I believe when we reached last time, Caraca, 3738A. Is that right? And where I mentioned this is rather important, Caraca, that tells me that these five internal doctors are from retribution and accumulation. Any questions about that? Questions about that? Okay. Then the sound is from retribution, is not from retribution. And the eight tattoos exempt from resistance are from flowing and also from retribution.

[01:08]

Those are three types. So the eight tattoos, if they're not susceptible of resistance, are the, are what? What are the eight tattoos that are not susceptible to resistance? Could you speak up, please? Okay. And they are from flowing and from recreation. They're from flowing when they're produced by what's called the Sambhaga Hetu. and Sarnavaga.

[02:41]

So they're from flow language in Nishanda. When they're from Sabadhi Hetu or Sarvatradi Hetus. And they're from retribution when they are produced by Vipaka Hetu. So they're Vipaka. When they're produced by Vipaka Hetu. And what do you know about things that are retribution, what are they like karmically? What? Neutral. Neutral. So that means mind and mental stills are sometimes neutral because they're sometimes kipaka, pala. And they're also sometimes not neutral because they're produced by active karmic forces.

[03:51]

So, if they're produced by, very simply put, if they're produced by sabhagahetu, and sabhagahetu is good, then if they're similar to sabhagahetu, very simply put, assuming you don't change realms or something, they'll also be at the similar quality, cognitively. Now, if they're produced by sarvatragahetu, then they will always be defiled, because sarvatragahetu refers to the causation of defiled dharmas. So this, the dharmas that are susceptible, that are not susceptible to resistance are basically of two types. One is, they're even flowing, they're flowing or even flowing, Nishanda. If they're produced by Sabagahetu or Sarvatragahetu, if they're produced by Sarvatragahetu, you know that they're defiled dharmas. If they're produced by samagahetu, they may or may not be defiled.

[04:53]

At this point, I'll just tell you that. And if they're produced by vipakahetu, then they're neutral. What? No. Who didn't do this? Do you remember that we talked about how the sense organs are neutral? Remember that? Well, that's what's being said here, you see. It's saying that the five sense organs, the five internal dhatus, are from vipaka, are from retribution.

[05:55]

Are they? Okay. Do you remember, we talked about this a lot before, do you remember before when we talked about this? Didn't we talk about this quite a while ago? About the sense of it being neutral and differently, the ripakapala? Didn't we talk about that several weeks ago? It said from retribution, I understand you'd say that some of them are neutral, and some of them are quiet, but it said from retribution, that's something that I can't ask the question, because they don't care to me what it means from retribution.

[07:17]

It means vipaca, right? And vipaca means what? What? Different fruit. So, if they're due to some active karmic force and they're a different fruit, that means that they must be not from an active karmic force. I mean, that means they're not an active karmic force themselves. They're different. The fruit is different from the cause. So the Vipaka Paula, the result of Epapahetu is much different. So firm retribution, firm retribution means, in another sense, you can say they are retribution.

[08:19]

And they're also firm accumulation because the orderlings are also from just the accumulation of material stuff. Yes? It's a good action. It has to result. That result is not beating out. Is that right? You say something is a good action. You live to a good choice.

[09:21]

later on, you say, no? Yes. No? It wouldn't have to be. Good, of course, sometimes good actions are not mipakahetu. Sometimes good actions are sabaghahetu. And if they're sabaghahetu, in other words, if they're a similar cause, sabaghahetu means similar cause. So, if there's a body and they're good, then they lead to the result, and then the results will not be neutral. But if they're a body and they lead to results,

[10:27]

that are different from them, namely the results will be neutral, and the results will not create in themselves, will not create further karma. But they also don't interfere with the creation of further karma. So, for example, if you have eyes, it doesn't interfere with the creation of karma, but it does not in itself create karma. So these eyes are in that case indeterminate karmic quality. And also eyes are not like the actions which gave rise to eyes. That's what five internal organs, eyes, ears, and so on, are from retribution. If Sabaga Hetu produces a good result, in other words, the result it produces is good, that means that the good is another active karma.

[12:04]

which is good. So it means you have a good karmic act and another good karmic act. So you have action, which has an effect, which is another action. That's why they're similar. So you have a sequence of actions. One's the cause of the other and one's the effect of the other, but they're similar. They're both active karma. So thinking of to think of Buddha, to think of a friendliness. If you do it with some idea that you're doing that, and with some idea that you're doing good, this is good karma. And this is some bad way to, if in the next moment, you think of it again. And that is another personal karmic thought. present karmic action, which once again could again lead to a singular thought, which again would be sabhagahetu, would show that it was sabhagahetu, and that the result is called nishandapala, even flowing fruit.

[13:24]

Wherever the organs, the physical organs of our existence, of our experience, are not due to this kind of They're not flowing. They're due to retribution. And they do not in themselves produce further karmic implications. However, they do not interfere with further karmic implications. So we're talking about an adonement. So you have an action which produces an eye organ. You have another action, another adonement which produces another active dharma which produces a good dharma called the thought of Buddha. So they both project these dharmas. So you have now in one moment a wholesome state and you have also a wholesome karma which produces the eye.

