Any questions from last time? Any questions from last week? Someone give us, how far did we get to Shaitana? Checking out.

[01:11]

Something you check in. Carla? Will you say something about it? Thank you.

[02:13]

Can I have to explain, Vectors? What? What? Vectors. Vectors. Vectors. That's what she said. She said action. She said it was the origin of action. The army is action. But actually, it's not the origin of action.

[03:24]

It is action. It is karma, okay? Chaitana is a definition of karma. Chaitana and those things which follow after having been willed. That's karma. It's a basic definition. So this thing about vectors is that you have an impulse to go that way. For example, if you have an impulse to go this way, then the resolution of these two impulses is an impulse to back. If you have an impulse to go this way and an impulse to go that way, the resolution is too impulsive enough to do anything.

[04:31]

Yeah, they do the exact same thing. They're exactly equal. I had to measure before class. And They're going in exactly opposite directions. They're practically parallel. This doesn't very often happen. They might take a photograph of this. This is non-action. So actually, this is what Zazen did. For every impulse you have, you have equal and opposite impulse. Eight equal and opposite one, and you don't do anything. So for example. For every time you want to take a walk during zaseying, you have an equal opposite reaction to not take a walk. So you just wind up sitting still. And so on, you know. So that's why you cancel. That's called not doing anything.

[05:36]

But this is talking about in the mind. And, of course, you can have many, many, you know, so you can have... You know, sort of many mental dimensions, you could do it. And the resolution of a number of horses. If that was going there, that would detract from this direction. It would detract from the part that's going that way. Because of that, we're doing all ideas. And so on. And if they're going in other directions, you can map them down. and other spaces. And finally, you get the illusion of all these is something called F equals something such. That's the resolution of all these different energies. And that would be the kind of the mind.

[06:37]

That aspect of all the different kinds of impulses, how they work with each other. That would be a mental problem. And then when the body and voice come into play with that vector. And that's physical. So it's kind of a, Chaitana is like a watershed of mind or something like that. watershed of all the different types of mental functions of the moment. Yes? Yeah, citta speaks of the sort of all-inclusive aspect of it. The fact that the mind includes all its functions and embraces all its functions.

[07:45]

And citta not expresses the fact that your mind has a certain layer, confirmation or watershed, that if you pour water on top of the mind, it'll run a certain way in a given moment. You pour water on the mind another moment, it'll run another way. Although it may, you know, run down various little creeks, finally it sort of converges at the bottom of the hill into a stream. And that would be the basic configuration of action at that moment. They'd be including Shaitanya, but they wouldn't make any clear contribution. Like,

[08:48]

In this simple diagram, there would be things like, they're right here, you know. You can't exactly be sure which way they're going. They're functioning, but to say that they're going in some particular way, or another way is that because of the complexity of the situation, it seems like they would maybe say, well, it seems like they contribute to this one and this one. No way. or they contribute to this one, this one, and this one, and there's some conflict there. So the sum total of that particular factor's participation is not there. Actually, it also seems to me that the description of an action which is in the determinant also would be difficult to map on a thing like that because this is a static picture, and it could be that the kind of mission of a particular act Well, or the effect if you do get angry, it may be that it's neutral.

[10:05]

Because neutral states can allow follow through. Well, for example, neutral states, a real neutral state won't interfere with some other state. So it might look like it's a bad state, but if you take into account that what went before, you might see the digital allowing carried through. And it's not really initiating it. It's not initiating it. Not initiating would be neutral. That's not great. Well, non-initiating, true non-initiating, like it says, can we read in the last, can we just read about, oh no, it's in A class.

[11:15]

In chapter 4, it asks, are there, you know, it says, it makes the point, it's a little advanced view right now, but anyway, it makes the point, really good, bad, and neutral, they're not, they're really not good, bad, and neutral. Good and bad really aren't, good and bad and neutral is not really neutral. There's only one real, there's only some dharmas that are really neutral. And that's, nirvana. The other ones really aren't really neutral. But from the point of view of the result, dharmas are good and bad and neutral. Is that good? Maybe I shouldn't have brought that up, but I don't know. Yeah, I mean, what else do you like to represent your context? You see, you get a lot of what that dharmas doing. Oh, right. That's right. Take a dharma. A lot of dharmas will be good, bad, or neutral depending on what kind of mind they're in.

