discussing the Abhya Dharma's teaching on death or life, lifespan and death, a question came up in regard to the four modes of existence, which are discussed on page 108. somewhere. In those four modes, four ways of discussing it are existence which is destroyed by oneself. existence which is destroyed by others, existences which are destroyed by oneself and by others, and existences that are neither destroyed by oneself nor by others.

[01:23]

Question arose in regard to why it is that people who are on the path of insight, the darshanamarga, why they aren't destroyed while they're on that path. These four modes of existence are talking about from the point of view of existence.

[02:49]

And previously we discussed the four alternatives with regard to does death come by exhaustion of lifespan only or by exhaustion of merit? So we discussed that. This is a different thing. This is talking about a kind of existence. This is not talking about death. It's talking about a type of existence. Is that clear, the difference? Why don't you clarify it? In other words, there's four alternatives about death. Either death comes to an end because the lifespan is exhausted, or it can come to an end because the lifespan isn't exhausted, but the merit is exhausted. Or it could be the lifespan comes to an end and the merit comes to an end at the same time. Or lifespan comes to an end and the merit hasn't come to an end.

[03:52]

And then the other alternative is death through not avoiding the causes of harm. And that would be related to, in a sense, the type of existence we're talking about. But then there's kinds of existence, all right? There's four kinds of existence. There's four matrices. There's four kinds of existence. There's two kinds of four kinds of existence. One is this kind, and another one is... You can take existence on your own initiative, take existence on another initiative, taking existence by both your initiative and another's initiative, and neither. Here he's talking about a type of existence, the type of existence it is, is neither destroyed by oneself or by others.

[05:00]

The type, kind of, way of being. And Darsha Marga is that kind. Why is that so? Well, I think it's, from what I've been able to find, it's seems to be saying that when you're on Darshanamarga, you have these alternating kshantis and jhanas. There's two kind of ways of describing Darshanamarga. One way, each way, is using the Four Noble Truths. Can you see the board? One way is take each noble truth and considering it under four aspects. And that's 16 aspects of 16 types of development.

[06:07]

For example, I mentioned this before, you can consider dukkha. You can consider the first noble truth, dukkha. under the aspect of impermanence, the dukkha itself, emptiness, and what do you call it, non-self, unattainability of self. That's four ways you can consider the first noble truth. And so on for the other ones, the second one, second noble truth is cause, there's a cause. You consider that also under cause, accumulation, conditions, and so on. But another way that Darsha and Marga is sometimes described is in terms of these alternating shantis and dhyanas.

[07:16]

So for each noble truth, You first look at the first noble truth, dukkha. And first of all, there is what we call you allow yourself. You allow yourself. You accumulate or you attain a readiness or a acceptance or capacity to contemplate this fact, which we call dukkha. And this means dukkha. This is called dukkha, dharma, jnana.

[08:20]

So you have the kishanti, you have the capacity, you have the ability, you allow yourself, you put up with, in a really permeable way, the fact, the dharma, the knowledge of the fact that there's this thing called unsatisfactoriness. This is the first moment of the path of insight. And this is also the first moment the first of eight moments, it's the first of nine moments, which are called anantarya marga.

[09:31]

Remember when we discussed the Muni attained Bodhi in 34 moments? So those are the first nine of the 34. So this is the first. This is number one of those nine. This is the Kshanti. This is the acceptance. And once you have opened up this way, And this opening up is the result of the whole preparatory practice of Buddhism. You do not yet know that you're ready. And now that you're ready, now that you have the capacity to face this, you can't be stopped. Nothing can hinder seeing through the nature of phenomena, and in particular, seeing through the nature of defilement.

[10:58]

This unobstructed quality of this attainment, the fact that it can't be stopped, I would suggest to you is the reason why, once someone's on the path of insight, they can't be destroyed by oneself or by others. That's a type of existence that they're speaking of. And that's why it's classified in this way. Now, this is followed by a knowledge. This patience is followed by a knowledge. And then all you do is just erase something. When you take a shanty out, then this equals the first moment of the, what's it called?

[12:07]

What are the other nine called? . you have the first moment of, so you have these two paths, these two paths of nine, duck-tailed. What would you make up? 18 moments. Yeah. It's the force of nine moments. And then the other way is the force that you set by being in the mood. Right. They sort of... They dovetail. So you have Dukkadharmadjana kshanti. This is the unobstructed path.

[13:09]

This is the path of liberation. The moment of unobstructed path is Dukkadharmadjana kshanti. These are all kshantis. These are all jnanas. So you have Dukkadharmadjana kshanti. And then you have Dukkha, Dhamma, Jnana. Then you have Samudha, then, okay, so you have that. And next you have another Kshanti, and you have another Jnana. Then Kshanti, Jnana, Kshanti, Jnana, like that. And when you're done with those, you finish Darshanamara. Yes? Jnana means knowledge. Shanti means, is translated often as patience or endurance, but I would also translate it as readiness or capacity, allowing openness, all those kinds of things.