[14:28]

So one dharma leads to the eye organ, which is neutral. Another dharma leads to a certain thought, which is good. This I organ in itself is not creating good karma at this moment. It's a thought now that will create good karma. Because I organ won't interfere with the good karma either. But then you can produce another state where you also wind up with an I organ. And you may have another state. Again, having some good karmic thought. But maybe at this point, as I said last time, this is rather complicated. And... I just want you to know at this point that this is an important karaka because you have the first introduction of this concept, of these concepts, that this is going to, in great detail, in karaka 39 onward of chapter 2, 49 to I think about 66 of chapter 2.

[15:29]

If you don't understand this completely, it's all right. This is just a first shot at the teaching of the six etus and the four pratyayas and the five palas. The six causes, the pearl causes, and the three, five fruits are taught in the chapter two of Abhagadana Portia. So I guess that's what I said last week, because I didn't intend to understand this stuff, this character at this point. And this is an example of probably the people who wrote this, if this is the first time they ran into it, they wouldn't understand either. But they would already know something about what is taught in Chapter 2, even if they hadn't read Chapter 2. Chapter 2 would teach them more if they'd never read chapter 2, but they would already know something about Ketu's and Pratayas and Wallas anyway.

[16:37]

And then he says, the next character says, 1.2 possesses substance. And this is a that we could debate about or talk about for a long time. And in a sense, it's somewhat confusing because it says, one dattu possesses a substance. And that one dattu is the... It's not really a dattu. It's the unconditioned, the Asam Script Dharmas. So... the Dharmadhatu contains the unconditioned. So since the Dharmadhatu in part contains these unconditioned dharmads, therefore the Dharmadhatu possesses some real substance.

[17:49]

The next one says the last three dhatus are momentary. The last three dhatus are the mental organ, the object of mental consciousness, and the mental consciousness. So, monodatu, or manas, dhamadatu, and monovijnanadatu. Now, See, you might wonder, why do they say that these three doctors are momentary? Aren't the material organs momentary also? Isn't everything given, isn't it? So don't we say sarva anicca? Everything impermanent? Does this occur to you?

[18:57]

Okay. A rock may be permanent. Not momentary. Okay. Anything else? I don't remember the questions exactly, but I think that those three are much shorter in duration. I think that the others last longer. The initial moment is still short. They last longer. Yes, that's right, too, from the Theravada point of view.

[20:02]

Now that I've brought this up, I think that... Better skip over this card. That point being made here is a little bit... I'd like to come back to this card some other time. The next part I don't think is... I wouldn't say it's not important, but I don't think we'd have to talk about it right now.

[21:34]

Talk to 38 CD. I think that the next character, 39 also, is not, does not, we don't need to study right now.

[22:49]

But 40 AB, I think, is pretty important. This is a character that is referred to many times throughout the Abhidhamicotia. And it's another character that you would you want to thoroughly understand it until chapter 5. But for some reason or other, it's introduced here early in the text. The question is before this, how many datus can be abandoned through insight into the truth by the path of insight or by insight so insight into the truth means insight into the four noble truths path of truth is called darsana marga d-a-r-s slash over it a-n-a n-a-r-g-a

[24:14]

darshana marga. Darshana means seeing or insight and marga means path. So how many of these dhatus are abandoned by the path of darshana marga? And how many of these dhatus are abandoned by the path by meditation or by the path of meditation? The path of meditation is called Bhavana, B, H, long A, V, A, N, long A. And Marga is the same. M, long A, R, G, A. Bhavana Marga. So how many are abandoned by Darsha Marga? How many are abandoned by Bhavana Marga? How many Dattus are not abandoned? How many doctors cannot be abandoned?

[25:14]

Now these two margas are two of the five margas that are taught in chapter six of the Abhidham Akosha. There's six margas, there's five margas. Next one's called . [...] Margaret. Next one's called Ashaishamardha. This one's called Sambhara.

[26:40]

Sambhara. Sambhara. This one's called Sambhara-marda. So this first one is called the Path of Equipment. You see in the fire literature, it talks about equipment on the path. There's kind of equipment. This is the path of equipment. Initial preparations. And prayoga magha is also preparatory, but it's prayoga means effort. So the path of effort. And then darsana, we said insight, bhavana is cultivation of meditation. And ashaikshya is the ahat path. The path beyond discipline. So 15 are abandoned through meditation, 15 are abandoned through, 15 of the dhatus are abandoned through bhavana marga.

[27:59]

The last three are of three types. The last three dhatus are of three types. Okay, so first, the ten vatura dhatus. The organs and the objects of consciousness. Or the organs and the organs field of activity. The eye and the eye and the visible and so on. And the five sensible consciousness. Five sense consciousnesses are bounding through meditation. So the I, the visible, and the I consciousness are abandoned through meditation. Yes? It means that they're dropped.

[29:16]

You're free of me. lineages of the dhatis. They are, the lineages are broken. The lineages are gotra, the lineage gotra is obliterated, bu, B-H-U, gotra bu. So they're abandoned in that sense. The continuous lineage of the sense associates are broken through meditations. And meditations means particularly the path of meditation, because, of course, there's insight meditation to it, but this is particularly speaking of meditation, which is before and after. So that's one point you should know about, is that bhavana marga is two bhavana margas.

