we're trying to schedule a time to meet with certain people to discuss selected topics from chapter one of the Abhidramic Korsha. And this looks like this feels that we could do that. This is particularly intended for newcomers to the study and Some of the people asked if they could come, even though they're not newcomers. And yes, they can come too. So maybe we can meet about Peter. So today, meet in here. Yeah, let's meet here and see.

[01:05]

So today, we could begin studying the what I call the chitva viprayuta samskaras. And what does chitva viprayuta mean? not associated with mind, right. So, samkara can mean associated, and vipara can mean not associated, and citta, citta is, citta. And these are called samskaras. And samskaras, as you know, are decognitive with what? Samskara is cognitively with Sanskrit.

[02:17]

So we speak of the samskara skanda, which we call impulses, but, or sometimes even call volition. But samskara also has a more general term meaning all, any created entity. So even these things which are not associated with mind, you really couldn't call them your emotions. Still there and some scars. So they're not body. They're not rupa, and they're not mind or associated with the mind.

[03:20]

So what's left? What isn't mind or associated with the mind? Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag-Pag- The inside circle you might call the world of perception. The world of sound, the world of perception.

[04:28]

The bigger one is chitta. This world means chitta, and so all of it chitta . And the big circle is called . . So this is the realm of being, the external realm of mind . It will have the perception. It's upset at the world of mind with mistakes. What's in the, what's [...] in the

[05:55]

The septic or what? So what's the name? What diamond is there in here? 75 diamonds. I don't know. Well, maybe we should put some scars in there. Because they're not associated with mind and mental states, but they're of the world of beings, aren't they? They must also, maybe they're also in the world of non-being.

[07:04]

Maybe in a, if we're going to prove someplace there's still to be in the realm of being, but not monumental states. So there's a realm of things which somehow aren't monumental states and yet we have, we have some relevance to our life. And these dharmas I seem to be speaking to that. They are not only mental states in themselves, but they talk about certain functions of mind and mental states. They're not strictly speaking mental phenomenon, but describe the patterns of mental phenomenon.

[08:16]

For example, the first one is very typical. Propti is not a mental dharma. And you could say, well, propti is an idea. But when we're talking about propti, right now, we're talking about propti, okay? Then it's born in this middle circle here. Only think about propti when we write propti in a book called Abhidhamic Ocean, study and stuff. What are we talking about now? Vision. making the property into a notion in Philadelphia to speak for women. But that discussion we're having, that property there is not property, that's an idea of property. But property, property, it's part of what makes it possible for us to accept. We discuss that with people.

[09:29]

The discussion would be something that is not in itself mental dharma, but is a way to talk about how these mental dharmas happen. Or if they happen, how they happen. Or if there are created things, then how these created things interrelate? And yet, there's some aspect of this interrelationship or this functioning with each other that's not sort of the mind that's It's not a mental thing itself. And that's about it. Or some of these other vipayukasamskaras, for example, describe the state where this inside circle is suppressed, meaning not the inside, the two inside circles, the mind and mental states, the world of perception. When they're turned off, that phenomenon is a vipayukasamskar. That phenomenon

[10:30]

is a creative thing. The suppression of mind and mental states is a creative thing. It's based on the idea that mind and mental states are risen and then it says that you can do the act of suppressing them. It's a creative thing but it's not mind and mental states because there isn't any. So you can't call it monumental states, and yet there is this event, which is dependent on monumental states in a way, but it's not there. So, this is the kind of thing we have in this category that would be referred to samskaras. There are another, in other words, that would be referred to samskaras, are the description of how these things are born and how they die. The way they do that is mental darkness. though really a burn is not a mental dharma it's sad but it's a general characteristic of all mental dhammas plus our love even the dhammas that describe how the dhammas arise will also have this characteristic so this is a again for what we call these things we pray to samskaras we put such things in this category

[11:58]

They're also called forces. But as you know, as we were talking about before, a force is a vector. So it means where we're talking about the mental states, they're also forces. Mental states are also forces. But these are forces which are not necessarily associated with knowing the mental states. They're also maybe called theoretical. They're not theoretical. Or you can say they're the forces that the theory of Abu Dhabi. pins on in order to work smoothly.

[13:13]

If you don't have some of these verses discussed, if there weren't the existence of some of these verses, and what similar things that the Abhidharma says can happen with these dharmas, it'd be hard to sort of say how they could happen or that they were happening. I've already said it another way. These prosos make sense of human experience, make sense of certain phenomena, certain phenomena where all you use is the dharmas to make sense of them. The dharmas will explain almost all events. But just the dharmas themselves, without these vipra yukta samskara, you'd have trouble, you'd have trouble showing all the dharmas, forcing these feats, which people seem to think happen.

[14:20]

For example, without the vipra yukta samskara, called Neuroda Samapati, or contemplation of Neuroda, without giving rise to this thing as has happened, you'd have trouble explaining how these dharmas could pull this off. So that may be enough of an introduction to this material. Any questions before we start studying property? Well, what you bring up will will come up with if we study life, jati at birth. Not so much just jati at birth as one of those births, but life first, javit indriya.

[15:25]

The death is when javit indriya goes away, and life is when javit indriya is there. And in the discussion of javit indriya there, we'll discuss the Abhidharmic point on death. Now, you say death, but also you'll notice that, I'm getting a little off, but anyway, death, in one sense you can say there's two kinds of death, just like there's two kinds of life. One kind of life is called birth, where life comes up. Another kind of life is life first. One kind of death is when life first goes away, and the other kind of death is when death happens as a conscious event. So there's a birth consciousness and a death consciousness. And then there's the presence of life first and absence of life first.

[16:29]

And death consciousness and death consciousness can happen many times, even while life force is there. But when death consciousness happens with the removal or deterioration of life force, that's the kind of death which people are usually concerned with. But it turns out that without the death consciousness, this death would not be what we want to know it as. And also, that the consciousness that happens at the time of the growing away of life force is a consciousness like a consciousness we have at innumerable times during the span of where there's an existence of a personal life force. So death is not here because death is just when death is implied by the absence of life force to be dindra.

[17:41]

death of the consciousness is not here because it's already here as so, just like life, birth consciousness is already here. I mean, it's just a variety of what we're already studying under mind and mental states. So death consciousness is actually, we've already studied the possibility of death consciousness, even though we haven't talked about it explicitly. The life force phenomenon of losing heat is discussed in in this, in this thing under David India. Caraca. 46, 47. 45. David India is life. It's a part of one kind of consciousness. Okay. Okay. Anything else?

[18:52]

Well, I have to be careful to say that they arise with them. It may arise with them. Or rather, yeah, they may arise with them, but not necessarily. If they do arise with them, and only with them, then they're associated with mind. But they're not necessarily associated with mind. But when these mental darkness come up, they start functioning. And there are certain things which seem real that are not mental darkness. That's going to be happening. So maybe carry yourself further if you took two mental dharmas and they, they bumped into each other. That bumping into them, each other, uh, or run, grab a hill, run, and cut it.

[20:08]

Maybe you couldn't say that that grabbing hill was a mental dharma. I mean, it's not another dharma besides the one dharma and the other dharma. And yet, even though it's not a mental dharma in itself, maybe you could have trouble saying that, still you want to recognize that function, because it seems rather important that they do that. That you might, maybe you say, well, that's going to be a prayer to samskara. And that's sort of what property is. It's the acquisition and possession. Okay, so what are the samskaras not associated with mind? The dharmas not associated with mind are prapti, aprapti, sabhagata, assembling

[21:10]

the two meditations, which is Niroda Samapati and Asamni Samapati. Life, which is Jivita Indriya. Characteristics for Samanya Lakshalans and Namakaya and so on. And that which is part of this type. These diamonds are not associated with the mind. They are not the nature of Lutta. are not included within the samskaras kanda. Actually, in our, um, uh, we skipped one karaka that would have been helpful to me. Okay, Karaka 34, BV. This will show you characteristics of mind and mental states, which, um, these deeply to samskaras will not satisfy.