[14:18]

In other words, you let yourself completely face Completely be open to, in whatever realm you're in, the First Noble Truth. Yes. When they're doing this practice right here? Yes. When they attain this state, they're not so miserable, no, because there's nothing to be miserable. You're just a membrane. Hardly even a membrane. There's just openness. It's just coming in, you know. There's no water going, ooh. If you go like that, you're getting in the way. You just sort of. Now, coping, then the coping with the pain, as you crucified there, coping with it, completely with not obstructing it at all.

[15:23]

Nothing is that can obstruct you now, plus you're not obstructing. Just coping with what comes up in that open state without sort of getting out of the way or trying to make it better or anything, that is knowledge. If you just cope with what happens in that state, that's knowledge. Or just dealing with what happens as it happens, just dealing with it is the knowledge. So one is the openness and the other is just handling it. So all you have to do is just be open to the first noble truth, And then as you experience what happens then, that will be, that's what knowledge is. In other words, knowledge is a, it's kind of like a, you know, it's a thing you do. It's a way you act, under the circumstances of not holding things away. So, that's Duga Dharma Jnana, Duga Dharma Jnana Tanti and Duga Dharma Jnana. And that first happens in the Kamadatu. Then, the next, then you do it, then you do it again.

[16:23]

Basically, you do the same thing. You do another Dukha Dharma Jnana, Kshanti, and another Dukha Dharma Jnana for the Rupa Dattu and our Rupa Dattu. In other words, you should be able to do it in other realms, too. So that's four. Then you go on to Samudhyaya, the accumulation or cause of truth, and you do Samudhyaya, dharma jnana kshanti and samudhyadharma jnana. Then you, next phase is you're completely open to the fact that these pains and this frustration is due to a cause. Cause is what? What's the cause? Craving, clinging, clinging to a self, expecting something, just completely being open to the cause and then coping with what things are like, dealing with what happens when you're open to it like that, that's the jnana and so on, then to extinction and then to the path.

[17:42]

Okay, so in that situation, because of the sort of irreversible nature of that openness, sort of once you see You don't, you can't not, you can't be stopped. Okay? So now back to, unless you have some questions, back to, yes? Where is it discussed? It's discussed in Chapter 6 of the Abhidharma Potion. And it's discussed, you know, in most books they talk about the path, the Abhidharma path, with it. But, you know, they may or may not, you know, they may say unobstructed path, or they may say the way, unhindered way, or they may or may not use the Sanskrit word. Yes? What? No.

[18:43]

I didn't bring up the last, let's see. 18, 18 plus 16, right? Isn't it? the 16 I talked about being the other way to look at the the other way to look at the path of insight namely each noble truth under four aspects so 16 plus 18 is 34 the other way to look at So this is the noble truth looked at from the point of view of openness and then coping. Or patience and knowledges. And you do that in four sets of four. You do that in nine phases. Nine phases of each.

[19:45]

Then the other way to look at them is each... truth you look at from four aspects. Like the truth of pain you look at as impermanence, pain, emptiness, and not self. And then, so those sixteen ways of dealing with the Four Noble Truths, plus these nine ways, eighteen ways, nine plus nine ways, add those together you get thirty-four. There's 34, there's not 39. That's a movie. 39 steps. This is 34 steps. 39 steps, different thing. Okey-doke, well, here we are back at Karaka 47 AB.

[20:48]

Today is the 28th, so last week it was the 20th, right? What? 21st. 21st. Okay. The last time we talked about the... We talked a little bit about death again, and we talked about the arising, maintenance, decay, and falling darkness. And I thought just... The last paragraph in that section is sort of interesting. The basic discussion there, it's a long and somewhat complicated discussion under those karakas about the aspects of all dharmas, important characteristics of all conditioned things, and the Platrantikas basically say that these characteristics aren't really things in themselves.

[22:23]

The Vaibhashikas say that they are. And in the end, the Vaibhashikas still say that the four characteristics of arising and so on are things in themselves. They are dravya. Why? Should we abandon the agamas for a reason that there are persons who object to it? Does one renounce sowing for fear of gazelles? One does not renounce eating dainties because of flies. One must recute the objectives and adhere to the doctrine. So that's Vasa Bandar. He's making fun of his old friends. But it's true, you know. Go right ahead and present your doctor. It doesn't matter if somebody cuts it to shreds. Just put it out there.

[23:26]

Okay, then the next thing we're going to discuss is these three dharmas which relate to the stuff about words, phrases, or sentences, and phonemes. This whole section is not very long, actually. So maybe we could just read it. Could someone read for a while? What is Namakaya, Padakaya, and Nyanjanakaya? By namam, name or words, one should understand that which causes ideas to arise, samyakarana, for example, the words warm, sound, odor, et cetera.

[24:44]

By pada, phrase, one should understand vapya, or discourse, a phrase allowing the development necessary for the sense to be complete. For example, the stanza, and the rest, or rather by pada, one should understand that which causes one to comprehend. The diverse modalities of activity, of quality, of time which concerns a certain person. For example, he cooks, he reads, he goes. It is black, yellow, red. He cooks, he will cook, he cooks. One should understand aksara, phoneme, varna, vowel, and consonant.