[30:18]

One Bavana Mata is before Darshini Mata. Another Bavana Mata is after Darshini Mata. So this line, one and two, could also be called Bavana Mata. But this is worldly Bavana Mata. And this Bavana Mata, which just follows Darshini Mata, is super mundane Bavana Mata. So the first one's called . Another one's called . So by abandoning my meditation means abandoned by both these kinds of Popana Marga.

[31:24]

The last three Datus, the mental organ, the mental object, and the mental consciousness. Manas, Dharma Datu, and Mano Vijnana Datu. From the point of view of abandoning them includes dharmas of three types. Now I'll just tell you about these dharmas, but you won't know exactly what they are at this point. First type are the 98 Anushayas, and the Anushayas, A-N-U-S-slash-A-Y-A-S. Anushayas are the latent kleshas, or the latent defilements.

[32:26]

with their co-existent dharmas. They're abandoned by insight. They can't be the result of good karma. They can't be the result of good karma. Well, they're not, strictly speaking, they're not, uh, initials, you see, can, can, it depends on what state they're in. If they're in a latent state, they can coexist with wholesome karma. They can't, they are not blatantly good karma, only blatantly. They're blatantly neither. They're blatantly not good or bad karma. That's the point. But yet, even if they're latent, you still have to abandon them. you can abandon the Anushayas before they even come up, before they're even active.

[33:36]

And then there's other impure dharmas. First is a special collection of ten Anushayas with their coexistence and their properties and so forth. They're abandoned through meditations. the good impure dharmas, good means kushala, with kushala as, kushala sashrava, okay, the khusam dharmas that are impure. And the non-defiled mutual dharmas, they're banning through inside. The impure, I will do not with what's following is abandoned through insight. What?

[34:51]

Did I say through insight? Yeah, through meditation. These last three types are through meditation. So the Anushalayas are abandoned through insight. And there's another group of Anushayas, of ten of them, that are abandoned through meditation. And then Khosong, the impure dharmas, and nondefiled utra dharmas, are abandoned through meditation. And the impure adhijñāti rūpa is abandoned through meditation. And then last is the pure dharmas, that is to say the unconditioned dharmas, and the dharmas that are part of the way, It cannot be abandoned.

[35:52]

So, any questions on this? I don't know. Maybe you have millions of questions and maybe we can't answer them all now, but let's see what kind of questions you have. I'm looking for some nice superficial questions. Yes? I still have to clarify what the difference between good is in shura, or dharmas in, I don't know. I know there are so many dharmas that had to say, yes, what good is, for example, if you, the simplest one, if you wish to enter into the rupadhatu, or the arupadhatu, by means of meditation, all right? You have to be moral, first of all. You can't concentrate unless you're practice morality we already talked about how morality depends on your view okay and second of all if you now wish to enter into these more lofty states of existence through these meditations and you do these meditations in order to produce this effect this practice will not be harmful to you in the world and will not harm others all right and if you do them diligently

[37:19]

and you really do concentrate, you can actually propel yourself into other more rarefied and pleasant ecstatic states. This effort that you make is good karma, and you get good karma results, mainly birth in heavens. However, if you wish to gain something by any effort, then because of that dualistic conception you have of I'm here and I want to go there. In other words, I'm here and that thing over there which I'm looking at right now is not here also. This is that and that's that and they're not one. This kind of discrimination is what we call sasrava. This is with outflows. Outflows are set up by dualistic thinking. which is not caught and recognized as dualistic thinking, but which is acted on and believed.

[38:25]

That's impure. That's without flows. Sashrava is without flows or impure in this text. So good impure is wholesome acts that you do with some idea of doing it. and believing that you're doing something wholesome dualistic thinking is kushala sashrava but if you do wholesome acts and you're practicing buddhism then you have kushala anasrava wholesomeness without outflows and that same act could be you could enter into the nirupadattu through meditation without any interest in entering there but just sort of you're doing these meditations and you wind up there but you didn't care and you weren't trying to and you didn't think that you were doing anything special or you didn't get fooled by apparent or possible discriminations there that'd be part of the path and it wouldn't there wouldn't be outflows you can even commit unwholesome karma ultimately and have it be anasrava without outflows

[39:44]

But you wouldn't believe that you're committing wholesome karma. Just like you wouldn't believe that you're committing wholesome karma if it's on Asvarava. But of course, once again we said, although you don't believe you're creating wholesome karma when you don't get fooled by dualistic thinking, even more so you don't believe you're committing unwholesome karma. It's almost like even there we really don't, we never do that. Yes? Who says it was? And you say it was. You say so. Nobody else can say so. Somebody's doing something?

[41:00]

Yes. Well, that's the point. It never happens. If you don't believe it, it doesn't happen. So that's why I say it's hard to see it that way because if it's an asarava, if it's an asarava, in a sense, to say kushala an asarava doesn't make sense. Okay? Also to say kushala an asarava doesn't make sense. or to say neutral, avyakrita anastrava doesn't make sense. And this, you were very interested in this topic, I know. But it's a little bit of a job. So, kushala sastrava doesn't make sense.