[12:20]

Like property is not good, bad, or neutral in itself. It can be good, bad, or neutral depending on the state of mind it's in. These ones we're reading about right now, these will be good, bad, or neutral depending on the state of mind they're in. They're not inherently good, bad, or neutral because they're in all minds. So the ten we're reading about right now, their common quality will be determined by their context. we have to keep track of whether we're talking about a dharma or a state of mind. Okay? These dharmas here go in all minds. Okay? So, of course, they can be good, bad, or neutral. The next group of dharmas, they do not depend on their context because they only appear in good, bad, and good minds. So this group, which I'll show you right now, will vary according to his context. The other one only has one context. The next group only has one context. But what I'm talking about, Shaitana, speaks of the whole state of mind, the whole consciousness.

[13:28]

And then talking about individual dharmas. Individual dharmas themselves, individual dharma, except for the ones who only have one context, those individual dharmas have no karmic qualities. So these dharmas do not have a kind of quality of good, bad, or neutral. These right here. They depend on circumstances. The next few, if they do, of themselves, they're good. They're not absolutely good, but they're good in themselves. So in Chapter 4, it talks about that dharmas can be good, bad, or neutral by various reasons. They can be good, bad, or neutral by absolutely. And the only ones that are absolutely good are nirvana. They can be good in themselves, or bad in themselves, like the Kushala Mahabhumakas are good in themselves, all by themselves. As soon as you see them, you know you've got something good, because they're always in a good mind, and they're not very bad.

[14:33]

They can be good or bad or neutral by association, like these 10 can be good, bad or neutral by association. And they can be good, bad, or neutral by origin. So the comparison is absolute. Absolute good is the comparison is lack of sickness. just no sickness. That's it. Good in itself is a good medicine. Salutary medicine is good in itself. These next ten are good in themselves. They're good medicine. The next group is good by association or bad by association. And that would be compared to a medicine, a water, which when mixed with good medicine is good.

[15:37]

And the next one is good by origin and that would be compared to milk from a cow that drank medicine mixed with water. Those are four different ways that something could be good, bad, or neutral. But actually, only certain ones are really good, and only certain ones are really bad, and only certain ones are really neutral. It turns out that the only really good are also the only really neutral. Only nirvana is really good, and only nirvana is really neutral. So you have the unfortunate part of getting chapter 4 at the same time you get chapter 2. Sorry. So we're talking about good, bad, and neutral now. We know a little bit about that, but really there isn't good, bad, and neutral.

[16:39]

Because good diamonds are really not good. And bad diamonds are really not bad. And neutral diamonds are really not neutral. Actually, they're all bad. They're all suffering. Or they're all good, whatever you want. Anyway, they're all involved in good and bad. They're all troublesome. But still, if you're involved with these good dharmas, you get good stuff, you know, from the worldly point of view. Get rich and healthy and stuff like that. If you do the bad dharmas, you get sick and poor and stuff like that. Popped in your head. You got that. Put in jail. Yes? Absolute good. In themselves, of themselves, association and origin. That's in Chapter 4. So, the structure of the Abhidham Rikoshi is, first they teach about these dharmas and they show them which, you learn well which category they go in, good, bad, neutral.

[17:49]

Then by the time you get to chapter four, you're tipped off to the fact that really, although these structures are given and these categories are given by which you see where these dharmas go, actually, they're not so, it's just a certain point of view, a point of view of result that they're good, bad, neutral. Okay? So, in the terms of result, some dharmas are very indeterminate. You can't, in some states of mind, Some diamonds, if you put them into a certain context, you can't see what their effect is. In some whole state of mind, you can't see what the vector is. So here, to make a simple diagram, if you have this situation, then the resolution of these are all equal and parallel. While you might have a lot of stuff going on, the resolution of it might be quite difficult to figure out. I can't really say what this person is doing.

[18:50]

They're alive. They're thinking to beat the band and carrying on their usual trips, but I can't really tell if they're bad. I can't tell if they're going to get in trouble for that or have some pleasant effect. That would be neutral point of view of result. But it means, neutral means indeterminate. You just can't tell. Whereas Buddhist practice and nirvana, it's not just that you can't tell, but there really isn't any result. Because it's not the person who has impulses for impulse that way, impulse that way, but rather, by understanding the nature of the impulses, there's really no impulse. They don't believe the whole thing. They're not fooled by it. So they see this complex event space that has these certain characteristics, but they see that these are illusory.