[25:45]

For example, a, a, e, a, e, et cetera. But are not the aksaras the names of the letters? One does not make, one does not pronounce the phoneme with a due to designating, of giving an idea of the letters, but one makes, one writes the letters with a due to giving an idea of the phonemes, so that when one does not understand them, one has yet an idea of it through the writing. Consequently, the phonemes are not the names of the letters. Kaya, body, that is to say, collection. Samukti, in effect, has the sense of samavaya, according to the Datupatta. Hence, one has namakaya equals color, sound, odor, etc. Padakaya, the samskaras are impermanence, the dharmas are impersonal, nirvana is tranquil, etc.

[26:49]

Yanyana, kaya, ka, ka, ga. Okay, any questions? Okay, so the namakaya is a samyakarana. Samyakarana, notion or idea, karana, the cause. It's a thing that causes ideas. So they mean that word is a thing that causes ideas. And the pada, the phrase, is a discourse, a phrase allowing the development necessary for the sense to be complete, or also that which causes one to comprehend diverse modalities and activities, qualities.

[27:55]

And the Vanjana is the, these phonemes, they are not names of letters. The names of letters are what? The named letters are caused by this thing called naman, naman kaya. See how they work? So the word causes the notion of the name of a sound. So then the objection of the Sattrantika, so we can do this little debate here.

[29:08]

Someone else read? Find out the words, phrases, and volumes, nama, pataf, yangjana, voice, rock, in your nature, and consequently sound shall be. As they form part of the Rukka Skanda, they are not samskaras associated in the mind as the Savastavada's teeth. The Savastavada, they are not voice. The voice is vocal sound, Gosha, and the vocal sound only, Gosha Mata. A cry, for example, does not cause want to attain to comprehend the object. But the word Nauman, which moreover is the functioning of the vocal sound, In the words, causes one to attain or signifies the object.

[30:15]

That which I call voice is not really a vocal sound, but the vocal sound that causes one to attain the object. That is to say, the vocal sound with regard to which persons who are speaking are in agreement as to what a certain thing signifies. It is thus that the ancients have invested the sound goal with the power of signifying nine things. The sages have established the sound goal in nine things. Cardinal region, cattle, land, beam of light, word, diamond, eye, heaven, and water. The philosopher, for whom it is the word, nonon, which illuminates the object, should admit that the sound, go, that's been endowed by convention with these different means.

[31:20]

Then, if such an object is signified to the hearer by such a word, it is indeed vocal sound, go-ship. nothing else that signifies it. What advantage is there in supposing the entity that you turn to the word? The Sotranticist continues. The word is either produced by the voice or manifest. by the voice. In the first hypothesis, the voice being vocal sound by nature, any vocal sound whatever, even the cry of an animal would produce a word. If you answer that a word is produced solely to a vocal sound in a certain nature, the articulating sound, why not mock up, we would say that this sort

[32:30]

and a vocal sound, which is capable of producing the word, would be quite capable of designating an object. In a second hypothesis, the same criticism follows by replacing the verb produce with the verb manifest. But it is absurd to suppose that the voice produces the word. In effect, sounds do not exist at the same time. One has, for example, R-U-P-A, in the word that you define as a diamond, an entity cannot arise in parts. How can the voice, when it produces the word, produce it? You say that the case is analogous to that of the . The last moment of the . By reason of the previous moments, creates the .

[33:31]

But we would say, if the last minute in the sound of the voice creates the word, it would suffice to understand the last sound in order to a T in order to copy . It is not an avoidance to suppose that the voice generates . that the phoneme generates the word, and the word makes the pen understood. If, in fact, the same object presents itself, the phonemes do not exist simultaneously. For the same reasons, it is absurd to support the voice manifest the word pen. Sounds do not exist simultaneously, and the Dharma which is one entity as it were, cannot be manifest in parts of the rest. The hypothesis that the voice generates the bullying, the hypothesis that we have previously tolerated, calls for no remark.

[34:46]

The experts apply their minds in vain to discover a bullying distinct voice. Besides, The voice neither generates nor manifests the phoneme for the same reasons that the voice neither generates nor manifests the words. The voice having sound as its nature, its total sound will either generate or manifest the phoneme. It can reply that the phoneme is only generated or manifested by a sound of a certain nature as the book. But the Sarvasabans may suppose that As with the word bird, the word is born with his object, sahaja. The question to know whether it is produced or manifested through the voice disappears. This hypothesis, there is no actual word which designates the thing in the past or in the future. Besides, the father, mother, or the other persons arbitrarily choose the word which is the name

[35:52]

the sun, and so on. How can you admit a word as the bird arises simultaneously with the object? Finally, the unconditioned will not have a name because they are not formed, a deduction which the Sebastian authors cannot admit. But the Sebastian values are warranted by a text. Kavagavat said, the standard depends on words. The satan is answered with the word naman. It's a sound, shout-a, on which men come to a breathing that is sick by a certain thing. The stanza, gatha, or phrase, bhagya, pada, is an arrangement, rachana, of words. It is in this sense that, according to the bhagava, it depends, sang-mi-sang-u, sang-mi-shrita, on words. To admit an entity in itself is a superfluous hypothesis.

[36:57]

You might as well maintain that there exists distinct from ands and minds, things in themselves termed a row of ends, successions and lines. Recognize then that only the phonemes, aksharas, which are sounds, exist in themselves. but it has some scars associated in the mind. . What they say, all the darkness are not at the gate of understanding. One asks. One. OK. Thank you. OK, so shall we get with me? Yes, good thing to do. I find it difficult to tell when the sub-tronicists are lost about to speak to you.