[42:07]

Akushala sastrava doesn't make sense. Avyakrita sastrava makes sense. In other words, if you encourage it, if you action is impure, in other words, without clothes, in other words, dualistic, then it makes sense that you'd be involved in good and bad karma and neutral karma. But if you don't think that way, then you wouldn't, in a sense, good karma doesn't make sense anymore. Because you're not really creating karma anymore when you don't have outflows. But nonetheless, if I do meditate, if I do sit still and concentrate, and I do give money to the church, and I do help sick people or healthy people, and I am kind, and I don't do anything that anybody would see was breaking the precepts, someone might say, this is good karma that he does.

[43:08]

Right? So you might say, he does good karma. But that's not where good karma actually comes from. It doesn't come from other people saying that you're doing it. It comes from you saying that you're doing it. And same with bad karma. It comes from you saying that you're doing bad karma. That's where the bad karma comes from. Not from other people telling you that it's for bad karma. It often turns out in this world, however, as you may have noticed, that when you say And when you think you're doing bad karma, other people will agree with you. And when you say you're doing karma, good karma, other people will agree with you. That's how you learn how to do it. You gave a quarter to Santa Claus and your mother said, good girl. Sure enough, you thought you were doing good karma and you were on. But before that, there was a time when you tried to do good karma, but... a way of acting that you could consider to be good karma.

[44:13]

You yourself felt that way. You had this little repertoire. You yourself felt was good karma. You believed it was good karma. And because you believed it was good karma, you set up a whole world which flowed from this area which you believed was good karma. And you got agreement from a certain portion of the world. with your idea that it was good karma because actually what you meant by good karma was the world where what you did was you got people to say it was good. That's how you figured out what good karma was. So you did these things, you know, you did this. And as we looked around and people said, good boy. Just like, you know, Taya goes like this. We said, oh, isn't that cute? And that's how you learn what good karma was.

[45:17]

You learn it was inseparable from other people saying to you that it was good karma. Or patting you on the back. But the saying of it was not the definition of good karma. That's just what good karma produces. If it produces, it will pat you on the back and give you apples. That's what good karma is like, you see. Honesty is the best policy. Why? because the other people give you money when you're honest. So if you believe you're being honest, part of the reason why you believe you're being honest is because this kind of thing which you did in the past has led to people treating you in a certain way, either saying you are honest, you are a good boy, or giving you something or whatever. On the other side, that And, of course, it's just the other one. Now, you do things that in the past you learn, either directly or through books or movies.

[46:22]

You learn if you do that, then they do this. If you do that, they hit you in the head. If you punch somebody in the nose, they might hit you back. If you steal that thing, the police might put the handcuffs on your wrist. You learn that. Therefore, when you do this thing, which in the past you learned to do that to you for, that's what you call bad karma. And they may or may not call it bad karma. And a lot of things you can think about before you even do them. And when you think about them, you believe this is good karma. And you believe this is bad karma. And there's a whole bunch of other stuff which you don't know about. You're not sure. This is called neutral comment. So it's not cut off from what other people say, but it's really primarily starts from what you believe.

[47:22]

That's the real cross. It's what you think it is. But what you think it is, is determined by what other people say. But it's not what other people say. It's already determined. It's called as determined before they say anything. When they say it, it's after it was committed. When they say it, it's not the definition but the result. That other people would say, that's bad karma. That's not the bad karma. The bad karma is before that. Because they may not say that. They may not say that. They may not even think it's bad karma. You know, like sometimes they may not have that idea. You may be surrounded by bodhisattvas who do not hold that opinion. Probably they will still club you over the head or give you a nickel. They just say, oh, you did that? Oh, you have that. That's how the world works. Or they say, That's how the world works. With no idea of believing in good or bad karma. Only believing that the world works this way, and so the world works that way.

[48:26]

That's all. You can switch the words. Human beings have certain values. So, certain people have put good over here most of the time. And so we have some, we have had world councils, you know, to figure out what is the good and bad karma has been passed down. Anything else about this? Yeah. There's a single way of saying the category of the 98s. There's a simple way of saying what they are. Yeah. I don't understand. Well, they're actually based on a simpler list of six, which are then expanded into 98 by multiplying them by the Four Noble Truths in various ways, and past, present, and future, and so on.

[49:32]

But the basic six are what we call, what do we call them? They're not dharmas. The initials are not dharmas. Anyway, there are various kinds of passions and views or opinions. And we can expand it to 98. And the subject of chapter 5, chapter 5 explains about these initials. But when it then says, and they're co-existent dharmas related, those thick dharmas. Thanks, my God. Well, when they're activated, then I think they will have those associated diamonds.

[50:37]

Those are the ones they're referring to. But they'll have the other ones, too. All those 10 universes will also be there. So whenever they flare up, at that point, they'll have certain diamonds associated with them. And when they're latent, also they'll have certain diamonds associated with them. So if you abandon them in their latent stage, you also abandon all the diamonds that are associated with them in that particular association. So this, we don't, maybe we don't understand this character completely, but at least you know there is this character here. And through a lot of information, you know where it is. Because many times when you refer back to this, as explaining the fundamental structure of the methods, the methods of abandonment, the two methods of abandonment are insight and meditation, the Darshanamarga and Bhavanamarga, the path of insight and the path of meditation.