[22:15]

Okay, so first my mental states have, are having objects. They have object. They rely on organs. So they have a support, because the consciousness depends on the support of the consciousness of the organ, and because the consciousness does all the mental states do. They have object, they have aspect, and they are associated. You're associated because you can't have one without the other. So if you consider these characteristics, which the mind and mental states will satisfy, you don't.

[23:15]

Some of these humans sometimes find satisfied by some of the deep value to some scars, but you won't find all of them satisfied by all of them. Or even all of them satisfied by any of them. But some of them satisfied by some of them. Whereas mind and mental states satisfy all of those characteristics. Therefore, that's a technical way of discriminating between the two. They are included within the samskaras kanda. That is why one turns in chitta samtrayukta samskaras and in chitta vitrayukta samskaras. They are disjoined from the mind because beings non-material, they resemble the mind. They're in the samskara skanda, but they're disjoined from mind.

[24:21]

They're in the samskara skanda because they're similar to the other things that are in there. Okay? Any questions? Okay. Oh, good. It brought me a point. I never thought I had an association. I could just make my own one individual thing. Got me. They gave me no longer than one of mine because it's one we need for him. It's not such an organization. What does she do? Any question about that?

[25:27]

Well, that means that, for example, you only have one beta nu, one sun nu, one sparsia, whereas, in some sense, for example, Some of these samskaras, some of these Vipra Yuta samskaras, they aren't necessarily associated with one dharma at a time. They describe the characteristics of a lot of moments. In a given moment, although I only have one feeling, and my feeling has certain characteristics at the same time, at that moment in time, those characteristics of my feelings are also the characteristics of all your feelings. So my feeling is just my feeling, your feeling is just your feeling, but the characteristics of our feelings are the same. So, the characteristics of our feelings don't just apply to one particular feeling at a given time.

[26:40]

They're not associated with a particular mind and mental states. Even though they live in the world of beings, they're not associated with one being. Now, If you have two sanyas, I know exactly where that happens. Where that happens in the realm of being. In a sense, I drew the circle, but actually, I could have drawn a different thing. This is, this is, this is, this is, but I can also, and it's, Let's do it. Pick up this line in here and put another mind in your state. Okay?

[27:44]

It's like the character you have in the individual series. And these mind, these consciousness, these are beings, okay? These are beings, and this is also being out here. This is being, as it's included inside of a particular consciousness, particular mind. This is your mind. This is your perceptual world. But you also have access to this area out here called the realm of being, where in you find the physical world. And also you'll find Kittasamprayukta samskara. At any given moment, we have several minds. Each one of these mind and mental states has one object. Each one of these systems has one object, has one feeling, one notion.

[28:57]

Whereas ... [...] All the entities that compose Pajama Loka, like this little chart market, in a particular location, and this has a particular location. So Pajama Loka is being, but it's Rupa.

[29:58]

It's difficult to have location you can be here. But it's the rupa that we all share. The rupa that individual in some sense resides around the surface of its mind. Because that rupa, although it has location also, It's just the way that this mind communicates with the so-called external world. It's the capacity to communicate. And it has location, diversity that it relates to things that have location. When it's functioning, it is functioning in the realm or in the field of the Jamaloka. When it's existing as a function, it always exists in a particular field, which has a location. So the field has a location, so the capacity to receive, which is the entry at location.

[31:02]

When it's not functioning, it has a location. That's just so important. And mind, mental states, all these, this mind, it's mind and mental states that are associated with it. It's mind and mental state, this whole thing here. All this stuff. It's mind and mental states all come up at the same time. And one object, one support, one time, one aspect, one job yet. Whereas the chips that's not right, do not have that.

[32:11]

They do not come up at the same time. They do not have the same object. They don't even need objects in some cases. They do not have the same support. So any other... questions that you can articulate on those issues. Yes? The virus is B, okay? The physical world is not being any more than the mental world, but it's still the realm of being.

[33:17]

These are physical things, but it's not like they're not sentient. They're sentient. They're sentient, but they're not human. They're not mental. I mean, these are sentient entities that have location. When these sentient locations come in contact with, or work in conjunction with, and receptive faculty, which is also a sentient and now located capacity. That gives rise to consciousness. Consciousness is inseparable, can be discriminated, but does never exist without these supports. So there's a very intimate connection between mind and matter here. And it's our realm of sentience. See that sattva? Sentient sattva, sattva is a, that's a sentient being.

[34:19]

When you say shu jho, you know, sentient being, that's a sattva. Sattvas are innumerable, I vow to save them. So you process over these physical things too. In other words, liberate them too. And the Abhidharma will talk about abandoning or being liberated In regard to physical things. You abandon colors. You can liberate the colors. Or you liberate the color, which I really want to look at. Any of you? Yes? Aspect is... Every year I wonder about that.

[35:47]

And then I look it up and I forget it. Rob? I will start to move by now, isn't it? Anything else? Yes? Saving the Rock? Saving the rock is a... is not a... Saving the rock is not a... It is a... Pasam scripta dharma. Saving the rock is called... Pratisam kyan nirodha. You know, Pratisam kyan nirodha is number 70-whatever. 72... 74... Pajama loka?

[36:55]

It doesn't exist there? Rocks don't exist there, but the things that make rocks up exist there. Rocks are actually a composite. Rock is a composition of a number of rupas. Okay? And so those combinations are what we found out here. Yes, it would be there. And you can abandon attachment to that rock, the existence of that rock. Is that what you're asking? Anything else? No? Yes? Right? My own sensuality? non-sanction being, non-sanction being is trati-sanctionerota and space.

[37:59]

But trati-sanctionerota has more function aside from being, so it's not much of a non-sanction being. So I don't know. If there's anything of importance that's not sentient. Do you have any question? What do you think of when you think of location?

[39:16]

Well, location, there's two kinds of location. One kind of location is a location of a jhana loka, which everybody, our individual karma system, give right to pajama work. And that's the pajama work that happened momentarily, too. But this, I guess, this is maybe the abstract. Maybe this is the abstract view. This table, all of us create a table. We have our eyes open. This table is a visual phenomenon. Part of us create this table. And it has location.

[40:35]

But the way the table looks varies for each one of us because we all have different organs. And one of the critical reasons why the theta and the visual movement are different for us is because our eye organs have different spatial locations relative to this. But all of our different spatial relationships to this determines location, too. So it's not only you determine your eye capacity, but this visual object determines location. But the existence of this is all due to all of our time, too. So we place it here, too. And like, for example, now I move it around. This has to do with all of us participating with this, but each of us in a different way because each of us has a different way to receive this as a visual event. So it's tacked down or located by all of us together, all of our karmes and all of our receptions of it.

[41:38]

And we are in a capacity that is also located by virtue of all the other capacities and all the other karmes. So this is how you can sort of triangularize, triangulate in a multidimensional way. It takes things in your position. You can tell where they are quite specifically by each individual person's opinion about what's happening and how it happens and where they are and what they see. If we're all, you know, we can see that we can, how clearly we can change a person's opinion about what they see and we can all take us out of the room. If you're watching, everybody else can take us out of the room and see clearly that other people are trying to say anything about what you see. Or we can even go over and talk to them, talk out of it, because you're over and tell them it's not really there. It's not there. Now, he's going to have his own opinions and his own attempts to see it or not see it or think it's crazy or whatever.