[38:14]

I mean, it is sub-tronicists. What do I already have? Do you have any problem with this? [...] I wonder about feed. Well, let's see. Who would suppose it is absurd that the moist produces the word? Now, everybody think that's absurd, though.

[39:19]

No, the satanicists think that words are shabta. Words are shabta. But also, all this stuff is shabta. Yet they think there's nothing but shabta. Right. But here, even though there's nothing but shabta, it would be absurd to say that voice produces the word. Because the sounds come out one end and the other. Right. Voice produces. Ru-pup-pup. Ru-pup-pup-pup. Right? That's what voice produces. So both satran-tika, everybody, this is not satran-tika. This is absurd to explore the voice-producing word, OK? Nobody thinks that, does it? Is that clear? That's neither satran-tika nor vipassika, because this is only. Both of them would agree. All right? Anybody not understand that? Anybody understand that?

[40:28]

What did the Aibashaka say worried? Aibashaka say worried. causes an idea, right? Word causes an idea, a notion, or a concept, or something. So a word is, like, blue because of words, right? OK. Anybody have problem with that? Blue is a word? Blue, as when we mean the word blue, we mean that which causes concept. That's what said. Now, the Satyantikists say, the word is just shabda. The only dharma that it is is shabda. It's sound. The only dharma that it is. Nothing but that. But it would be absurd to say the voice makes the word blue.

[41:47]

Satyantikists would say, The voice didn't make the word just then. . So in one case, you say blue, and you make that sound, but that sound You have to have something else to cause people to give rise to the idea, which is the word blue. And what if the five people saw Chante could say that is absurd, how would they explain what's the difference between the sound and blue? What's the difference?

[42:48]

They're both. Blue and are both sounds, or a set of sounds. But words seem to appear. Why are words appearing, according to Satranika? All the stuff I'm doing is just sound. The only diamonds that are happening here, where are the words coming from? What? Where is the somnia coming from? Convention for agreement. Convention for agreement. So the word is actually sound plus karma. Sound plus karma makes a word, according to the Satchantika. The Vashikas don't actually disagree with that.

[43:49]

I guess they want to prove each other wrong. Well, the Vabashikov don't want to prove each other wrong. What do the Vabashikov want to prove? They want to prove their right. They want to prove their system makes sense. But they also see that something comes together so that people give rise to a notion. All right? And the coming together is sound and counteraction among people. They would agree. But then once that sound and that counteraction will come together, they say that, they can get that complex nickname. The one objection of the biologics, which Dr. is that there's some difference to us in that Vaibhashika said that sound is atomic, and it can only express what it comes in contact with.

[45:06]

And there are certain things which are expressed by words which cannot be contacted by a material object. Sound cannot contact. the unconditional darkness or anything that's really destroyed. And so for that reason, it can't be. Words have to be in something more than just . Anything. That seemed to me the only real disagreement. Meanwhile, we need to delve into that point more deeply. So then the next step, again, will be to take words, put words into certain patterns.

[46:08]

And those, again, when acted upon by karma, will produce, conventionally speaking, certain agreement, come out of that, certain meaning come out of that. But again, the Vipassakasite, that's a thing in itself. And that thing in itself is, it's a Viparita Samskara. And again, the sounds, they say are viparita samskaras also. I mean, not the big ponies. They also say are viparita samskaras. And maybe that's why they say the sounds are viparita samskaras, by what John had just brought up.

[47:19]

Yeah, because it's more than just a group. Okay. Yes? Why are the syllables not just sound? When they say about cry. That's what we just brought up, that syllables can't be just sound because they can't be just rupa. There's a certain thing which rupa can't reach. It doesn't have meaning. The syllables don't necessarily have meaning. But both parties would agree that if the syllables, if they were rupa, they would have these atomic qualities. And they don't? I'm sorry that I can make that word really hard.

[48:25]

Play that one more, again. Anything that belongs to Rupa is composed of atoms. That's what I have. And the . So atoms are material entities, and they I can't remember the exact expression, but I think he said they can only bring to light what they come in direct contact with. So the atom has to physically strike something in order to, the sound atom has to physically strike

[49:32]

an object in order to express themselves. And there are certain things that we know we can talk about with words, which we also know an atom cannot strike. For example, the expedition dharmas cannot be struck by an atom. And something which exists only in the past cannot be struck by that. But we can talk about those and use words to refer to those. So there must be more than the word than just atomic sounds. And this may not be clear to you, what they're talking about. But this is an example of, once again, is what he's talking about there. say something or you talk about something you are putting your ideas through your voice your thought is not ramifying itself expressing itself secondarily or again reenacting itself again it's already thought

[51:03]

And now, again, it's spoken. Now, we can talk about many things. We can talk about philosophy, and we can talk about nirvana. When we talk about nirvana, theoretically, there is a a voice, there's a voice thing out there, of nirvana, and it leaves, it leaves something, it can leave a thing called alinyakta. We can do it. We can also talk about anything else. Anything we have an idea of, we can talk about. See, the idea, the notion, the word produces the notion. And the notion can leave a trace, a physical trace in the system.