[51:50]

So simply speaking, the path of insight you abandon all the various kinds of views or opinions or philosophies. In the path of meditation, you abandon all the various kinds of physical and emotional hangups, conflicting emotions. So in Buddhist practice, you actually abandon your views and opinions first, and then later you abandon your physical bad habits or emotional habits. So it means a person can have quite good insight but still have kind of clicks or still eat sloppily or butt in line at the line to the good stuff. Just by habit, you know? They always butt in line, they keep butting in line. Their insight hasn't stopped

[52:54]

sort your selfish habits yet. But by meditating thoroughly after insight, pretty soon these habits start to drop off too. So let's see now, in that character we go, a simple character. Among the 18 Dattus, how many are seen?

[53:56]

It says the organ of sight in the eight parts of the Dharma Dattu are seen. But actually, the word seen is not so good. It's better to put, I don't know, what does it say, does it say seen? I think it's better to put in a view. Views. Christianity is views. And it could also be written as opinions or even philosophies. And trishti is an anusaya. It's the same thing as mati, the same thing as prognia, but those different kinds of discrimination.

[55:31]

And when it's little of you, an opinion, then it's, of course, not, it's not wisdom really, it's not really clear discernment. It's an opinion that sticks, that holds a certain You sort of have a certain place about what's happening. You hold a certain view about what's happening rather than just putting aside views and just seeing what's happening as it is. So drishti in a sense is a corrupted form of wisdom. Drishti is not exactly the same as drishti but the words have a different function. Drishti is more like Vikalpa, in a way, is lighter than Dvishti. Vikalpa is like false discrimination based on weak concentration. Whereas Dvishti is more like you might have still a pretty strong concentration, but you have this opinion there.

[56:37]

So a viewer and opinion can hold up for quite a while, even under concentration. But the other one's like, the other one's more like you're just a poor kid. You don't have a strong view in the situation, but your concentration isn't good. So when you look at anything, you just always waffling and oscillating. In the other case, you bring a big, heavy opinion with you. And even when you're concentrated, you still lay that opinion on the situation. So that seems like that's the difference in the feeling between me kalpa and... and drishti. The birth related to prajna, though. They're both sort of different types of corruption, of seeing things, discerning diamonds. So that the next Karaka 42, I think, is interesting for you.

[57:59]

And this is the, this Karaka, I think, is the Vaibhashaka. It says, it is the organ of sight that sees the visibles when it is sabada. It is not the consciousness of which this organ is the support. For the visibles, obscured, is not seen, such is the opinion of the Vibhashikas. The question here is, what sees? Does the eye see, eye organ see, or does the consciousness see? So the first case is the Vijnanavadhan. There's a scholar who attributes sight, seeing, not to the organ of sight, but to visual consciousness.

[59:19]

The other term Vijnanavadhan. Vijnanavada Vijnanavada Vijnanavada means consciousness and vada means school Vijnanavada is vada then the person of the school of Vijnanavada but the mind is a consciousness school, consciousness only school. So they say, consciousness only school says that seeing is due to the visual, the seeing is done by the visual consciousness. But the Vibhastikas say, no, that's not true, because if that's the case, then why does it matter if you were to secure the organ, the object like that?

[60:24]

If it was really seen by the consciousness, then why would it matter if you put something in front of the organ? So, they argued that the Vipashaka is in the Vijnana Vodans. The Vipashaka say that actually the eye organ, which is located somewhere around here, that actually sees the objects. What? There are no options. If they're an object, you wouldn't see anything either. This is a case of three. Case of three. That's right. So which C's? The thing that there isn't, you are saying that where you appear.

[61:38]

and the non-substance, they exist somewhere around the organ, but that's replaced just by that particular constant. I didn't hear what you said, Simone. Just say it again, please. Well, you know, when you, when you, when you, when you cover up your eye, as, as they're proved that, it's not responsible. with the C8. It was the organ that they referred to here that you were covering up and not the physical aspect of that particular organ. Are you referring to the fact that you talked about the organ is not the eyeball? Yeah. The organ is not the eyeball, but still the organ is located.

[62:44]

We talked last week about the zygote having five skandas. So the zygote has five skandas, but the location in one of the skandas is prong, right? And prong skanda includes five sense organs. But the location of those five chance organs in the zygote is pretty hard to say. For example, you can shine a light from many different directions at the fertilized cell, fertilized egg, and it's light sensitive from various points of view. But you may find that, I don't know what the hair point are, but you may find that from one part or another it's more or less sensitive. So in that way, you might go to locate sort of probability distributions of where parts are more sensitive than others, OK?

[63:47]

And the sense of touch of the zygote is also probably, you know, it might be all the way around the outside, but maybe it has sense of touch even inside. Maybe if you could just flip a little pin through the surface of it and wiggle it around inside the cell, it might maybe parts of the cell would go, ooh, And the hearing, too, you know, may come from all different directions, but still all of them are at least located in one cell, which is very specific, actually. As a cell grows, still you don't have an eyeball and you don't have an ear and so on and so forth. Still there's localization of the sense, right? So it doesn't say that the eyeball is necessarily a sense organ, but it's just that it's located, it has a locality to go like this. that by putting something over here, you take care of the whole location. It needs to get stuff from somewhere out there. Now, it may be that you can eliminate from back here too, but actually we haven't found that.