[42:40]

But anyway, what he's going to start wondering, why is everybody, why do people gang around the town in a table? The table's going to start listening to me. Now, this is an extreme example to show you that after other people at the time, it does affect in various ways. What do you physically perceive? Not to mention the fact that somebody needs to talk about a book this day. He needs to talk about a story this day. Or somebody paid an electric bill and so on. Or somebody opened shade after breakfast. What this thing is, and then if you get down to particularities, you know, probably little things that you can pull over the table that you're actually there with, fundamentally you'll see it. It'd be even easier then to see how critical someone else is coming with you in that event. And how you're coming with each other. And this all comes out in location when it's all located mutually within organ and object, or organ and field.

[43:46]

And then all the other organs turn in the field too, locate themselves and locate the field. And then our individual common gives rise to our power too, to have organs. And because we have individual karma, we have different organs. Because we have different organs. Because you people have different organs than me. What is in this room? What do you do? If your karma was such that you didn't have eyes, it would be hard for me to get you to come along and sleep. Or if your eyes are certain kinds of eyes, you may need You may want the blackboard farther away than from me. I have trouble seeing the blackboard too far from me, or in the world where it is, and I see it bringing the chalk letters on the board of certain size, and when my seat was signed over there, who was on my seat, who put the chair there, and so on, all that's also your, you participate in it, but I'll see where the board's place is where I actually see.

[44:53]

At work you'll do it how your eyes work. acquisition and possession. Propti is of two types. Acquisition of that which has not been obtained, propta, or of that which has been lost, vihina. Possession of that which having been obtained has not been lost. Apropti is the contrary. Propti and Apropti There is property and property of dharmas that belong to the person herself. And thus, also are the tupas two destructions. So the pratisam kyanarodha here comes to an individual person. The liberation from the rock comes to me.

[45:58]

And that, again, brings up the word akara. This is a mind and mental state. Now, this mind and mental state doesn't even have to be viewed as a person's theory, but often it is viewed as a person's theory. Because in this mind and mental state, you have five skandic. Okay? Anybody not clear on that? The mind and mental state plus organ are five skandas. So these five skandas can be construed as a person or a person in a series. And procti relates to a personal series. Procti isn't just the acquisition of this stuff. It's just, you know, what and what. It isn't just a, like insomnia doesn't go over and grab It's rather if there's a property of a samuel or a property of whatever, of each of these individual dharmas, and they're tossed into a personal series, into a person.

[47:21]

All the things that make up the person, each of them can be acquired, but it's acquired into this person. And this person is illusory, but it's still acquired into this illusory need. That's the thing about that. And property even can acquire or bring into a personal series . For example, the abandonment of . So this goes into a personal series. Now, Bodhisattva doctrine, you hear where the word Akkara comes up. The Bodhisattva practices the way of the Buddha. knows partisam kyanarodha of all dharmas from all aspects all akhara the arhat knows partisam kyanarodha of all the dharmas from this as brought into this personal series from this personal series the arhat is completely knowledgeable about all dharmas he is

[48:36]

and non-defiled relationship. It's all done. There's no output to me. Bodhisattva wishes to know the Pratishamkanerodas of all beings. I only have four here. No. And Akbar, then, is the aspect or the mode or point of view of these individual systems. So ACAR means that this system has basically the same point of view. For example, if there's a blue thing over here, organs of this system have this location relative to this blue object. Organs of this system have a location which is different from this location. Because these two organs, the organs of these two systems cannot fully lack because organs physical and they have location and they don't share location.

[49:38]

So this is a location. This is a different location relative to this object over here. So they have different points of view relative to this object. So different modes of relationship with this object. OK? So the bodhisattva wants to know what's called sarva akvara vinyan. knows knowledge. The Bodhisattva, like the Buddha, wants to be enlightened about all existence, not just his own person. Therefore they learn from this one, this one, this one, all these ones. That's why this person hangs out with this person. That's why this person wants to save other beings.

[50:48]

So that's the only way to talk about mode. Akara means mode, aspect. Mode of all modes, OK? A mode of akara. So you can say they have the same aspect or the same mode. Same mode, same aspect, same point of view. and so on. Okay, so that's the bodhisattva that wants everybody else to be liberated before they're satisfied with their liberation. Okay, so you learned the basic definition of property, and now the first important point is that it's for a person. If you're not angry, okay?

[51:55]

If you're not angry, you have pop property of anger. Do you have a minor mental state? Do you want me to wait for a while before I say anything else? Do you have a minor mental state? construed as a personal system. And this system, when the system is not angry, the system has apropity of anger. Now this clearly shows you that apropity is not a mental dharma because it's describing something that isn't there. It's not possession. It's also non-acquisition. But anyway, apropity and apropity include both. And when one of them isn't appropriate anymore, it's still good.

[53:03]

I've never found that difference to be particularly important. It obviously includes both. Because it's momentary. It's not like you don't acquire something in the first moment and then possess it in the second moment. That's not the way property works. you acquire something in a moment and you acquire it in a moment. Each moment you acquire, even if you acquire something and pass it to the next moment, the next moment sort of can just rest because somebody's passing it. Propity means it's momentary also. Propity's come up and go away every moment too. So it really doesn't make, you know, it doesn't really make any sense to say acquisition and possession because it's in them. But even so, They still say so, and you can see why sometimes it's . Okay?

[54:04]

Anything else? That's right, just property of being . What? What I'm saying is that... This is a mental dharma, okay? Done. See, now there's... This is anger, okay? Now there is my mind. No anger, okay? Now there's anger. Where's the property? Yeah, well, somehow... We want to note that somehow there is the anger being there and there's not the anger being there. They want to say that there's this thing called the anger getting there. But the anger getting there, it's not there anymore. I mean, it's not really a mental event. And yet, for some reason or other, which you'll see, it becomes important to note as an event in itself, this is an event, that it gets there.

[55:13]

There's the anger, which is a particular kind of thing in itself. The anger is the thing in itself this day. The anger isn't just the fact that... You don't just say, well, the anger's just there. Well, what is it like? Well, it's just there. That's it. It just happens to be possessed. You got it. Well, what is it? Don't worry about it. You've just got it. Well, that's not the point. The point is, it's a particular thing called a vector against things, or to avoid things. And you've got that. But where is the guiding of it? Where is the having of it? So... The Vajbashaka, the Sarvastavada and Abhidharmas, they say that this event of having it or not having it itself is a dharma. But you can't say it's associated with mind because you don't see it here exactly. And you say, well, it's associated just because it's functionally associated with mind. But it's functionally associated with things that aren't mind, too. You can also have property of physical things.

[56:15]

Or property of other samskarastandas. To be paid to samskarastandas. For example, you can have a property of you can have a property of . So it's not really a sook. And it doesn't satisfy the other characteristics, but these monumental states doesn't have the same object as the monumental states. And anyway, it is a difference. Now, if you could say, if you're just talking about the fact that the anger is there, while you need property. And that's Vasubandhu. Vasubandhu will say that. See, this property really isn't a real thing. I mean, it's just, you know, you don't, where is it then? It's not real. You just talk about it. Okay? So it's another difference between property and mental dharmas is that Vasubandhu often can see mental dharmas as there's some reality to them. There's some realness to them. And he criticizes some of the mental dharmas, but

[57:17]

Apropti and apropti, he says, really, they're just sort of, they only have a nominal existence. By virtue of the functioning of the real, more real things, all that might mean to say. But that's the nature of theory. Theory is something else seems to be less real than something else. Theory seems less real than anger. He's saying, in theory, I wouldn't be angriess right now. In theory, I wouldn't have run over that guy. Well, so what do you like? Let's go. To jail. In theory, I don't mind going to jail. Fine, get me a car. In theory, I would be willing to get in the car. And so on. Nonetheless, as Peter Vanderstatt said, these, these deprive to some scars aren't so important, but you've been in

[58:19]

You know what they are. So these, these are, these are, they're important. If you don't understand it, you probably do some scars that you read Abhidharma, you won't understand it. It's sort of like, I don't know, it's kind of like the rules of the game or something. It's how this, how the system works. And as you'll see, sometimes when they're discussing these, you know, the vaibhashikas are saying, here's how, here's how this works. And then the vaibhashikas said, yeah, okay, but that's not something real. You know, you don't have to, if you just say that that happens, you don't have to make that into a dharma. That's not something in itself. And you say, yes, but it is. They say, well, but why?