[19:54]

And by seeing it that way, they don't really function. So that's real neutral. And that's also absolute good. But the ten we're studying right now, they could be in a mind that's absolutely good. They could be in a good mind, in a bad mind, They can be in a good mind in the usual sense, a bad mind in the usual sense, a neutral mind in the usual sense, or a neutral mind in the absolute sense, or a good mind in the absolute sense. These can be in all minds. And cetana, from the point of view of karma, is the keynote of the whole group. Not just these ten, but all the dharmas that are present, all the mental functions. So by cetana we mean to refer to that aspect of mind which tells us the gives us the overall configuration and resolution of impulses, which are usually, and for most people that are involved in karma, the impulses are usually contradictory, conflict.

[21:04]

But they are resolved somehow. Somehow, although we want to stay here and read a book, and we want to take a nap and we want to go to Gaylord's and we want to watch TV and we want to take a bath and we want to go jogging and we want to turn the lights off and we want to brush our teeth and we want to punch somebody in the nose and so on and so forth and we want to somehow amidst all those desires and aversions and activities like thinking about this and talking about that we managed to decide somehow to do something we do something moment after moment, we're able to sort of make peace among all the various impulses and come up with something. And it's not, it's probably not any of the things we want to do. Because it's a little bit of each, you know. You go to Gaylord's, or you think about going to Gaylord's, but you really can't get totally into it because you also want to stay here. And so on. But somehow you do something. Whichever one is, you know, comes out of the bottom of the maze as resolution.

[22:13]

It may not even be the strongest one originally, You may want to go to Gaylord's slightly, and you may really, really want to stay in your room, but your room may be really, really hot so you go to Gaylord's, because you really want to get out of your room, too. So two strong, too much stronger things can cancel each other, and then the little one is the one that wins. That's the way it could happen. So the thing you do is not necessarily the thing you want, but... That's the way, I guess you may have noticed that. Like you like him and you like her, but they hate each other, and this person, neither one of them hate, so you go with this person. But it's much more peaceful that way, right? These other ones are quite strange.

[23:15]

Did the people go away in a bus or something? How many people went? Okay. So that's Chetana, very important one. Next one is Samya. And that's, we've already talked about this, and this is, This is, of course, extremely important. One, it gets to be a scandal by itself because perception is basically the world most people live in. It's the perceptual world. This is what most people call conscious. That which is perceived is what most people call conscious. So the realm, the sub-realm of mental events which is bounded by the receptive consciousness, the organ, the object, and the noting of the marks of the object.

[24:31]

This is the basic outlines of the perceptual world. In terms of what's actually happening, it's only a small part of it. But nonetheless, since moments happen very quickly, in a few seconds, you can build up a great mass of perceptual events with which you can construct a very complex universe in just, you know, a second or two. As you know, one music, two music, it can look all you've done. But that, from Buddhist point of view, is an extremely large number of pieces of data that you're taking in one by one through the perceptual group but meantime with that is also happening with each one of those perceptual moments is also happening lots of other things which are outside of perception but which are known and you know them by meditation or by psychoanalysis or whatever like when you in the perceptual word there you go

[25:47]

I was going to say perceptual world and say perceptual word. In the perceptual world, you heard the word word. But actually I was intending to say world. So something else is going on other than just simple intention and hearing what I perceived what I wanted to say. I tried to say it and I perceived something else. In that pattern, one could deduce that something else is going on. Some other vectors are coming in here. For some reason, I said word instead of world. So, in many ways, it's, as instance, it is maybe people, or Buddhists maybe people, who have had the opportunity to notice that something else is going on significantly enough that they are willing to turn around and look at it. A lot of people think that actually things are going quite, you know, quite according to perceptual plans.

[26:54]

The Buddhist belief or the Buddhist intention is that things are going along quite smoothly, but not necessarily from the point of view of the plan within the perceptual world. Within the plans of the perceptual world, if you think about what you're going to do and how things are happening within that world, it's pretty much a mess. I mean, actually it never works out. You cannot predict it. It never comes off. And within the bigger world, it doesn't either, but within the bigger world, you see why it doesn't come off. You see all the things that are, you know, this little thing in here, you know. All these other forces are going... But you're just looking here and you can't understand why this keeps getting bent out of shape, you know. What's this thing wiggling for? But you're just looking at a little... You know, like you're looking through an inner tube down in the ocean. Whales go by and stuff like that. Or even that, the whales run and go by.