[52:08]

A physical trace, which the word itself was physical, and the trace is physical. And it could be contact between them. They're similar qualities. The lineopathy is the expression, or vocal. and creates this abhigna. But nirvana, you can see that the idea of nirvana has nothing to do with nirvana. So there's really no contact there. And this is a point of experience. So this discussion is talking, it's getting into a discussion, this discussion of the nature of these three dharma.

[53:18]

It gets into the nature of Volta karma. And what does it mean? But again, I have to suggest it to you that you saw trying to take a position that rupa was a certain kind of thinking. or a kind of thinking that expressing itself through rupa, through the voice. And in addition, inter-conventional agreement or interaction between various people's terms and sounds. So the thinking, the thinking, People are thinking and producing all these sounds. By some process, they meet a point of agreement. They say .

[54:21]

And then they go . And then they arrive that there's a sound they make when they make these sounds. And so by this kind of sound, by this kind of thinking, producing . See, I can think those high and low notes before I have some word associated. I know the different tones. I can tell the difference between pop and pull. I can hear that. And I can do it again. Pull, pull, pull, pull. You could think a sound out without any training. And you can learn to repeat the sound any time you want to. What do you want to make a sound? Just tell me the sound. I'll make it. Or even if you don't tell me, I can just think about saying it myself. And we can do that together.

[55:31]

We can talk back and forth. She's dead. So we do this sound back, of course. We shake our head, and we make the other sound, and then we say, pooh. So then we say, pooh, and people think of this. Where did this, and then you say, well, the word is, when you say pooh, this comes up in your mind. Or I say, pooh, and all of a sudden you see a color like that. I say, blue, gray. But you could also, you know, that's, obviously, you have to put a circle together. So if the series of sounds, we can make a long series. We'll go, pop, [...] pop

[56:41]

that the world has this kind of fact in blackboards. And then blackboards have chalk on them. It is a result of what we call a group karma, atipati pratyaya. We all gather together and make blackboards. And atipati pala is the physical world we make. The general group effort makes billboards and makes a white W on a green field. And group is such that some people know this W one way and other people know it another way. Some people have participated in a certain section of the karmic universe, such that they think of something when they see that, and other people won't.

[57:59]

Depending on their karmic participation in the creation of a black public green field with a white letter, that's a visual thing. But I say woman. So trying to say that there's just these sights and sounds, and then through various karmic conjunctions, meanings come out for the word, produces an idea. Not produces an idea, but we say it produces an idea. You produce an idea, and you see it. So in that sense, once again, you could say that in a way, you come back to sound like you're saying the same thing you're saying.

[59:11]

Because once I say blue now, although you see it, it's sound plus karma, in a sense. It does produce. It's part of the figure to produce it. It is part of the cause of the idea. So sound plus thinking produces a concept. And that sound plus thinking is word. And the Patranticists say, that is just rupa. But actually, they're not really telling the whole story, are they? Because the word is not just rupa. The word is rupa plus karma. And the Bhagavad Gita said, actually, what they're saying they're not telling us is that word plus karma, that complex is word.

[60:18]

Sound plus karma is what they mean by word. But they call sound plus thinking, or sound plus karma, they call that a thing in itself, a dharma in itself. So the sattranticists say, hey, wait a minute. That isn't a dharma in itself. You're talking about something that happened. But you're summarizing it in such a way that we won't let you call it the thinking itself. So we would say that actually it's sound. It's not a viprayukta samskara dharma in itself. It's actually rupa plus convention, plus human activity reaching a conventional conclusion or conclusion of convention. It's sound interacting with karma.

[61:28]

Consensical. Consensual. There you go, Papa. Search it in the right way. Doesn't that work that way? Buddhist teaching is what Buddha said in his words. But Buddhist teaching does exist in the same realm. However, as I've seen before, Buddhist teaching and Buddhist path will exist in the same realm.

[62:34]

It does not partake of a different set of stuff. It exists in the midst of 72 leaking diamonds. But it itself is a particular constellation among these leaking, upflowing, defiled It states the Satrava Dharma. It's a particular constellation among them that doesn't itself leak. It's made up of all the stuff that makes karma, and yet it's free of karma. But there's no karmic sign. And karma is thinking, so there's no way you can think of the difference between the Buddhist path. There's no way you can think of the difference between the Buddhist way of being among these 72 dharmas and any whole other way of being among these 72 dharmas you can say what you want but that's it will never be the real mark of Buddhism because if it's marked by any of those characteristics it would depend on that it would again be stuck in a mode of thought and therefore it would be another form of karma thinking another form of karma capture

[63:53]

I say karmic thinking, but I mean just by thinking. So yes, all Buddhist dharma is just skill in me. Buddha is willing to bring the teaching into the realm of the interior dharmas. The dharma is willing for the dharma to descend or express itself or ascend. Actually, the dharma ascend is an improvement in dharma. brings itself up from the pit of unobstructed, unexpressed freedom. It brings itself up from that pit into the lofty realm of confusion. And it's expressed there. It comes out of the hopeless, useless space that it naturally abides in, that it abides in naturally. That's its nature.