[59:20]

They say, well, the sutra says, but the sutra can be interpreted in another way. They say, yeah, but this sutra says, and he says, yeah, but it can be interpreted in this way. And finally they say, okay, okay. We just need this thing to make our system work, okay? Sometimes it's like, no, you're... That's really where it's at. You just need to say this is real because you want everything to be dharmas, and you just have to want all your dharmas to be real things, so... and so on. But this isn't a real thing. And it really isn't. It's neither any of the diamond. But the fossil bond doesn't carry quite that far at this point. He started to start this thing rolling, this emptiness ball rolling. He didn't know the Buddha said it, too. He said a lot of stuff. So, let's read this a little bit here. This future's plan. Could someone read this then?

[60:21]

When a conditioned Sanskrit of Dharma falls into a personal series, there is property or all property of this Dharma? Mm-hmm. So that's very important to remember that. This is another thing about trapti. Trapti must have something to do with building itself. It does. Yes? No, just it falls. Now you're angry, okay? Now you're not. And when you're not angry, it's all property of that dharma.

[61:25]

So in this system... Yeah, you can say that way. Some you're pulling in and some you're setting out. Or some aren't inside already, but you're just actually... There's actually an action. And this is the way I look at it. There's actually an action in the system. Let's pull this other dharma out of it. Because this is a system that's called Sarvas Devatan, right? It's saying all these things exist. When you're not, for example, in a cessation trance, you have the oppropity of that cessation trance. Like right now, you don't have that trance. You have the oppropity of it. In some sense, you're holding that trance away. And you aren't aware of it as a great feat.

[62:26]

You don't feel like you're straining under it. But anyway, in some sense, you're actually holding that away. Something is something, not you. Property isn't, although it brings it into a person's series, property isn't run by you. You identify with it that way. You can do it that way. There's lots of things which you don't have right now. you have the odd property of those things. All the things you don't have in your experience at any given moment, you have the odd property of that. But it isn't like, it isn't like there's some unit that's pulling all these things in either. Pulling them in is due to this complex event called trauma. That in fact, if you have mind, then you have one of those other mental dharmas, and that naturally means that you have the other ones. That's the way things work. So chaitanā, the overall construction of the mind, always sort of implies that there'll be property of those ten.

[63:33]

Does some self bring the ten in? There's just a basic thing called mind and the basic impulse bringing those ten in. That's all that there is. That's all you have to say. So that's property of those. And all the other ones that aren't there are our property. It's interest or it's selection among the possibilities, but it's not the selection that we ordinarily think of a person selecting it, even though it comes to a person.

[64:49]

So that's the difference, because if it is, it's not the person that's interested, but it comes to a person. The thing is that there's interest in, but the interest is by virtue of the dharmas that have to arise. So it's interest, you could say, or selection. As people say, you always select part of what's happening to be aware of or something. But take away the thing about who is interested, somebody that's interested. And then I think it's OK to call it interest. Are you OK with that? I mean, this is a start. It's rather a strange way to think. They need to think this way in order to make all this thing work. Yes? Can the selection occur?

[66:05]

Well. Trapti happens inside the personal series. I mean, trapti is means that the thing the Dharma has been brought into the personal series. Or is within the personal series, available to the personal series, cannot to another series. Right. I'm saying that if you have a mind, mind is not a person. Mind is also not a person of serious. But a person of serious is a mind. When a mind arises, there's always 10 diamonds. But the fact that a mind arises naturally means other ones will come.

[67:09]

So if there is a personal series, if you have this mind which has these mental diamonds associated with it, and this is considered as a personal series, then property will be the fact that this personal series feels that these things have been acquired or possessed by it. So property is this funny thing, I guess. That's why it's hard to say it's mental. It's not really a mental thing. It's tricky. I want to say something like that. In mind and mental states, when they're coexisting, there's no personal series there. And there's no problem. Proctic does not mean that these things have arisen.

[68:18]

They have arisen together in a co-exist, in some relationship with each other. But before you make a person serious, you don't have to bring in the idea of proctic. Theories due to the person due to the grasping of itself. Once you get into grasping of mind and mental state, or construing mind and mental states as the individual, that person, once you do that, then the fact that the mind and mental state has changed

[69:27]

doesn't matter much. Because it wasn't because the mind and mental states are a certain way that you made a self out of it. I mean, look at all these different people that you've heard about and you've seen and so on. All these different people are able to construe mind and mental states as a person. So it isn't that there's a particular kind of thing That when you have it, you could screw it as a person. In other words, you can make a self out of almost anything. Now, most of you will only make a self, you think, out of certain stuff. Say, well, this is me. But change things too much when it's not me anymore. Actually, that's not so. If, in fact, what happens is everything comes along and just completely changes, you will grab that too.

[70:33]

You'll grab whatever you get and make it into a self if you want to. If you want to have a self, there will be nothing that will stop you from doing that, no matter how much you change. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what's happening. We're changing all the time and we're still able to make a self. So when things change, you can still do it again. So that's why there's a personal series. Because the desire to make a self, tendency, that ability which self-makers have, doesn't get stopped by events. Now, when you make a self, you often make a self on the basis of what you've got here now, right? But even though you would have done it if you had something else, still you sort of say, well, I did have this and I made it on this. So that tendency wants to have the same thing again because It was such a trip to make a self out of all this stuff in the first place. You really had to strain to do it.

[71:35]

It wasn't easy. You had to tell a lot of fibs and ignore a lot of facts. But by this supreme effort of ignorance, you were able to say things of self. It wasn't easy. Now, if you're going to do it again, you'd just rather say, well, whatever comes up, I'll do it. But if somebody says beforehand, did you know that we're going to change all this stuff on you? To have to notice that it's all changed and then just assume that you'd be able to do it again. Well, in fact, that's what you do. In fact, it does all change and you assume that what you did before will apply. You say, oh yeah, that's me again. But if somebody tells you, did you know we changed everything completely? They stuck that in your face and you'd say, well. could you please wait for a while to do that? Maybe not this week, or not today, or not now. Later. I don't want to go into the trouble of making that into me again.

[72:37]

So as a result, we don't have to change our jobs. We wouldn't like somebody to come over and change our sex organs or something like that. Most of us wouldn't. Even if it was completely painless. Because you'd start to go, oh my goodness, oh my goodness. out over and make a thing out of all this now. So what we do is, even though our sex orderings do change in a sense, or our body does change radically moment by moment, even though it does, we still say, it's the same, it's the same, it's the same. So that's how you have personal series. In other words, it's the ability to make all this, to first all this disparate and unassociated stuff, not unassociated, but, you know, multiplicity into a one called a self, called a person. You can do that again and again and again. So there's a series. So delusion has a series. But these events actually don't have a series.

[73:39]

There's no connection between them. So property is the ability to say it depends on the idea that you make a self. And then the acquisition of these dharmas within the within the self-system, within the person. So we're getting a little bit more into the meaning of propity this way. So it's not just the presence of anger, okay? So this is being revised. It's not just the fact that anger is there, but anger is there in a situation, in a minor mental state that had been construed as a person. And that's propity. which is a little bit different, isn't it, just the fact that there. Or the fact, I said before, it's more than just that there, it's also that it's possessed. But now I'm saying it's possessed by the person of series or by the person.

