied by four. One for each level of the Rupadatta. They're counting each level of the Rupadatta as a different mind. So if you did that, there would be, instead of three, there would be 12. Okay, so now what we're reading about is how you go from this one to this one, or this one to this one, and so on.

[07:48]

Or whether you can at all. First of all, it says that the twelve minds do not arise indiscriminately one after another.

[09:44]

There's a rule. And the rule is first dealt with by realms. So an accommodatu. It says something there. And then it explains. This is a little poem here. There's a verse. poem summary of the story. Considering the first of the minds of the spirits of the Kamadatu, after Kushala there can arise nine minds. So after Kushala can arise nine minds. So after, this is the one, let's say, let's say, this is after, okay? This is, just start here and then go and see which one's gonna happen, all right? It says... After the Akushala.

[10:48]

After the Akushala, it can arise eight miles. Okay. How are you going to perform after? Let's just do it like this. nine here and eight here. Okay? So, first it says, after the Akusha, there can arise nine. So after this, there can be nine. After... for these, let me say, these follow. These follow eight lines, okay?

[11:54]

These follow eight lines. So kush ella can lead to f, let me say, these proceed. These proceed. nine minds. This kushala, kushala precedes nine minds. And kushala follows eight minds. So kushala can precede a kushala mind, right? And kushala can follow a kushala mind. Can kushala lead to akushala? That's an important one. because in the Theravada they say kushla cannot lead to akushla now just before this section in things that you didn't read about didn't read about the

[13:16]

four pratyayas, the four causes or four conditions. One of the pratyayas is called, if you look on page, do you have that? Page 202 or whatever it is? Do you have the page? Just before 66? After 65D? Do you have that? It says... Actions of the body and of the voice produce the bhuttas as a result of retribution. They are then vipakahetu. Which is interesting.

[14:17]

You already know that. You just don't know this terminology. What? Vipakahetu? It means different maturing cause. It means that actions of body and speech cause bhutas. And what are the bhutas? What? The primary elements. What are the primary elements? Wind, fire, earth, and something else, yeah. And these are ways of what? What are they? The rupa, what are they?

[15:25]

What does it mean with the rupa? They form the in combination of the moral roots. They are the elements of root. Do I understand? They represent certain elementary relations like cohesion, stability. What did you say? They represent certain what? Relationships, and what are the relationships? Relationships of what to what? Dharmas to each other. What dharmas to each other? Hittable dharmas. Huh? Hittable dharmas. Hittable dharmas. They're qualities? Yeah. Qualities of what? Qualities which perceive.

[16:26]

Which what? Four qualities which are perceived? They're not perceived. You don't perceive them. You perceive the dharmas, the rupa dharmas, the 11 rupa dharmas. You don't perceive these. I think when Jonathan, their qualities, but not the way you said, their qualities more the way he said, namely their relationships. They're ways of relating among something. And these ways of relating come in certain types. So all material interrelationships have these various aspects of these relationships, of these qualities or types of relationships. And by putting these types of relationships together in certain ways, you'll get

[17:26]

these rupa dharmas, they're more fundamental than the dharmas, actually. So there's the water way of relating, there's a water type of relationship, there's an earth type of relationship, and so on, which you can actually meditate on those, and they'll help you understand what matter is. So the causal relationship is by talking certain ways and physically acting certain ways you influence these patterns of relationship which then give rise to perceptible physical dharmas which then get agglomerated into things like bodies and so on. So what it's saying actually is that you simply physical action

[18:27]

gives rise to the physical world at its fundamental level, which is one of the reasons why it's hard for people to see that because it doesn't, you know, make something gross happen. It happens at the relational level. So bodily and vocal karma make, produce physical manifestation. That isn't what I wanted to read, but I just happened to bump into that. Yes? Is it saying here that that's, I don't know what the main cause is, but are they saying here that the actions of the body and the voice are the main cause of the bhuttas? Of what? Are they the main cause of the bhuttas then? No, they're not the main cause. They're Vipaka Hetu for the Buddhas.

[19:34]

Maybe this Vipaka Hetu will refer to your own Buddhas. The main cause, Atipati Prachaya, is that the one you're thinking of? That's the main one. There's Atipati Prachaya and Samanantra Prachaya and Alambana prajaya. And one more. What is it? Samanantarya. Samanantarya prajaya. Alambana prajaya. Adipati prajaya. Yeah, and Hetu prajaya. And Hetupratyaya can be broken down into six. And one of them is Hetup, Vipaka Hetup.