[64:56]

And then it comes into this realm of dharmas with polarities, dualistic dharmas. It rises and expresses itself there, too. And then everybody says, wow, isn't that great? But it comes from some place where nobody is saying great or ain't. But what? No big deal. But when it comes into this realm, then people get excited or depressed. So just see what it means. He uses stuff to express it because people are bound in that realm. So let's bring the dharma in there and see what it says. It says quite a bit. But it's just karma. At that point, it's just karma because it's in the realm of made things. It's in the realm of thinking. But how it is that this way of expressing is freedom from karma. There's no way to think of it.

[65:57]

Because that's the very point, is that it's not bound by thinking. That's why it gets you out of it. And yet it's not. It exists nowhere else besides that in any way. Now, Dr. Jani's article also points out that this way of talking of the Vaibhashika shows the influence of some contemporary non-Buddhist philosophies. Particularly, it shows the influence of this so-called And they have a teaching on eternal words and .

[67:04]

If you read the article, you can see that there. And at this point, I'd just like to mention that, once again, we have here now simple Buddhist teaching of sound, more simple teaching of sound plus karma. And then they are hanging out with other people who have words, which include that calling complex. So they start using those words to describe the complex. Well, it seems like both schools use the voices that are just hearing sound. So the meaning comes with it.

[68:07]

Yeah. The sound includes things like pitch, fire, voice, and rhythm. The kind of meaning that comes with it. The sound is spoken like that. Meaning in the notes. Is that included? Yeah, right. That would be part of what it meant by word. In other words, we can agree. We [...] can agree. to agree on . But that difference is something we have to agree on before it has to be meaningful. So karma, thinking, can express itself in a wide range of sounds.

[69:14]

But the thinking, the consciousness, first of all, at some point you choose to be born. You choose human body, maybe partly because you have some idea. Maybe you know that they can make sounds. See, consciousness cannot necessarily make any sounds. Does that make sense? Practicing the self doesn't necessarily make any sound until incarnate. So one of the advantages of incarnating is you can not only hear things, there's not only relationship to the field of sound, but you can now make your own sound. You can make your own shapes.

[70:15]

So you choose maybe human birth, because maybe you hear your mother's whisper, speak nothing to your father. Say, well, I'd like to do that. I've got a good idea that I'd like to be able to speak English. They're very developed. The system they have, they're getting ideas out there. I mean, it's almost as though you couldn't even think of ideas until you had the language. The language even helps me think. So I think I'll be. English-speaking human. So I could choose English-speaking . When you learn, you can speak English, and you have all the neat way of talking. Then you can get the ideas back there. Then you can sort of make ideas.

[71:17]

But even so, unless you're a bodhisattva, When you're born, you sort of forget what you chose to be born. So you have to kind of learn the whole thing. Or even if you remember, you still sort of know. It's another thing to sort of learn how to do it. It looked neat, but now you have to sort of know that you're in this body. So being inside is different. So you have to see what kind of things come up, and you try to make something up. So little by little, you make sounds. If there's nobody else around, you wouldn't necessarily know if the one you're making has meaning. So you start making sounds, and you learn that having a pause or not makes a difference. In rhythm and perfection, all that, it all makes a difference. Some languages go up and down, like Chinese.

[72:22]

And some languages go left, like Japanese. but they have a lot of rhythm between them. Sound and cognitive aren't separated. Vocal sound is not separated from cognitive. Vocal sound is cognitive. But if somebody makes a sound and you don't, there isn't something reading it anymore. It's the person just, and it's all the stuff. And you hear it. It has no meaning. It doesn't give rise to a particular idea. It doesn't give rise to a particular idea. It doesn't give rise to a particular idea. But it's certainly not. It doesn't give rise to a particular idea. But it's not.

[73:23]

I'm doing it. And I do it. There I go. See, here I am. We all love the same way. But if I say certain other things and do certain other things, it might be that a lot of you can work with something fairly suitable. What? What? You don't understand what I'm saying? Yeah. Well, I'm just saying it. This is calm. This is calm. That's calm. It doesn't matter whether you understand it there. For example, what you're saying is that if I write woman on the board and you don't speak English, that doesn't calm.

[74:26]

But if you do speak English, it is karma. No, my karma is not entirely determined by what you speak English about. Otherwise, I have to get rid of all the people who speak English. You've made no karma. Sorry. You can just say that math words. There's this sound. You have to think before you make it. You can't make it without thinking.

[75:27]

You're supposed to hear it. The ear is not making karma. It's the one making the sound making karma. I'm the way now I'm making karma. You're hearing it. It's not karmic. Karma comes in these three varieties. Think of internal mental thinking, which is the primary kind, and then vocal and physical. And this is a whole bunch of different kinds. This is a lot of kinds. This is my thinking expressing itself through this body that I incarnated. And then this talking that I'm doing is my thinking incarnated through this body that I chose.

[76:28]

But behind all this, before all this, is thinking. And when I first start to talk, as a baby, I don't know exactly what's going to come out when I try it. But I learn various sounds. And little by little, I start copying the sound around me, too. Partly because I learn there's more fun if I make the sound. Not more fun, but anyway. There's a certain kind of fun of just making sounds, you know. It's fun to make sounds. Go in. That's a kitchen. They just make sound. There's another kind of sound that's fun because it gets, you know, other people will join into it. And also, you can get into rust and that kind of sound. So if you make certain kind of sounds, people will do the same thing or similar things. But you say, you're ugly.