[74:45]

And then, the meaning of apropical gets clearer, doesn't it? Because a big part of this system is that you impose a self on it and then what's not in it is crucial because actually what's not in the self when you first make it is that which you don't want to have be there later if you make a self where there's no anger there's the autopsy of anger and the next moment it would be best, from the point of view of all this work we've gone through, if there was still not anger. So in that sense, in that sense, the oppropity is, if it's still, if you succeed, you know, if it's not possessed by the serious, in that sense, the oppropity is rather convenient, not just a passive event anymore.

[75:45]

And now, if you do have anger in the system, although you probably can still make a self out of it, It's not so convenient. And as a matter of fact, people then do various other things which make the system work, like they say, well, there's anger here, but the nice, sweet person that made this body and mind in the first place into itself, or this nice person that can be construed in the midst of this body and mind, somehow has been maintained, even though there's anger. Why? Because this anger has been justified. The object that is angry deserves the anger from a good person who basically isn't angry, ever. So you have a self that isn't angry when you make it, and then all future anger will be somehow adjusted to that. Yes?

[76:47]

What does it say? Well, there's probably been a problem for the destruction. Well, I would suggest that between now and next week, you study, go back to chapter one, study Pratya, Pratya Samkandaroda, and also see what it says about Pratya there. Think about this for a while, because I don't see any point in me starting to talk about this at this point, because I'm sure it would just be confusing, everybody would be sad, even you.

[77:54]

You know? I think you should think about these two nirotas and adopt it. And this point is raised in the beginning of chapter one, the first four pages. So we may have to get into, in order to understand this next paragraph, we may have to discuss next time these two kinds of nirota a bit. But I just, too complicated. Thank you.

[79:34]

They were talking about propthi and outpropthi, and we're talking about them for the propthi and outpropthi of the unconditioned dharmas. Karaka 36 CD. As for the unconditioned dharmas, there is propthi of of dharmas that are not generated without a cause. It says, dharmas that are not generated without cause.

[80:58]

There's no dharma that's generated without cause. Except these three, and they're not generated. So even they aren't generated without cause. So the three of samskutta are not generated. I think it's a little bit harder to understand not generated without a cause. They just all dharmas. But still, you could also say that even when they say not generated without cause, they still don't mean all dharmas. because why would you call a dharma that's not generated at all a dharma that's not generated without cause?

[82:09]

So you might say, well, you wouldn't really call the unconditioned dharmas dharmas that are not generated without a cause. That implies that they're generated with a cause. So I think maybe they could have said there is all conditioned dharmas In other words, the nature of all conditioned diamonds with our partisan piano rhoda, our partisan piano rhoda is with what things are like, actually. Prati-sankana-rodha is related to impure dharmis, to these sastrava dharmis.

[84:07]

And it relates to both those which are risen and also those which are not destined to arrive. Yes? destruction? Junction? Yes, detachment. So, uh, Patsangka Narodha has to do with detachment or untying the impure dharmas, both the ones that will arise and those that won't arise. Aparati Sankhya Narodha relates to impure dharmas and also to pure dharmas. And it relates to the ones that don't arrive. So that's why you can have Aparati Sankhya Narodha of all the different kinds of dharmas.

[85:19]

Because it's related to the ones that don't arise. You don't have to wait around for a part to some kind of erode it, because all the dharmas that aren't going to rise have already accomplished that feat. OK? If you get it straight, it may be useful to you someday. All right. So the Abhidharma expresses itself thus. Those who possess pure dharmas, anasarava dharmas, Our beings possess Pratisantya Narodha with the exception of the Sakhala Bandana, Alishanastas. That is to say, with the exception of the Aryan, bound with all the bonds and are found in the first moment of the path, with the exception of the Prataginus, bound by all bonds.

[86:26]

The other Aryans... The others, Aryans and Protagenants, possess Patisamkya Naroda. I don't know. I'm reading on page 73. So who are the ones who have, who have, who possess the pure dharmas? Those are the ones who have Pratisantya Narodha, with the exception of this special class of Aryans who have just attained the path. They possess the pure dharmas but don't yet have Pratisantya Narodha. So this also says that

[87:30]

that in some partagenas, some common people also could possess pratisam kyanurodha. So there's two kinds of pratisam kyanurodha. There's a mundane and a supermundane. possession of them. The definition? No. The basic definition is extinction through effort. The main definition is, its main alternative definition is vissam yoga, cutting. Because the first moment is what's called the acceptance rather than knowledge.

[88:51]

You have the acceptance of the truth, but not yet the knowledge of the truth. It says that the Aryans bond with all the bonds and are found in the first moment. So bond with all the bonds or tied with all the ties or whatever. a person who has not obtained by the mundane path, the abandoning of any of the nine categories of the passions of the Khamadapti. Aryan in the first moment has not yet obtained the abandoning of the passions, to be abandoned by the path. In the first moment you haven't obtained it yet. So the first moment is called Dukha, Dharma, Jnana, Kshanti. Kshanti means it not means patience, but it also means capability or acceptance or endurance. And acceptance means in a sense that you don't accept.

[90:01]

Kshanti means in one sense that you do not accept your state of practice as being good enough. You just have the capacity to know Next moment, you have Dukadama Gnana. Gnana, you know. So, when compared to pole walking over a creek in your land, the first land, like, it, like, shot, the first moment was landed. But you don't yet say, hey, I landed. So actually you don't, until you know that you landed, you haven't obtained the landing. I say it's like pole vaulting because just before you, when you first stick your pearl in the, or stick the pole in the mud or whatever, at that moment your mind is just like, and very much like the mind on the other side of the river.

[91:06]

It's called continuity knowledge. And as you fly over the creek, over the river, called Gotabu, cut the lineage at that point. When you land, just like when you took off, and then you knew it. So the two that speak of these approach, continuity, breaking, landing, and known. Those discrete moments in the process of insight into the path. So these people do have pure diamonds. They made the cut, their Aryans, but they don't get possessed. Dhika, dharma, dhuka, pain. Knowledge, well actually, dhuka means the knowledge of truth itself. It should be, essentially, dhika, satya, dharma, nyanaksham.

[92:13]

He said, dukkha dharma means dharma of the fact that dharmas are pain, or dharmas are suffering. So the truth, the first noble truth, that dharmas are suffering. That truth, worthy by dukkha dharma. Then, jnana knowledge, shantasyabhi, acceptance of kiddoly, of knowing that the first noble truth Okay. Anyway, no one possesses space, hence there is no property of space. Pardon?

[93:19]

There's a mundane, in other words, there's mundane disjunction. So that's why, that's why that term without some modifier shouldn't be considered because that's having to do with possession of pure dominance. Its basic meaning is disjunction. And there's worldly or mundane, it sounds good. and actually you have to abandon the mundane Pratisankhya Narodas and it turns out that they're one of the last... In other words, people come to Buddhist practice with mundane Pratisankhya Narodas. People can come to Buddhist practice with mundane insights, insights that are due to liberation from previous views.

[94:25]

As a matter of fact, quite a few people are that way. They come to Buddhist practice with mental and physical abandonment prior to entering the Buddhist path. abandonments must be abandoned. These insights must be abandoned. And they're abandoned quite late in the path, Buddhist path. You can't abandon them at the beginning. At the first end of the path, you can't abandon these former insights. They take a long time to root out because they're, I guess because they're kind of, in a sense, high quality. In one sense, they're high quality illusion. In another sense, they're Because they seem to be high-quality illusion, in other words, insight and worldly sense, they're difficult to get rid of. They still have some dualistic notions in their thought, for example.