[20:36]

When everybody's comic acts are summed up, that makes the external world Anyway, we already talked about this, I just happened to run into it there, so I thought I'd mention it. But what I wanted to read was, we have seen that antecedent minds and mental states are samanantraya pratyaya, and this is the definition, the condition in the quality of equal and immediate antecedent of a subsequent mind and mental states. But we have not explained how many species of mind can arise immediately after each. In order to do that, we first have to make this classification here, which we just did. So the idea is there's a kind of causal relationship that they have in Abhidharma which says, this causes this.

[21:39]

And this causes this. And that caused that. In other words, whatever's happening causes the next thing just by getting out of the way. which maybe doesn't seem too profound when you first think about it, but whether it's profound or not, anyway, you've got to admit it's true at some level. This causes this and this causes this and that causes this and that causes this. That's all. It's not what most people think of as Pause. But nonetheless, once you start thinking that way, it's obvious that that's one of the ways things happen. So it's kind of like you're peeling away this onion. Just by taking off a layer, you cause the next layer.

[22:47]

Except this onion's a long tube or something. Keep peeling off one side of it. And every time you think you peel off another side, you lengthen the tube. Something like that. Or slicing along a zucchini that's very long and also very, very wide. But somehow you take off a slice that's infinitely wide. And as soon as you take off that slice, you get another interface of zucchini take another one off there is another one can you see that you're taking off that one causes the next one it causes it causes your experience at the next uh next surface of zucchini what do they mean by equal tendency

[23:50]

Let's see. It means of the same kind. I think it means equal samananta. Oh, it doesn't mean equal. It means literally without gap antecedent. I don't know about equal there. The condition and the quality of equal and immediate antecedent. Yeah, I think that equal there, I'm not sure that that equal is right according to my memory. I think literally it means just that there's no gap. Oh, no, it does. Sama, yeah, sama means same. That's right. Sama, nantara, anantara. Saman, anantara. Anantara means without gap. You know, like, antarabhava. Remember antarabhava, which intermediate existence, gap existence, antara. Antara means gap, intermediate. Antarabhava, intermediate existence. So, anantara,

[24:54]

is without gap. So immediate. So this thing happens, you slice off this. As soon as the zucchini is sliced, at that very moment, that's the next event. Just take this one away, and that's the next one. And sama means same. So I forgot what I meant by same. So it causes an effect of simultaneously. Well, that's one of the things you could think of, in a sense. Yeah, but they could tell. They wanted to tell so they could tell. That's the way they wanted to think. It's antecedent. Does it refer to mind?

[25:55]

Mind follows mind. And that might be the... I could look back. It might be somewhat important, I guess, since we're going to talk about it a little bit now. I think that's maybe just good enough is that Yeah, I think that you would say that, for example, that Samanatha Pratyaya would not be the... The mind mental state just before the Neuroda Samapati, for example, would not be Samanatha Pratyaya for Neuroda Samapati.

[27:55]

Something like that. That's not Samanta. There's Samananta Pratyaya only if they're followed by the next set of mind and mental states, even if it's of a different type of mind and mental states. So that's why mind and mental states Only mind and mental states are samanthaprajaya. Okay, so... Did you say that if it's a different type of mind, it's not samanthaprajaya? It can be, samanthaprajaya. It can be? Yes. So akushala, an akushala followed by akushala? Well, that's the point I'm bringing up here, is that the Theravada said that... If you have a kushla mind followed by an akushla mind, then that says that the kushla mind is the manantra prajaya for the akushla mind.

[29:05]

It is a cause by being immediate antecedent of bad. So it means good is cause of bad. And they said, you can't say good causes bad. We don't want that ton of talk. What? So they say there's a gap. But not really a gap. There's a gap between good and bad, but there's not a gap between samanantra prajaya and its result. So they say that good can be samanantra prajaya. Good has to be... A mind that leads to another mind has to be samanantra prajaya for that next mind. They say. And everybody says that. That's what it means. But they want that next mind to be something that feels good to them for that previous mind to cause. So what they say is you can't go from good to bad in one moment because good cannot be immediate antecedent cause with no gap to bad.

[30:12]

Good can be immediate antecedent cause to neutral. So they say that you never go directly from good to bad, but rather you go from good to neutral to bad, or bad to neutral to good. So then the good is, is samanantapartyaya for the neutral, and the neutral is samanantapartyaya for the bad. Neutral can go to bad. So you have to shift from forward to neutral to reverse. You can't go directly from forward to reverse. Equal? They're equal in the sense that they're both mind and mental states. That's the issue. Are they mind and mental states or not? If they are, they're of the same type.