[77:32]

People will often go, ooh. I hate you. So you can get a kind of habit going. You can make certain kinds of sounds. And you know what kind of sounds are the kind of sounds that your mother makes, and your father makes, and your father makes. So you start to channelize, start to make yourself narrow in your sound range, so you sound upward, because you like, particularly, to make sounds to the people of your country. You like to talk to our own country. So we start narrowing down to our own country. And as we start narrowing down our own time, sure enough, we find out that as our sound patterns become more and more narrow, after a while, we can start making the same sounds that they make. And then we'll start to learn with this agreement on what they need and all that. This will add more and more dimension to our camera and get us more and more tied up. And pretty soon, we won't be able to make any other sounds like we used to be, because we don't have time.

[78:32]

We're too busy talking with people of our own time to get what we need. So we have no time just doing random nonsense syllables. That's part of comment, too. But originally, just going and then bringing the thought, ramifying it, moving it into the body, moving the body to make that sound. And the thought is non-verbal. Because first of all, the thing about the thought becoming verbal is if you see how they go like this, it looks like you make sounds. Pretty soon at some point, you go, Mom, do you have a word back there before you say it? When does the word get inside as a word?

[79:34]

Watch that point very carefully. That's what we're talking about right in there. But the baby says mommy before it has an idea of mommy, before it knows the disagreement. But little by little after, it says mommy by, because people are saying mommy all the way. But first it says, what, what, what? I mean, right? I get that one, that's the first one you said. So that's one of this, one of the, most of the ladies, the first sound of the first, what they name is, Ma, and women often being there first. Ba, ba, or da. This one's this, and you're all going to go up in the, ah, Ma. And they have to make it a little bit slightly less relaxed when they make da or ba.

[80:36]

But ba is second. So the daddy is the second most common one. And the da is a subject more difficult or less difficult than na. The grandma often gets the na-na. Na-nu, na-na-na. So the hierarchy that was present there gets the sealant of the luggage coming. Yes. It seems like a thousand babies at some point got meaning where they have said what. Oh, yes. You mean like when they go, and they cry?

[81:37]

Even when it's a sound, at some point, they say, . Oh, yeah. Babies were like, . They called her pacifier, and she said, . She named her pacifier, and at Hastings, child care center after a while. That's what the other kids call. Some of the kids call a pinky. They know they've come after a pinky before. But I guess they didn't, they hadn't heard that one, and it sort of caught on. They probably heard some of the generations, and they get bored with the same old word. The pig called an ee, and that was her thing, you know, not ours. Little turd, and she said ee. So we'd say no to half the fire. We gave this thing. When she said, she meant that. So she named it, and we went wrong. Because in this case, we didn't have the agreement.

[82:40]

And it wasn't the agreement. And she got to make it right like that. So she made it. However, so that was a lawyer. the question of how far you think, and they all have limits. The word woman here has a limit. So I would be a word that she made up, but she, it didn't, it didn't, for her it had meaning before, but it wasn't a word. Her, it's the sound of what, the thing. We're saying it has, we're calling it a word, when we, you know, when she says it, it drives the idea. See, she has the idea, she has the idea, pacifier. So she has this idea in her mind, pacifier. And she says, eat. But can she say, eat, eat, and give rise to the pacifier in my mind? But by some kind of process, she had to teach me how to do something to make up that thing.

[83:48]

And before she said, eat, she would think, she thought, before she went to teach. And then she called again before she said, eat, eat. And she learned that sound. And then at some point, she put that sound, which she learned how to make with the pacifier. And she said, yeah, I like that sort of . I like it. So there it was. And then the next step was . She told me, eat, eat, eat, pacifier. And I've taught several other people. That's the thing with the past. The figure that they say, this one, you know, they want to eat this, then eat. The body is like spreading. Oh, world. The idea comes first, actually, before the words. This is something that's puzzled me when I read this, when they said that the word gets rise to the idea. It doesn't make sense, because it has an idea of course mental safety. Well, that's another word. Well, I'm going to try to talk about it.

[84:49]

But that definition is not the word as perceived by the hearing. Right, right. So I was about to say, I didn't finish, that this discussion here is an example of, in a sense, the discussion It kind of assumes you know a little bit about what the out-and-down means by karma. Because they're using terms like . But anyway, that's what it means by karma. Karma is you can do it. You can do it. You do do it before you make any sound you make. Before you do it, you think. You asked me when vocabulary available, sometimes there is understanding meaning to a person to read that pronouncing word, to read it without thinking.

[85:51]

Well, it doesn't always have to be a verbal or sound communication. No, we're talking about this particular kind of communication. I'm not saying the only kind. There's also physical gestures, too. There's certain gestures which will All of the world people agree that what they need. Wherever you go, you do this. People understand. And then you'll understand different things depending on what they learn. This has some meaning right away. Yes? What does sound like a word? Why don't you tell us what the word difference you mean between and .