[64:51]

I know that you can put a light back here somehow and get it to the skull and activate stuff. But actually, probably as you know, you could probably send an electrical impulse, have nothing to do with light into those cells from the side of the head or whatever and set off reactions in the optic nerve, which would make you think you saw. So, as you may know, you can go like this, put your hand over your eye, and you can press, press down on the eye, and you can activate the retina or something, where you can see things by pressing on the eye. The pressure on the retina seems to do something. By pushing this fluid in there, you can create light. Pick yourself up in the fitness store. But it's a kind of general pressure, so you don't get a clear signal. It's mostly gray.

[65:51]

It works best if you do it in a dark room. You can see it. When it's really dark, you can just press your eye like that, and it'll get brighter. But otherwise, if you have an object out there to go out of close, you can stop it, unless it's very bright. So just saying, if we were just consciousness, it wouldn't then, it wouldn't be inferred by that. Vibhashikas say, just I. Vibhashikas say, Vibhashikas say, it's the I that sees. The Vijnanavadans say, it's the consciousness that sees. Vibhashikas say, it's the consciousness that sees. This is what the Babashikas said, the Vidyanavadans said. So, I don't think the Vidyanavadans don't understand.

[66:54]

I mean, the Babashikas have sparsha, too. Yeah, it doesn't seem to go. That's what you just pointed out. Don't you need to Don't you need the object, too? And don't you need sparsha, too? Don't you need the object, the organ, the consciousness, and contact of the three in order for sleep? So then what's the answer? What's C's? Combination. Combination. Sorry? Yeah. At the end of this, they say, what a silly discussion is this, or what an empty discussion. The Sutta teaches that by reason of the organ of sight and of the visibles, the visual consciousness is born.

[67:57]

There is not there an organ that sees, nor a visible that is seen. There is not there any action of seeing, nor agent of seeing. This is only a play of cause and effects. In the light of practical speaking, one says, as his will, metaphorically, of this process, the eye sees, the consciousness discerns, and so on. So, actually, there's not even an agent that sees, and there's not even an object that sees. But just by virtue of all these things, this act called seeing occurs. And this is a sattrantic opinion, but it sounds very much like majanaka. It sounds very much like emptiness.

[69:01]

But here we're listening to Dhammakosha. It's a sattrantic position which which is espoused here by who says of the previous discussion of whether it's the consciousness sees, or the eye sees, or the object of seeing, whatever, it always is so. Okay? So remember that it's not the eyes that sees, it's not the organ that sees, and there's no object seeing. Seeing is not the object seeing. Seeing is a process, an event, which part of which is that if there's some object that's seen, that's what the event is like. It's that you think you see an object. It seems to be an object that's seen. But that's not what seeing is. Is that clear?

[70:13]

So I think the next important character is character 44 CE. And here we find out that the object of the first five consciousnesses is simultaneous to them. The object of the eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, and so on, is simultaneous to them. The object of the sixth consciousness is anterior, simultaneous, or posterior to it. In other words, it's past, present, or future. This is a simple character, but a tricky one.

[71:51]

Yes? That's the thing straight. What? The object of this can be before it, simultaneous with it, or after it. The object of the mental consciousness. What's the object of the mental consciousness called? What's it called? Dhamma Dhatu. So the Dhamma Dhatu can be anterior to the Manavajnana Dhatu, simultaneous with the Manavajnana Dhatu, or posterior to the Dhamma Dhatu. It can be past, present, and future with regard to the Dhamma Dhatu. So that means that the Dhamma Dhatu, the part of the Dhamma Dhatu which is currently the object of the mana vijnanadattu. That part of it is past, present, or future.

[72:53]

It can be past, present, or future. The object of the mana vijnanadattu is dharmadattu, but only one element in the dharmadattu in any given moment is the object, right? So actually we don't say that the whole dharmadattu is past, present, or future. but rather the object is past, present, and future. What I just said comes just before the current, okay? And the next question is, is this also the case for the point of support of the consciousness? The point of support of the consciousness is what's their name for the point of support? What? It's manas, but it's also, it's all the organs, right?

[73:57]

It's the five fence organs and manas, right? So is this also true? And the character says, relative to consciousness, the point of support of the sixth consciousness is past. Point of support of the first five is also simultaneous. So also means also in addition to being, it's also simultaneous in addition to being passed. So that says that visual consciousness is supported by eye origin, which is simultaneous to it.

[75:04]

And mental consciousness has support only from the past. Okay? So mental consciousness only has support from the past. but it has objects in three times. Yes? You don't understand how what? What are the three pier diamonds? You don't understand what about them? What are you saying?

[76:21]

You don't understand how they can be? Well, do you think, do you think Partisan Kani Rota can be past, present, or future? Well, then why do you think, then it doesn't matter if they're past, present, or future? Does it? I mean, they have nothing to do with time, so they can be at any time. You know, Abu, there's no problem in, you can say, you can say, I was enlightened, I am enlightened, I will be enlightened. To actually know, to know that I am enlightened in the teacher, I am enlightened in the past or I am enlightened in the present, what difference does that make? I don't see that any problem. They're beyond time so that everything, all statements about them are also beyond time. So this is a good card to kind of exercise on.