[31:15]

But Theravada says that you can't say that good causes bad even by immediate antecedents. So they visualize that what you do in between is like there's this basic kind of state of basic life force state of consciousness which you interrupt to set up some kind of active karma. The basic life is called basic state of consciousness is called bhavanga bhava-anga sort of the linking bhava the linking the linking the basic state of being and bhavanga bhava-anga is said to be related to alive jnana similar type of idea.

[32:18]

But now it's sophisticated. So their idea is you have this bhavanga and then you stir it up and give rise to, for example, a wholesome state of consciousness which is momentary and it falls down. And then You give rise to an unwholesome state and it falls down. You go back into the bhavanga and then you stir it up again. You come up with whatever, another wholesome one or unwholesome one. Or you could, it's also possible to stir up a good state of mind. It goes down to stir up a good state of mind without spending any time in the bhavanga. so to speak, but immediately give rise to another good one. It's different, you mean how is it different from other kinds of neutral?

[33:28]

It is neutral. Vavanga is neutral. In other words, it's not, it's this big soup, you know, out of which we can cook up more active karmic scenes. And, but it's, you know, you can't, by that nature, you can't sort of say, well, what is it doing? And that's the very reason why you stir it up, because you want to know what you're doing. So you do something, say, I'm making a little splash. So there's a splash, and it's a good splash or a bad splash. You can also make neutral splashes, however, okay? So, but Vavanga's like the retribution of, it's retribution. It is avyakuta? It's avyakuta. It's avyakuta. It's neutral. And it's, I believe, it's paka. It's retribution, if I'm not mistaken. Like the body, your body and mind, to a certain extent, are just retribution.

[34:33]

It's like your destiny. And out of that ocean of your destiny, you can splash up various light water shows. So it's possible to, you know, start stirring up the fountain and make this good splash, you know. And you can keep good ones going. Once you get a good one going, you just keep going. That's possible, you say. But if you want to switch to a bad one, change colors. Got to let it all fall down, and then set up a new one. You can keep doing bad ones then. It's constantly changing, but basically it's the same type of show. If you want to change, got to let it all just fall down again, get flat, and then start up again. You can also do neutral ones out of that too.

[35:36]

In other words, you start me making a water show that you can't tell what it's, can't say, well, I don't know, can't tell what's good or bad. But the bhavanga is neutral. Okay? That's the Theravada. And I think it's perfectly fine imagery about how we do it. That's perfectly good. Yes? Could you explain that imagery? What's the difference? Akushala is very beautiful and comfortable water. From the point of view of the personal stream that's splashing it up, it's very beneficial. It's like a sauna or a health spa. And Akushala is...

[36:39]

the experience of the water that you stir up. The stirring it up is not, the stirring it up is not, it's not in the stirring up that you tell whether it's good or bad. It's not, I mean, in the stirring up you can tell whether it's good or bad. You can tell. But the goodness and the badness is not because of the stirring. is not experienced. The value of good and bad is not experienced in the stirring up. So for example, it's continuing to use the water model. There you are in your lavanga ocean or swimming pool perhaps in this case for this example and you take some of the water up in your hands and you throw it in somebody's face. Now that If you know a little bit about Abhidharma, you know that that's what's called an unwholesome dharma.

[37:45]

Because it's not decorous, right? It's not decorous to splash other people in the face unless you ask their permission beforehand. What? I think it's fun. Aha. It's a nice play. So, he thinks it's fun. You see, that shows you that, you see, in the act, it's not necessarily bad. In the act, it's fun. So he takes up this water and he squirts it in the person's face. And he knows when he does it, that this is fun, but it's not decorous. You know the word decorous? Yeah, yeah. And so you squirt it, and then the person hits you in the face. and your face swells up and you say, woe is me. This is an unfortunate result. Yes, that was. I was undecorous, that thing I did, and sure enough, the Abhidharma is true.

[38:50]

If you do an undecorous thing, you get the unfortunate result. So the unfortunateness or the badness is in the result. This is a punch in the face. But the playing is not bad. As a matter of fact, it's fun. But it's only bad because you value your face being a certain shape. It's not really bad otherwise. And the good thing, I suppose, is to pick up the water and say, are you hot? Would you like a little water over your face? You pour it over the face. They say, oh, thank you very much. give you a nickel or pat you on the back or put some water over your head or whatever anyway, that you call that a good result. But they're both stirring up the water. But it's just simply saying that you can't, that one way of taking the water up and saying, would you like some water over yourself, that type of use of it is different from the type of, that doesn't lead then to a different type of use.