[87:01]

Well, is a word that we agree on. We agree on it? Right. So what's the difference between just coming into the Buddha Hall and going and some . What are you bringing up? What do you mean, green up? But it's not a word. Well, I'm not quite understanding you. The reasons why I don't understand are Any word doesn't have meaning outside of some context. It always has meaning.

[88:07]

A sound, through some activity, through some karmic context, gives rise to then some concept. Now, Dharani mantrams for most people, even those who chant them regularly, do not give rise to a concept. So I don't know why. So in that case, I think that you would think that Durrani would be a lot like just whatever sound you might make. So I don't see that. OK. So the issue now is we make some sound. like ,, and ,, and ,, which we have some agreement on. We've worked up through our common agreement on certain sounds. It needs to actually be translated into English. And also, you learn what the Sanskrit was.

[89:11]

Translate the Sanskrit or the Japanese all into English. They can see it, actually, because you didn't even know the language that it brought. But there's some sounds, which you might say, our mantrams, which are just sound. Now, even a lot of those, actually, if you knew more, you'd find out that they originally meant something. Like swaha, difficult to translate now, but it means something like greater. Almost all the words will go back to meaning something. And even if they don't, like bala-wala, it means baby talk. It's kind of like the Dharma Dattu first tries to talk. It doesn't necessarily know what people are going to understand when it's like to express itself.

[90:12]

It sounds like baby talk. Just trying not to lose it. But that means something too. So the mantra, the mantra is inseparable from who is chanting it and their attitude. And the attitude that one takes towards a mantra of being willing to chant it in a certain way without having any meaning in its kind of systematic way kind of meaning, or meaning that you always know what meaning is going to come up, or chanting something because you always know it's going to make you feel a certain way, or it's always going to give rise to a certain understanding, that attitude is not mantra of attitude. That's not the attitude that the mantra is trying to allow you to have. Mantra is trying to allow you to have a kind of meaning that's unbounded, that's not constrained by your gaining ideas. So the fact that it's not understood in a foreign language may contribute to that, because your willingness to chant it in a foreign language makes it into a mantra.

[91:15]

But the heart citrus call a mantra even when it's chanted in Sanskrit by people who understand Sanskrit, or even when it's in Chinese but understand Chinese. Namely, it's a mantra because it's actually inconceivable. Even if you understand the words, now that it's in English, it's still inconceivable. You still can't understand it. That's why it's a mantra. And your willingness to keep chanting and making those sounds, even though you can't grasp it, makes it into a mantra. So if you thought you understood the Heart City trick, it wouldn't be a mantra for you. If you ever grasped it, it wouldn't be a mantra. So you, you're willing to chant the highest, most exalted scripture in the history of the world and not understand it. Therefore, it's a great, underpassable, supreme mantra for you. But you would also be willing to chant baby talk.

[92:17]

But you'd like the heart to better me because the heart to have all this wonderful totally inconceivable stuff because they talk, you might understand eventually. You might say, I don't like ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba- you will have to chant it with that sense of chanting nonsense. But not, you can't get anything out of this as though you're chanting nonsense. So mantra is not in the thing itself. Because you could understand the Heart Citra and that it wouldn't be a mantra. And you can understand baby talk and then it's not a mantra anymore. Or you can say, understanding baby talk, the way multiple understand baby talk is, that's baby talk.

[93:21]

And you'll write it off. They don't listen to the daily talk. If you listen to the daily talk as though it were the heart signature, it becomes a monster. So you see, it has to do, and Dharani has to do with the posture and the intention of listening. And so most of the time when you chant Dharani, you start to do it, because you know you're not going to do it. But if you can chant it with your whole heart, in that situation, when you chant in your own words, you don't understand what you're not getting anything from, which is inconceivable in terms of what is going to be good for you or anybody else. And you can do that with your whole body and mind. And so the most interesting thing in the world to you, when you're really getting this meaning from your own. But structurally speaking, what's the difference between Google and Google

[94:21]

and something in Japanese. Not so much. Maybe it's a little bit freer. Maybe it's freer than basic talk, but I'm not necessarily. Maybe it is. Anyway, it's getting a little late. Yeah, if you want to, let me know. Let's continue talking about this language. I have one small thing to tell you, which maybe I'll send you a note if you have to read. But I'd like you to make some charts. The next question is, to which sphere of existence do the phoneme, the words, and phrases belong? Do they belong to a living being? Are they attribution or accumulation? Are they good, bad, or neutral? OK? I'd like you to make four charts. Answer these questions for each. That would be a good way to review the beauty.

[95:29]

That'd be four charts with 14 with 13 parts. Under mostly three categories, but there are two categories. I guess it's four, three charts with three, 13 by three charts, and one A 2 by 13 chart. And then after that, we'll jump up to . The category there right here. The next thing right at home, it says, one asks, to which sphere of existence be phonemes, the words, the phrases belong. And then you try to classify it in terms of that's the kind of karma they are.

[96:46]

The next category is, are they retribution? Are they, in other words, retribution? Well, I'll send you a note anyway. Retribution, even flowing, or accumulation. The next category is, are they ? Another category is, are they or not? . OK. But we'll send you a little note for the English sense of words. from those categories. And then next time, if you want to talk more about this language that we've been given there, otherwise, we'll go into the chapter 6 and 6.

[97:38]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_71.63