[95:38]

Like, I think I myself was turned towards Buddhism by some teachings which were pretty good, but later I saw that they were one-sided. They were quite helpful. When I first read about them, I thought, boy, this is great stuff. If everybody thought like this, the world would be a lot better place. And in fact, it's true, they would be. So in the mundane realm, there are kinds of penetrating insights. But the nature of those insights is that they are They're still conducive to samsara. It's still based on dualistic notions, so currently still move on with them as a base. And so I think you may know about two people who have considerable insight, philosophers, psychologists, psychiatrists, artists, writers.

[96:48]

poets have considerable insight, but their insight, you can still use their insight at the point to create more stuff. Whereas super-mundane insight takes the ground of karma away, at least in some small sphere. And in Pachisama Kuenarodha is There are many Pratisamkhana Rodas. Pratisamkhana Rodas are specific, related to specific situations. You have insight on a specific situation. And then you must extend this insight to other conditions. That's a good point.

[97:54]

In other words, you made a good point because a lot of people, what they do is they have abandonment, but they have abandonment of things that aren't dharmas. In other words, they have abandonment of things that aren't themselves, according to the other dharma, real. Like, what does it do to abandon something that doesn't exist? Some dreamed up compassion. At a certain point, it's not really abandoning it, but your willingness to give up a Cadillac, even though a Cadillac doesn't exist, in itself is pretty good. People are willing to give up Cadillacs and so on, and that insight, that freedom that they have from Cadillacs is still something that perhaps could be the basis of further karma, and it takes They have to be quite a ways along in practice before they give up that giving up.

[99:00]

Before they give up, you know, the detachment from certain material things, for example. But these material things don't exist dharmically anyway. The other sense is that it might be abandonment, maybe of a Dharma, but not a real abandonment. Then again, maybe what you're saying is who they were at that. Maybe they can't think up an example of an abandonment of the Dharma that's not a real abandonment of the Dharma. I'll be bothered by that. Now, of course, the next level will be these Pārti-sāma-kyārādās are really unreal, too, because they're abandoning the dharmas. Now we're not talking about Abhi-dharma anymore, but Mahayana, Buddhism, would say these people abandon the dharmas which they say are real, but the dharmas aren't real either. Therefore, their Pārti-sāma-kyārādās are not real. all these little parties added up, make an arhat. So there's really no arhats either.

[100:07]

But basically you see these echelons of insight. The first echelon is abandonment of things in the world that actually don't stand up to scrutiny. People abandon these things, but they don't really, they really can't find them or get a hold of them anyway. But still it's, Some notable, I mean, some people really are pretty well off in many ways that make this kind of abandonment. Then the next level of abandonment is abandonment of dharmas. The next level of abandonment will be to see that these dharmas which are abandoned are non-existent anyway. Therefore, part of some kind of road is not abandoned. I mean, therefore, these dharmas are not abandoned, so part of some kind of road is not real. Therefore, the components of the Arhas which are the projects I'm going to wrote is, they aren't going to exist, so there's no arhats. And that part, that realization, that pattern of realization is part of the Bodhisattva path, not the whole Bodhisattva path.

[101:12]

It's just the, what is called, the hourglass that I print a board a few times. Yeah. The administration is followed. This would not be undervalued. You know, that's it. You know what, the possession? Yes, right. That's what I'm trying to think is deny the existence of the term property. The Vasubandhu and the Sartrantikas are still going to allow the event called Paktisankya Naroda. But even that they will say, actually, although they don't deny the event, they deny the necessity of calling it something other than what it is.

[102:29]

Now, what is Pratisankar Narodha? It's just the lack of certain kinds of attachment. You don't have to call it something in addition to the lack of something. Okay, let's say. Vatsubhanda, let's say. Buddha said there is this thing called the extinction of these problems. Then why do you have to call it a Dharma? Okay? So everybody agrees on that, at this level, that there is such an event. The question is, do you need to have a dharma called propthi that talks about the possession of that event? Why don't you just say that that event happened? Why do you have this thing in addition to that that thing happened? That's what they're saying here is that basically you don't need propthi. Although it's not talking about an illusory event, it's sort of adding something to the situation. It's just a name. a useful way to talk about something that's happening. But don't retrieve that as a real thing in itself.

[103:32]

So, this Paktisamkanerota, what it's referring to is a real thing. The Vabashikas all agree on it. The Vabashikas want to make Paktisamkanerota a Dharma, and then they want to have that the possession of it is also a Dharma. but that it happens is also a downward. The happening of it, it's up and it's the happening of it, they're distinguishing as two things. What Subamnus said, he doesn't have to say it, I'm saying this, but basically he's saying, why distinguish between something happening and the fact that you get this thing? If the thing exists, okay, if it doesn't exist, okay, but talking about things that don't exist or don't exist or not exist, unconditioned dharma they don't they're not in the realm of existence they're just what they are having them or not having them what's the point if you don't have them well if you do have them well why do you have to make a dharma out of that and the reason why you want to make a dharma out of it is because it's important whether you have it or not human beings care about it right they do

[104:57]

People are interested, individual people are interested in who has it. For example, they're interested that so-and-so has it and I don't. Or that I have it and so-and-so doesn't. People are interested in that. Because people are interested in that, they ask the other dharmas, what about this? So they come back with a theory which says, yeah, some people have it, some people don't. The ones that have it have property of it. The ones that don't have it have off-property of it. So they have a dharma which talks about this thing which is important for people to understand about it. So much of the theory is to, once again, make sense of what people see and experience and are concerned about in terms of these dharmas which are alienated from people's usual concerns and usual interests and which also are monetary. So there's nobody there and there's no possibility of understanding the way that the things are conveyed or passed on or accumulated. People's experience is that some people have stuff and some people don't.

[106:02]

Some people are rich, some people are poor, some people are sick, some people are healthy, some people are enlightened, some people are deluded. And some people are accumulating trouble and some people are accumulating untrouble. How does that happen? Well, people care about that. So kings and young monks ask questions like this, so they have theory which explains. The Kravdhi is part of how you can explain that it happened. But Pastor Banu says, fine, you're explaining what's happening, but why do you have to call your explanation of what's happening a thing in itself, other than just the things that really make up explanations? And he would say, explanations are real things. But you're not calling property an explanation, you're calling property a thing in itself. But property is just a, just talk. Just a, an accommodation to human sentiment, to human interests, to human desires for knowledge and understanding.

[107:05]

And by being that, it prows into various mind and mental states. It could be explained in terms of other dharmas. You don't have to call it in itself, aside from what you already know about. So then it says, what's the story? Where do you think? Why do you think you're present? I don't know. What? Is it isolated from other personal series in the same moment?

[108:08]

Yeah. Yeah, there's just diamonds arising and they seem to be grouped into personal series. There's notions. There seems to be, you know, in the universe there seems to be possible, for example, multiple notions in a given moment in the universe. It seems to be multiple consciousnesses. It seems to be multiple locations and multiple capabilities. So the world as a physical, the universe as a physical event, one of the characteristics of the universe is location. It seems to be abhidharma seems to be willing to mental to such a thing as this event called location, which they could also call dharma, by the way. We haven't run into that dharma yet. But they should have the dharma on there because actually it's one of the things, isn't it? Location. But it's actually the dharma, it could be called the mark of rupa.

[109:13]

So rupa, the definition of rupa, the mark of rupa, he proves the concept of location. So you have location, and then you have the facility with location, the capability you relate to location. This is the physical world. Location, capability, the types of events that can't take up the same time in the same space, and then the capability to relate this type of phenomenon to what? To that which naturally grows out of their interaction. They have a capability in location, suitable location, and they have admittable capability. Those two interacting gives rise to consciousness. And the capability, then, is the way to relate the location and what's being hit to consciousness. So consciousness is located. In some sense, it's related to a location.