[77:22]

Yes? Point of support is, in the case of the five sense organs, is the organ. I mean, five sense consciousness is the organ. The organ is the eye organ, the eye capacity, is specified as the point of support of the eye consciousness. And the point of support of the monovignana dhatu is monas. The mind organ. But monas always exists in the past. So the support of consciousness of the mind organ is always in the past. The support of the consciousness of the sense consciousness is in the present and in the past. Because the organ that supports it is in the present with it. The eye organ is in the present with the eye consciousness. But high consciousness is also supported by mind consciousness.

[78:27]

So you can also say that the supportive consciousness of the I consciousness is in the past and the present. Because it's supported by the organ, the I organ and the monas. The monas is in the past. So the sense consciousness has two supports, and the mental consciousness has one. Yes? .

[79:29]

Will you say that again? You can understand. It's not supported by the eye of the present moment. Visual consciousness is supported by the present moment. Visual consciousness is supported by the present moment. That's what it says. It says relative to consciousness, the support of the sixth consciousness is past. The support of the first five is simultaneous also. You can? Yeah. Wow. Well, okay. Tell us later. Tell us later. But you don't understand how it can be simultaneous? Well, first of all, by definition, visual consciousness, the consciousness will arise by the organ, object, and consciousness, right?

[80:42]

So with eye consciousness, there must be eye organ and eye object. I mean, visual object, visual organ, and visual consciousness simultaneous, right? In one moment, because there's sparsia. as partial as the conjunction and interaction out there. The object of consciousness, the organ, and the consciousness. What? Consciousness comes from the next moment. Consciousness comes from the next moment. Consciousness comes from the next moment. It supports the next moment of mental consciousness. So the visual consciousness at this present moment of visual consciousness will be then the support of a later mental consciousness.

[81:46]

That's right. The visual consciousness, once it passes away, becomes modest for the next mental consciousness. That's what they teach you. You have to experience the visual consciousness as it actually occurs. But that experience of visual consciousness, visual consciousness is not like mental consciousness. In other words, visual consciousness, the kind of perceptions you have, are not the kind of perceptions which people are ordinarily concerned with. They're very basic. And before you even say blue, you cognize blue, but you don't yet say it's blue. And most of what we do is far more elaborate than even saying it's blue. But you do experience it.

[82:50]

For example, you can do experiments with people where they'll, if you show them blue, they'll press a button. You show the blue and they press the button. But they may not know that they saw blue. Particularly if you get them going fast enough and under enough pressure, so you don't have time to think about it. But that world where we see blue and press the button before we even can name it is a part of our life that we are not concerned with. The part we're usually concerned with is the part where we see blue and then we name it. And then we think about it and make all kinds of other things about it. But obviously, we do see a bunch of stuff that we don't do anything with. We don't think about it or make judgments about it or name. Identify, classify, discriminate. Just taking blue.

[83:52]

But that is an experience. And we can see that it is an experience by various means. By making it happen so fast, Of course, in a dark room, you know, you could flash blue at them so fast that they weren't even see it, but they'll act on it. Except that you know he's doing it, so. Except that, well, it is, except that you know he captured me, so. So in that case, you think you know why your knee went. So in that case, you have a bullet. But the fact that the tapping of the knee makes that action, that just gives them that sense input, your body does something. But you still could say, well, I saw him do that and so on and so forth.

[84:54]

Now, I'm talking about a sense experience that's so fast that you couldn't even feel it. in the sense of saying, I just got here in the need. But you take it in and you could prove that you took it in by you could act on it. There are such experiences. As a matter of fact, there's a lot of them. There's, you know, a great deal of them. And they happen all the time in amongst the things we are more usually aware of. We don't necessarily have to become aware of this level of sense reception. We don't need to become aware of it directly. That's not the point. But the point here is that the mind consciousness... Well, anyway, so are you...

[86:00]

Yes? Well, notice the subtle interplay or subtle shift that you can see here. The Vaibhashikas say, the Vaibhashikas believe that past, present, and future actually have existence. So let's say you thought past, present, and future really existed as, you know, that there was a past that's not here but has some meaning in the sense that past really exists but it's unavailable in some sense, because the dharmas of the past haven't come into function yet.

[87:04]

Excuse me, dharmas of the past have already had their function and gone away. And there's dharmas of the future, which really exist right now, but they haven't yet come into their function. And there's dharmas of the present, which are currently activated. But they all exist. The past really exists, exists in the sense of a thing that's already happened. It's already had its manifest function. Well, it almost sounds like that, doesn't it? But it's not quite that they say they lost a trace because really it didn't leave a trace because it actually went away. But it really exists, they say. And the only difference in it and the present is that the present is just currently functioning dharma and the past is that dharma has already finished functioning.

[88:09]

But that's a real existing thing that really exists. Now there's a slight difference between saying, yes, it really does exist because you have this thing carved past which you say is something that already happened. It actually exists right here in the present. Because in the present, you take something which you say has already happened. So, I take this watch, and I say, this watch has already happened. Therefore, it goes in the past category. By conceiving of this watch of something that's already happened, it winds up in the past, and it really exists. And by saying that this chalk hasn't happened yet, I say it really exists and it really hasn't happened yet. Now, if I keep track of the fact, and now if you do that with ideas, now see, the Dharma Dattu, okay?