[27:59]

These bump your inner tube. You keep getting different pictures. You can't find why. I was looking down at that piece of seaweed. Why am I now looking at a piece of coral? So, or another way to put it is that... Although this inner tube can be put around in everything in the ocean, you can see all parts of the ocean through this inner tube. At the same time, through this inner tube, you cannot understand why you're looking here now and looking there [...] now. This inner tube gets pushed around all over the ocean. You get all these different pictures. The reason why the inner tube is getting pushed all over the place is because of all these other forces, basically. It's getting pushed around by the resolution of all those forces. It's getting pushed around by Chaitanya, by karma. So karma is pushing the inner tube around. So if you're just looking through the inner tube, which is this world, basically, you can't understand. If you think that's all that's happening, you wouldn't be able to understand why you're getting shoved all over the place.

[29:02]

And actually, looking here is kind of what you do in this little circle, although it contributes, and it contributes out to the ocean, which then affects it. It's very small. However, it's all you've got, so do it in here. In here, do it. To start with, and later you can actually work outside of it. And actually, as you know in Zazen, a lot of stuff you're doing, you can't figure out what good it's going to be. It's hard to say, you can make excuses, but a lot of stuff you're doing, like sitting still, it's hard to a lot of times perceive why that would matter. what difference does it make, really, to most moments of perceptual consciousness, to most moments in the perceptual world. But still, perception is very important because basically it is the world that most people know. It's the point at which they start practicing, usually. It's that world they start practicing in, and it's that world that they have a self, mostly. However, you can have a self outside of it, too.

[30:08]

But it's, for most people's idea of self, it's very... longest feeling, it's extremely important to make a self. Because in the perceptual world, you can pull it off, you know. If you now, it's extremely important to make a self. Because in the perceptual world, you can pull it off, you know. If you now were able to turn your attention and live a life that gave more weight to what's outside the perceptual world, you can't perceive what's outside the perceptual world at a given moment. But if you live in such a way that you give some weight to that, that totality of your existence, in a sense you know it. That's how you know it. But you don't know it perceptually. So perception is where you know the mark of things. You know it's blue, it's green, so on and so forth. And you also can know, it also talks about knowing propositions like a woman or a man is not a dharma speaking,

[31:13]

but it's a proposition it's a class so you can these two kinds of things are in the realm of perception and throughout studying perception comes up again and again and again as you see so at this time I'd like to just go on because I know you'd like to talk about it more I have many questions but let's just talk about it every week. It's so important. It comes up again and again. Next one is Chanda. What's the translation on your Dharma chart for Chanda? Desire to do. And Chanda is important in good and bad actions it's a desire but you need it in order to start meditating you need it in order to somehow you need it in order to to do meditation you have to desire to do the meditation you have to desire to pay attention to the meditation object at some point anyway you must you must somehow be interested in it it's also called interest

[32:43]

It's closely related to faith when it's applied to the meditation object because it's interested in what's happening. But faith is more particular because faith is interested in what's happening whatever it is. Whereas chanda can be interested in doing bad things. Whereas faith isn't interested in doing bad things or doing good things. Faith is just interested in what's happening but not interested in doing something about it. Faith is just affirming and saying yes to what's happening. Chanda is saying, yeah, let's do that. So you... You need faith for meditation, but also you can use faith when you're not meditating.

[33:59]

Or as Chanda you need for meditation, but you also need Chanda for bad things, too. But you don't need faith for bad things. As a matter of fact, if you have faith when you do bad things, then there aren't bad things anymore. Because faith can't be with bad things, with akushala things. Because if you see bad things as they are, you no longer are doing them. Because if you see bad things as bad, you say, this is bad. And if you see it's bad, then you're not really being bad anymore. Because you see, the bad things, the bad things are that you have no self-respect. And to say that I have no self-respect and that's bad, you have self-respect. to pay no regard to care not at all about other people's concern and say that that's bad is to care about other people's concern.

[35:05]

So if you see the bad as bad and you admit it, that's wisdom and that's faith. So faith and wisdom are very closely related. In fact, according to the system that happened together. But chanda, although it sounds a lot like faith in the description, it's talking about doing something, that you're interested in doing something. And it can be used to create bad karma or good karma or neutral karma. You're even interested in neutral karma. It's always there, spoiler alert. OK. Yeah. You can desire to do Buddhist meditation.

[36:16]

And that would be it. Oh, yeah. You could be interested in apathy, right? Because you see they're saying here, although there's some debate about it, they're saying here that it's present in all minds. So in a sense, they would say that apathy has some interest in the person in doing that. But in fact, what they're interested in doing is a state that you can't really say, it looks like it's not common. It looks like the person's not doing anything. And in fact, in fact, for example, a catatonic schizophrenic in a state of catatonia is, although in one sense you can say they're really being hard on themselves, in another sense, it's not clear to say what they're doing. I mean, in some sense, they're not, at a given moment, they're not necessarily doing anything that bad or good.