[110:17]

And there seems to be more than one location also. Locations seem to be multiple. People seem to think that, right? So they say location is multiple. There's multiple locations, so there's multiple consciousnesses. There's multiple consciousnesses, and consciousness never arises without mental states. So there's multiple ideas, or multiple perceptions, multiple notions, concepts. Now, in those concept consciousness locations located, or systems which are unlocated but relate to a location, sometimes, sometimes they don't. It can do either way. There can be a construing of a personal series. Maybe there could be, first of all, a construing of a series. The third thing, the third universe is momentary. It goes... And it goes... Up and down, it goes like this. All these locations come up at once and go down together.

[111:19]

Or maybe they don't, but anyway, they come and they go down. All over the place. All these locations and capabilities and consciousness are coming up and down like this all the time. And... Why don't you guys hug each other? Then when one fell asleep, you'll shake the other one. So anyway, This coming up and going down still, within each moment, there can be a notion, or not every moment, but during some moment there can be a notion of continuity of these spaces. You can say this is connected to that, it's connected to that, it's connected to that. That's a notion about these events.

[112:22]

And you can see continuity. With past moments, with future moments, too. Anyway. You can imagine future moments which are completely cut off from each other and see them as in a line. You can imagine past which are completely cut off with each other and with the present and see them as line. And you can connect it all by connecting the present with it and making this line. You can make a personal series. Then on top of that, you can make it a personal series. You can make a series of moments, which is a series of minds. And on top of that, you can say, this is a personal series because there's a person behind these are sharp behind these thoughts. They don't believe in a personal theory that they say, but that's what property has to do with. They believe in the dharmas which make up the moments, which make up the series.

[113:36]

But they don't believe in the series, and they don't believe in the person behind the series. But Prakti, once again, Prakti, or what was talked about as a dharma, is a dharma in particular in relationship to a firm of delusion called self, or self... so this property thing is not a real mental event in itself but it's part of the equipment which would be imagined or can be induced or inferred from the way people think about how to make a self it's not a real mental event in itself But it's a way that people wind up thinking about themselves.

[114:37]

This is a way to explain to them how they think. This is how, when you think about yourself and how you make yourself, whether you're conscious of it or not, You use this thing for property to get stuff and get rid of stuff. But it's not a mental event in itself. This is my part, you know. It's really interesting. The brain is concerned that I think we ask myself about that. It's hopeless. But another reason why you don't want property to be a mental event because it has to do with all the other mental events, the way they function. Property. Property is a more general phenomenon than mind, at all.

[115:54]

They want it to be that way. It's a more general construct and more general sports than just mental or physical. Just the functioning? [...] But then why don't you call all the other people to discuss some stars just functioning? Well, that's, in a sense, that's what Bodhisattva is saying. So why do you call the fact that something's just there, and operating in the present, why do you call that property when it's just a thing in the present?

[116:59]

So it seems unnecessary in a way. Why do you call it a thing in itself? Because they want to have the whole theory expressed in dharmas. The Vajabashikas want the whole, all these important events in their dharma list. Part of the reason. It's theoretically handy. Because then you can say everything that on the dharma list is real, all the other stuff is imagined. Then even some of the things on your dharma list are imagined. So then they say, oh, that's too bad. We have to eliminate things from our dharma list? Well, that's not too good. Then they have to refer to things that aren't on their dharma list in order to explain. You see? Maybe this isn't so important, but anyway. There's this material you can refer to to explain what happened and to understand what happened and to liberate yourself from what seems to be happening.

[118:04]

In other words, to liberate yourself from the idea that it happens. So they wanted that to be the dharmas. But then when things happen and you have to resort to something outside that system, you may not feel comfortable because you have to resort to other kind of non-real things to explain what's happening. So you feel somewhat compromised, perhaps, in your meditation techniques. You understand? So maybe you want to bring those in and make them somehow part of your meditation and justify them. And say, anything I need to make this whole thing work, work as a meditation for myself and to explain myself and my understanding to others. I'd like that to be real, real stuff too, rather than have part of it be just junk that I use to explain myself, make myself get along with people in the world. So they brought this stuff in, but then once they brought it in, they found out some of it was sort of junk. Not they didn't find themselves with lots of bond upon that.

[119:07]

Then they say, well, okay, we'll get rid of it. But no, they don't really say get rid of it. They just say, please let us keep it because we need it to make our theory work. But that's where all diamond is actually come down to it. They said, but you see, one other character that I mentioned a number of times is if you tell people beforehand, well, this is just skill and means, folk. We're just saying this stuff to you because we don't tell you about this. And if we don't, although if we don't tell you it's real, well, then you'll just say, well, it's unreal. So why do I have to learn it and put it in my head? Why should I put a bunch of junk in my head? In fact, people have trouble remembering meditation techniques unless they're convinced that they're real. They have trouble memorizing grid or analysis or pictures or images.

[120:11]

They don't think these images are real, real in the sense of really helpful. So they tell you, well, here, think of this, plus this stuff is good. And somebody says, somebody might say, oh, why do you do that? Why do you do that? Why this one rather than that one? So then people say, either they say, just do it, or they start to explain. And some people you can't say, just do it. Most people you can't say, just do it. If Buddhism said, just do it to everybody, it'd be very few Buddhists. So Buddhists, for a while anyway, they say, well, it's very good to do it. Or I do it. Or Buddha did it. Or if you do it, we'll give you something. Or you'll get that. Or various explanations they're given, and then people do it. And eventually they say, just do it. But somewhere along the way, either they prove it's right, prove it's good, prove it's in accord with things you already, you know, find out what does the person already believe in and say it's just like that, you know.

[121:14]

So you prove it's like that. So in this book, basically it's Buddhists proving to other Buddhists that it's in accord with Buddhists in this book. They just keep going back to the scriptures. In the camp, all you've got to do is just keep showing that this is good. in the sense that it's right, in the sense that it's right with teaching of Buddha. But for other people, you have to use other means. You have to show it's right with their experience in daily life, or right with the political system of India before Christ, or right with the attainment of certain human sentiments. You keep justifying this thing or writing it with various needs of people. So that's what the system has to do. The system has to do that because they sort of have to get people to do it. Once they start doing it, then there's no need anymore. It will be justified by them. Then it's their job to justify it, to make it work.

[122:16]

And then their system is, well, I'm trying to do this, but it's not working. And then basically you say, well, you're doing it wrong. Do it this way, get it that way. But then already they've been, they've started to do it. So your experience in Buddhism is, first of all, The people have to be convinced that it's okay, that it's right. Right means right in terms of their value system. First of all, you don't go in and say, well, change your value system and then it will be right. You adjust the thing so it fits their value system to start. So it looks good to them. So it's attractive. Then once they're attracted to it and sort of tuned into it, then they have trouble. But you see, they think that the reason why they have trouble is not because... Well, there's two. Then they think there's two reasons why they're having trouble. One is they made a mistake and it's really not right with their value system. And they want to leave. The other one is they think, well, maybe I'm not doing it right. And that's what Jesus wanted to help them with, is to show them that... And in fact, usually when it's not... It's a funny thing is that usually when there's some problem and it's not working and it's not making them happy, strangely enough, they almost always are doing it wrong.

[123:23]

Actually, most of the time they're at the Cape. For the other cases, it looked like it matched their value system in the first place. And they matched their, they put their mind into that new way of being. And it didn't work in a sense that although they're doing it right, it's sort of unfortunate from their point of view. In other words, on the next layer or whatever, it's sort of unfortunate from the point of view of their value system in some way that they didn't bring up at first. For example, their value system means it's good to be concentrated. and composed, and able to work, and able not to be afraid. And they start practicing meditation, and all things come true, so that they're doing it right. But then they notice, for example, that they don't enjoy certain kinds of movies anymore. So that, in terms of their personal sentiment, weren't expecting that. But that's not the problem of not enjoying the movies, if not necessarily because they're doing it wrong. It might be, actually. So you could say, well, you're doing it wrong because...