[89:11]

The Dharma Dattu is the only one that can do this. The Dharma Dattu has these kinds of objects. Because the Dharma Dattu can have concept as objects. So now think of a concept or an image. Okay, think of a concept, think of a, you can think of a complicated one, like a picture of Brick Pylon, okay? It's a picture of Brick, and he's got a blue red hat on. And it says, underneath him it says, September 10th, Brick Pylon will take his red hat off at the Orpheon, right? You see that picture? Now, you just created that, and you put a deadline where it called September 10th. And you said, now that certainly should go into the future. That image that you can close your eyes now and see it. And you say, I'll put that in the future. At the same time, you could say, oh, but put September 10th under there.

[90:32]

I really meant 1977. And I could put it up in the past. Now, once you see you can do that, then you don't have to be pushed around by 1977 or 1982 or whatever it is. You've had thoughts in your childhood about a year that has not yet come. You've even imagined some of you what it really will be like in 1984. Will it really come true? These thoughts about 1984, which are thoughts of the future, you know you had in the past because you say you've already had them. But how do you know you've already had them? You know you've already had them by bringing them up in the present and carefully examining them. But when you look at them in the present, they're happening right now. And it's only because in the present you put little labels on them which remind you of something which you sowed in the past. You add certain tones, feelings, and emotional content to them in the present, which are really just pasted on them as a concept in the present, therefore proving that they happened before.

[91:46]

But that really does make them in the past, and that's what the past really is. The past is nothing other than that, and they really do exist, and they really are in the past. There's no other past. So they really do exist in the past. Because nothing exists in the past any more substantially than that, and these things are in the past. But now, to say that they really are in the past, but they're not in the present, then you have to draw a line. and says something about, no, they really exist in the past, and they have already gone by. But once again, the fact that they've already gone by is just your definition, and you're saying, you made that definition, and that definition sticks. And since that definition sticks, they really are in the past. And this is what's called taking the definition seriously, and this is what's called the Vaibhashika. The Vaibhashikas take these definitions seriously. If you give a thing a mark, it grows in the past, and it really exists in the past.

[92:55]

And the reason why it exists in the past is because you say, by definition, it's already happened. And it's really there. And it's not in the present, because it was in the present, you define it so that it was in the present. But if you don't get cooked by these definitions, then it's all in the present. And it's just one game you're constantly doing right now. But you see, they're not so far off to say things really do exist in the past and really do exist in the present, right in the present, and really do exist in the future. The future exists, really exists, right now. So they're really right. But the reason why they made that up was not for the right reason. They made it up to make their system work. And that was not the right reason. Because since they made it up to make their system work, they didn't have flexibility. because they are stuck into making it work in a certain way. Okay, so this is what this kark is about.

[93:59]

It's about past, present, and future. But remember, the support of the objects of consciousness is different from the objects of consciousness. Supports come from the support of this mental gymnastics that you can do with past, present, and future. And whether you take it seriously or not, the support of that comes from the past. And when it comes to sense consciousnesses, you don't do those tricks. You don't play this game with sense consciousnesses. You don't do it. Or you grab it down. You receive all these colors in the present. Only time you get them, you don't get them in the past. Now, you can think about receiving a color in the present. You can think about receiving a color in the past or in the future. That you can do. But those colors you think of are not colors. Those are ideas of colors. Those are concepts of colors. They're not the same as colors. And dreaming of technicolor, when we can do this better than men, by the way, dreaming of technicolor is not color.

[95:10]

It's not color. It's the ability to dream in technicolor or to dream in colors at night or daytime, whatever you're dreaming. It's just the ability to believe that you see colors in your mind. To see colors, you have to deal with your eyes. That's the point. It's all so simple. And no school of Buddhism disagrees with this. You see colors with your eyes. It's not the eyes that see. It's not the object that see. It's not the consciousness that sees. But rather, seeing arises out of all this stuff. But take one part away and there's no more coders. Once again, the Vaibhashikos say there are colors independent of this event called seeing.

[96:22]

They really exist. But see, once again, they're taking the definition seriously. You seriously have an object. You seriously have an object. You seriously have an object. You seriously have a consciousness. You seriously have co-functioning in the three. And then 45 is what we've been saying. 45 AB, the supportive consciousness is the organ. For the consciousness changes after the change in organ. After the temporal sense, I think so. You have the eye organ functioning, and that's eye consciousness.

[97:25]

When the eye organ goes away, the eye consciousness goes away. And if you get another organ, ear organ or mind organ, then you get different consciousness too. Depending, yes. Okay, so now we've reached part of 35. 17 maybe? The clock is 17. Minus this part of consciousness then.

[98:30]

Yeah, it is. In the case of manas, it's bootstrap. The mind pulls itself up by bootstraps. Because you have to do that in the case of where something is not distinct from itself, right? Okay? You know that expression in English. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It doesn't make sense, does it? But that's the way the mind works. Do you know that expression, you ever think about that? That's a funny expression, but there's truth in it. Curl yourself out by your bootstraps. What? You better be. Or is the card hitting the stick?

[99:43]

So visual consciousness depends on the organ and the object. depends on the organ and the object. But it only has the organ as support. So you said depends on, okay? But support is a special variety of dependence. It's the one you use for, it's the more critical one in the support system. out. We have 1-1 meeting. We'll actually have 1-1 meeting in this class. Any last-minute questions? We've got the part of 35AB.

[100:52]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_85.91