[39:56]

Pretty simple. saying you don't this rough use of it or whatever is not the same kind of use as this other kind of use that if you want to change uses what you have to do is go back to neutral and then come up with the other kind of use but both are uses you see both are karma both are agitating a rather bland situation which is the result of other karma but this karma has just Temporarily, anyway, it's in a subsided state. It's rather just used out there and used existing. And the karmic direction is very uncommitted. Yes? Does that mean you don't really have to have any sense that what you're doing is wrong, right? The result tells you?

[40:58]

Some people do that. I mean, I don't know how many have a percentage of populations doing that, but most people are doing that. Most people are that way. When these boys were throwing rocks at us, I mentioned to people that these boys think they're pretty good. Their concept is that they're doing something fun. They're just mom and boys, you know? We just grew up watching TV and eating whatever we ate, and now we're throwing rocks, and that's all. Basically, we're okay. Or maybe we're not, but anyway, they could think of themselves that way. We're just little kids having fun.

[42:01]

At a certain point, a kid goes from playing to being undecorous. And they find out when that point is because people start throwing rocks back at them. Or, please come with a billy club. And then all of a sudden they find out that they're getting hit back. They don't know exactly why. Because they think they're doing all right. And people get in car accidents, and they think it's somebody else's fault. I was driving through the green light, and this guy came through the red light. It was his fault. Well, in Japan, they don't think that way. Yes, they have rules, and you're not supposed to go through red lights and hit people that are going through green lights, but the person going through the green light is partly responsible. Because obviously, people are sometimes going to go through red lights, and you better watch. If you see somebody coming at a certain speed, and your light's green and their light's red, you just know that they can't stop.

[43:07]

That's all. If you keep going, you're getting in their way, regardless of the fact that they're supposed to stop, because they cannot stop. They may not even be able to miss you, even if they try to swerve. If you drive in there, it's partly your fault. As witnesses, you share in the responsibility. Maybe they await it more on the other person's side, but What if their brakes went out? Well, that's their fault too, but it's a different kind of fault than if they're just speeding. So if somebody's brakes, if they just had their brakes checked, you know, they could say, they could say, show that they just had their brakes checked before they went in, but they don't know how to check their brakes. They just brought them out of the shop after getting the brake space, but the guy at the shop forgot one little detail. They rolled out of the shop and started rolling down this hill and got up to 75 miles an hour. And you went through this red light and got in their way. Who's at fault? Well, they probably also penalized the guy in the shop.

[44:09]

Now, if he doesn't have a driver's license, maybe take his... The police may take his... He'd have to go visit the family. He lost his job. So Japan is... Buddhism had some effect on Japan. Because actually it's more like that. When there's an accident or somebody gets hurt and there's various people involved, everybody should help everybody. It's not like you do this little calculation and one person comes out as the bad person and everybody else is good. Everybody cooperates in everything. So most people think that they're pretty good and that's just what they think. And then things happen. in a certain way. The other day I fell off my bicycle. Whose fault was it? Well, it was my fault, pretty clearly.

[45:13]

But then again, it certainly, you know, I didn't put those railroad tracks in the middle of the sidewalk. So I needed a little help to slide on the railroad track. But it was pretty clearly my fault. Was I doing a bad thing? Sort of. I mean, I wasn't really... I didn't really think so carefully. Now look at that nice slippery piece of steel there. If I put my tire in there, I might slip. I sort of knew that, but I just took a chance. slipped so that's pretty clearly my fault but what if that what if somebody was moving that piece of steel some guy sliding it right over here like this because I was coming this guy was sliding it he said hey you ran over my steel you bent my steel yeah but your steel made my bicycle fall over so what and who's at fault

[46:23]

He pays for my body and I pay for his bent steel. Because I did run over it, right? He was just walking over there with a steel track. And I ran right over it. Yes? What's the relationship with this kind of moral deliberation? If you're doing good action, or if you're doing bad action, you find out there's a bad result. It's a relationship between that societal standard. The kids find rocks, find it. It's a common belief. But that's a societal system. It's hard to say whether society gets behind what's fundamentally moral or what's fundamentally moral, just what society agrees on.

[47:30]

And I think you can't say it with one or the other. Human beings in different cultures value, in some cultures, people value cuts on their faces, in others they don't. Lately, in America, we don't value cuts on the face. But in Europe, in the 19th century, cuts in the face were a certain kind of a nice cut there was considered to be a mark of a gentleman. Supposed to have cuts in your face from dueling. In America today, tan face is considered to be generally good, but in Europe in the 19th century, in Japan for most of its history, in China for most of its history, light skin is better than the more yellow skin. The aristocrats had always cultivated pale skin and got with umbrellas. So For some people to get sunburned, it would be considered a bad karma.