[37:21]

It's hard to say. And you can say, no, if they keep doing that, if you keep doing that, eventually it'll lead to some bad results. They'll get very stiff or something. But then you could also say, well, on the other hand, they're not, right now they're not hurting anybody. It's debatable anyway. Some people would say, no, that's bad. Some people would say, I'm not sure. But a lot of people say that it's clear that they know exactly what they're doing. It's that they're really doing that. So they're doing it, but it's, clear what its result will be, it's not clear. Once again, we deal with individual moments, you know, and it's hard to say, in an individual moment of catatonia, what its result will be.

[38:24]

Many, many moments of it, you could say, well, the person is nice, become very sick or become very rigid as a result of many, many moments of this. But not just catatonics, although they do it, they don't do it so long and doesn't seem to have such a bad effect on them. So it's, in other words, we're just talking about judging by the result is the way you judge these common categories. Talking about worldly machinery. and what a certain type of action results in. Certain types of action result in situations which are rather supportive of worldly existence. It turns out that these actions can also be supportive of at least the initial practices of spiritual training. So, good comment.

[39:26]

is often a karma that will result in you being able to, for example, be able to sit in a meditation hall for a couple hours a day. People won't be screaming at you all the time. People won't be taking your clothes off your back, things like that. They'll allow you to sit. That's a point of view of karma, good karma that you can do that. But also you could, instead of using your time to meditate, you could watch TV or something and feed a piece or read a book or take a walk. And this would be a nice opportunity for a worldly existence, for a pleasant. So if you get to do those kind of things, those opportunities are connected with these certain actions called good in the worldly sense. Are you going to say something, maybe? Ideas about what you want to do, like, I want to be a good person, or I want to be a college professor, or I want something bigger than that.

[41:03]

That would be more related to views or perceptions. Whereas Chandra is talking about this moment. And the other things are about this moment, too, or happen in this moment, but are about transmomentary phenomena. Chanda can be about trans-momentary phenomena, but the trans-momentary phenomena are something that Chanda's looking at, and it's interested in looking at that. But it's not the idea itself. It's the, this is the idea, oh, this is a nice idea, rather than being the idea. So I'm interested that it's 925, and I'm willing to continue to be interested in that. And I'm also interested in that black, and I'm interested that he has his hand raised. Now, Chanda would be interest that your mind has that thought.

[42:06]

If that thought was the object of... You can choose a meditation object. And the fact that you can choose one and advert to it, keep turning towards it from various other situations, that's Adimukti or Adimoksha. The fact that you're interested in it is chanda. The fact that you remember to do that is smirti. And the fact that the mind is centered on the object of perception is samadhi. And the fact that you can discern what it is, once you've got it, is prajna, matthi. And sparsha is necessary because context is necessary and perception whatever the object of perception is, you need that, too. The meditation object must be your object of perception. And Chanda, Chaitanya, we already talked about, and Vedana is also relevant, but not so much to meditation.

[43:19]

So, these work together, and even while you're meditating, many moments may be other things. You know, see? Because of the complexity of events, the inner tube gets tossed about. But also because of the complexity of events, sometimes the inner tube isn't tossed about. Sometimes the way the vectors resolve themselves karmically, there's a kind of space. And you can, at that point, the vector towards Directing the mind to a meditation object can be very influential. And you can opt back over to the meditation object. You can remember it. You can approve it. You can be interested in it. You can perceive it. You can discern it. And then you have samadhi. But you had samadhi before, but this time you have samadhi in relationship to your meditation object.

[44:25]

And then because of the way the world is, How? The inner trip gets knocked over someplace else. You're not looking at your meditation object anymore. Still the mind keeps doing what it does in various ways. But now Adi Mukti says, hey, this isn't my meditation object. Smirti says, hey, I'm not supposed to remember this. And Chandra says, hey, this isn't the meditation object, but it's interesting nonetheless. And Samadhi says, we're mentally one-pointed on this thing, but this isn't the meditation object. At least I hear that from Adimukti and Smirti and Prajni. I thought of doing a play with 75, a cast of 75. That's what they did in the majors, right? They had covetousness, greed, good, and so on. they didn't have 75 in those plays, I think about six.

[45:30]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_85.21