[124:24]

You might find out that the reason why they're not enjoying the movies is because they're doing something wrong. That's possible. But let's say they're not. But then you can show them that somebody else 750 A.D. in, you know, East Nepal had that same problem at a certain point in his practice and so on and so forth. He said, I just don't like, I can't go, I go to the carnivals and... And again, you know, that's But that's along the way. So this system is trying to explain this thing. And part of what they have in here is to make it work. And it doesn't really... So this system really is somewhat complete. It's not really complete because it's monthly for month that this is intended. But there's some equipment here that's not necessary for month. Or it's not necessary for all month's.

[125:26]

And it's certainly not necessary for Vasubandhu. So he keeps finding junk there that he doesn't need. And he says, what's this here for? And it's there because it's part of what's crept into the system to make it work. And it's really not necessary for a first sighted Buddhist. And yet here it is. And so, but they have to say this is real. They say, well, this is part of this stuff is actually It's just stuff we have in here to make it work. And if somebody tells you that something is just part of what they have there to make it work, well, you say, well, why do I have to learn it then? Why do I have to learn this junk? Somebody else can learn that. But if you don't learn it, then you have to work. Now, once again, I sometimes feel this way, too. Why do we have to go through this stuff? And this is the hardest part of the abdomen culture, this kind of issue. And you don't have to go through it, actually.

[126:28]

But in these kinds of discussion, in some ways, in the subtlest thinking, because you're discriminating between the more real and conventional levels of the teaching itself, not to mention ordinary truth versus, but within the teaching itself, interpretable or tentative teaching and absolute teachings. and how you discern and swim around among them and tell which is which when. Okay, so, basically, now we have an extended discussion here of the reality or unreality of property, which, as I say, it's a difficult section In a sense, it's subtle, and you'll learn a lot about how Vasa Bounded thinks by reading this.

[127:29]

But on the other hand, at the rate which I would suggest we go do this, I don't need to myself, I don't feel we need to go through this. But if everybody wants to, we can. I've done it a few times before, I'll probably get to it again. Yes? Well, this book is his text. So the way the book is first built is that he takes his human vaiboshika text, and then he makes these summaries verses about it, okay? And then he explained the verses, but in the explanation, the verses, sometimes he criticizes, the critiques, the teaching itself.

[128:34]

Some various wishes. One of the main things, the Soprāntaka. Soprāntaka sometimes is Soprāntaka, sometimes is the Vaibhāshaka, and sometimes even neither. And he doesn't always present all the Vaibhāshaka positions. I mean, usually he doesn't. He only presents the two of them. And the Sartramtika positions, he doesn't necessarily say that Sartramtika positions, but they look the way he's thinking they're like what we call Sartramtika. And when he goes back to the Sutrits, without using any Abhidharma, he critiques the Abhidharma teaching. So it's not really a Vaibhashika text, but the Vaibhashika teaching is the point of departure for this text. Like, you know, to make an inane example, I suppose, not inane necessarily, but you could take the Declaration of Independence, or maybe not the Declaration of Independence because it's too short, but take the Constitution, and then on different sections of the Constitution make a little verse.

[129:41]

Then write a commentary on the verses you write on the different sections of the Constitution, and in there criticize the Constitution. Sometimes you just... write it down and you'd be in agreement with it. Say, this is a good amendment. I like this one. It's good, why it's good. And some people criticize it for this, and some people criticize it for that. The candidates criticize it for this. The Democrats criticize it for this, and so on and so forth. Other cases, you'd say, well, this is a bad one. I mean, you say it's a bad one, but anyway, you critique my show. It's a bad one. I fall through. So in that sense, the base could be the Constitution. But you bring a lot of people other schools, other political systems, and to comment on the amendment, plus your own views. And in some cases, you might let the amendments or the articles go by. It's pretty much reasonable or up-to-date or still working. In other cases, you might sort of suggest that they're out-noted or unnecessary or some improvements to be made.

[130:43]

So in that sense, it would be an American government document. So this is the Buddhist document. It wouldn't necessarily be in accord with the constitutional school. It wouldn't be a disciple of the constitutional convention. But, in a sense, it depends on the constitutional convention. It depends on the Babashika system. He studied the Babashika system. He knows it very well, but he also speaks about it. And so he's suggesting, in some sense, some improvement. But his system would be much more unwieldy as a... incorporate all Abbas Dabami's comments into the Babashika system, the Babashika system would be much more unruly as a feeling. It would be more flexible. So that's the thing you have all the time, you know. But in Christianity, Christianity is very wide and flexible. But it's very inconsistent, and no one knows what it's saying.

[131:50]

So you can have Christian what you call it, Christian bomb builders and Christian peace demonstrators. You can have Christian germ warfare experts and Christian photo building. But then that's pretty good because in Christianity, almost anybody can be a Christian. And Buddhism, too. Buddhism is very flexible. It's hard to say what the Buddhist teaching is, but actually, All the Buddhism is very flexible, just like Christianity. You can spread all over the world just like Christianity. Anybody can be a Buddhist. For example, Samurai have been Buddhists. All the Samurai are Buddhists. But there's one thing we don't have, one thing that's very clear. Although we can say at certain levels, at one level,

[132:52]

Buddhism is very wide and offers lots of alternatives. You can't exactly say what's happening, but at the level of Abhidharma, you can't get more exact. There's a dharmic ethics, or dharma ethics. There's a Abhidharmic and also Mahayanic understanding of dharma theory on a moral level. And that would apply to the mind of the German warfare god and so on. So in some ways Buddhism has some advantage in that there could be a morality for these various things. But if you want a nice tough theory, that's great, but then you're very inflexible and only certain people can follow it. If you have a loose theory that everybody can adapt to, then it's either very inconsistent because it includes all this different stuff, or too fragile.

[134:03]

So all the time it got too fragile, but it got very well worked out. Well, the idea, I suppose, would be that after you After you've thoroughly partisanship uneroded in various ways, there wouldn't be a personal series anymore. It doesn't exist. Partisanship in the world doesn't exist. Our partisanship in the world doesn't exist. They don't exist. They're not an existing thing. They're just reality itself. Reality does not exist. Reality doesn't have a self. But reality does not have a self either. Reality doesn't have a characteristic of self or not self.

[135:03]

But reality will tell you the nature of self, namely its illusion. And reality is cut and is free of self. But free of self does not mean that if you concocted a self that reality will shrivel up in the other way. Reality stands imperturbable in the face of self or not self. Self comes, self goes, no problem. In fact, self does come and self does go. That's our experience as people in the world. Right? Part of something eroded is freedom from that coming and going. It's not being fooled by that coming and going. But in a particular way. So after you have all the particular ways of seeing this coming, being free of the coming and going, at that point, even though coming and going itself would be still something you could talk to somebody about, you would no longer be fooled about it by it. So it's not that the Arhat can't, somebody comes and says, I'm going to the grocery store.

[136:06]

It's not that they don't understand anymore what the person they're talking about. But rather they're not particularly, if they say I'm going to the grocery store or the liquor store, either way, they're not They're not so fooled. They're not turned over by it. They're not pushed around by such talk as I and me and you and give me that and don't take that. Okay? Well, because some people don't have it and some people do. And the people who don't have it, what? The people who don't have it can see it because people who do have it from their point of view of who does and who doesn't. They're more attractive. People who practice Buddhism, somehow,

[136:55]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_73.91