[48:33]

And in fact, they would only get sunburned by some act of inattention. Probably. So by not paying attention, they'd get sunburned. Which some place don't say, gee, it's a nice sun time you have. I'd say, oh my. So these things are... relative they're not absolute they're relative from the point of view of the person in a society that they judge such and such to be unfortunate for their life for some people eating too much will produce a state of body and mind called fatness which they will consider to be an unfortunate result but other people eating too much would be a conscious act, even within one culture. Well, actually, within different sections of a culture. So when I was young, I consciously quit smoking so that I could gain weight.

[49:37]

When I was 12 years old, I quit smoking. Because I wanted to gain weight. Because in our culture, for a young boy, it's good to weigh more than where I grew up, anyway. It was a fortunate and beneficial situation for me to weigh more. That's what I thought. That's what I guessed, and I was right. Now, not through the totality of the society, or through the totality of even my school, but like 95%. I thought it was nice for me to weigh more. I gave up smoking, I disciplined myself to eat more, and then I gained weight. But then later, I moved into a different society, and my weight was not considered, having a lot of weight was not a beneficial thing.

[50:43]

So I disciplined myself to stop eating, and then I lost weight, and that was beneficial. So at Zen Center, it's better for me not to weigh so much because here, rather than me being very large, it's important for me to be awake. So I just want myself not to eat too much. But when I was a kid, everyone was happy for me to be asleep and be huge. Matter of fact, that's really a good combination. Huge thing, she'd only be awake at a certain part of the day. Wake them up. Put them out in the field. And as soon as the game was over, just put them back to sleep. So you just eat, eat and sleep, and go out in the sports field. That's the best way. But at Zen Center, it's more just, it's better to be sort of awake all the time.

[51:48]

But being big isn't so much of an issue. So then I disciplined myself. So in both cases, I had a wholesome life of eating a lot, in a way. I disciplined myself to eat. I planned. So I studied how to gain weight, and I did. It was a discipline. It was a wholesome activity. That practice of getting heavy was part of a wholesome turn of my life. And I looked. I watched. And I saw my friends, you know, my skinny friends, smoking, doing that kind of stuff that they did. And I saw them skidding towards disaster. It was neat for a while. When I was 10, it was neat to smoke. Then being skinny and smoking and all that kind of stuff, that had high social value. It produced wholesome results. And you had to concentrate to smoke when you were 10. It was hard work, you know.

[52:51]

It took courage. But then I could see it was only temporary. For children, you see, it's rapidly changing. What's okay is changing all the time. Throwing rocks one year is neat. Throwing rocks the next year is out. Running in the hall one year, people think it's cute. Around here, for a two-year-old to run, It's cute. But for a four-year-old to run, it's not. And for a six-year-old, it's really not. But when they're really little, we think, or like for, what's her name, Nova now, to see Nova walk as fast as she can, it's wonderful. But two or three years from now, we'll say, Nova, stop running. And for the 30- or 40-year-olds to run. so but for children is changing you know weekly it changes so as you're a child you can watch how you sort of go off you're doing this thing you know and all of a sudden you run into a wall and say stop and turn and so a lot of growing up is just to learn what when certain trips are are over you know and then to switch gears so that's why

[54:11]

Stop smoking. Stop doing that kind of stuff. It just, it runs out. When you're 12 years old, certain stuff you can't do anymore. Before 12, you can do it. You can do a lot of stuff before you're 12 and they don't do anything to you. You just play it up. Just completely use your freedom up right up to that point and stop. And they'll tell you when to stop. That's it. They'll say, your parents or friends will say, that's too much. You stop. Particularly adults will help you. Children will still think it's cute a little bit beyond where the adults do. But even they'll stop thinking it's neat. If you keep running that route, like some of my friends did, they just fell apart, you know. So I shifted. But then at a certain point, I could see that running into disaster, too. So I shifted again. And at a certain point, I could see that running into disaster, so I shifted again. Kept shifting. And the last shift I made before I came here was I could see the professorial rut.

[55:15]

I could see, oh, first you become associate professor, then you become assistant professor, then you, no, you become assistant professor, then you become associate professor, then you're a full professor, then you head of the department, and then you die. And I said, hmm. So I shift turn. But even in Zen, still, you start doing practices then. You watch practices. You see which ones, where they go, and you keep shifting to try to go find one that leads to the perfect result. Certain of them naturally peek out. They hit a point where they're supposed to be dropped.

[56:05]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_81.26