... [...] I'd like to know how this is relevant, this particular section. We're going through a large number of mental functions. learning about .

[01:07]

Just how you work. How to study this . 46 metal diamonds. 46 diamonds, which are associated with, or maybe associated with getting consciousness. It's only about . What's that? [...] like when they're labeled.

[02:11]

Why are they labeled? Why are they labeled? Why, like, does it matter? Does it matter that we have options with pain? Does it matter that we stand? Yeah, what does it say? So you're asking, what's the nature of Aplasia? And also asking my question. It's hard to practice with yourself.

[03:14]

The nature right there is something that I just briefly say something about now because the nature of faith is a little off the track right now. The general quality of all things is something that we'll discuss in chapter five. Chapter five is about the questions. But the thing is stained, in a sense, what's stained is the whole field of consciousness. You know, give them more consciousness. You have some number of these 46 mental dharmas. Some of them will be present. And some of them, what they are, the question is these are the stain. So this is all consciousness. And you have various mental functions going on in consciousness, like noting the march of things, the ability of consciousness and the receptive ordering on the object to relate, the total organization of the field, which is synonymous with karma.

[04:31]

The one-pointedness of the mind, the fact that the mind is always one-pointed on the object of consciousness. And then the present perhaps of faith, perhaps of mindfulness, potential to the object, then it towards the object, approval decision, and so on. So you have any argument here? It's gone. And one of them, let's say, is called the Klesian. If you have more than one Klesian, as a matter of fact, if you have six, if you have any of those six, you have all those six of those major ones. If you have one of the Klesian Klesian, because then you have six Klesian Klesians.

[05:38]

So what is the function? The function of the stain is, in a sense, that they stain. Like a stain, you know. They mean that this dharma here, in a sense, influences the other dharmas. Or it affects the other dharmas in some kind of staining way. Ordinarily, diamonds you see are quite fine in particular. Each diamond has its own definition. If it were the same definition as this diamond, they wouldn't have defined two diamonds. They would have defined one diamond. If these diamonds were always in association, then they would be one thing, one function. They're not always in association. We can just communicate two separate functions before you have two diamonds. However, two separate functions can be a visual association.

[06:42]

When you have one, you also have the other. In other words, although they have the kind of natures, they're tied together. We usually stain each other. In particular forms of staining, like this form of staining could be the fact that when this happens, you almost have these four together. It could be one of these For example, if you have a negative feeling and you always have anger with it, the definition of negative feeling does not include anger. If you have a negative feeling and that's associated with some aversion to the object, the object is associated with the negative feeling, then you would say, But that anger of stain, that anger is the name of the stain. The stain is a certain object, a negative feeling, and an aversion.

[07:47]

An aversion, a certain attitude towards certain feelings. So a stain, in a sense, is another way of talking about a habit. A set pattern among independent arms would actually have independent functions. They don't have to work together by your definition. But in addition to their basic definition, it's some divide or ongoing relationship that's sort of added on to their nature, that's included to their basic nature. In that sense, it'd be like certain people getting married, that would be considered in a sense of completion. Two independent people now can't discriminate each other, and one goes to the other. They have independent natures. And if they want, you can't separate and operate independent. And now, the example of stain, not to say very stain is accurate, but that's something I've talked about.

[08:50]

So that's a brief forecast of what inflation we're about. Yes. When there is stain, that there's In case there's three other dharmas there, you show them, they're all sick, right? Well, let's take one more time. Each of these dharmas have their own definition, okay? And we talk about when a particular dharma, another dharma, or several other dharmas are walking his own pattern, okay? It's like they stay each other. But that they themselves are not staying. We have another dharma which talks about the fact that they're tied together. That would be one endowment over here. A diamond which labels or is defined by certain links between certain diamonds that are not carrying it there. Okay. So these diamonds themselves are not stained. Rather they can be stained by each other and stained each other and then that whole pattern is called equatia.

[09:57]

Okay. What happens to the other diamonds? Two diamonds over here? Yeah. White diamonds. Because that's why we have several clashes, because not all clashes include all the dominions that are presently given. It may include a subset of them. For example, it may be possible in the realm of perception not to have perception itself, not to be stained directly. But some associated dominions may be stained. Well, of course, the fact that there's, you know, the fact, for example, to you people, it may be that that people in that courtroom had individual definitions and, of course, freely interacting. But the people over here are in sort of a little clique, and they can't get out of it no matter what they do, and they can't separate their inherent natures from the clique. And wherever they go, they have to go in the group. That clique, it's not directly related to that group over there who are more free, but, in fact, there will be some effect.

[11:04]

This group will run into That reaction would be somewhat impeded when they run this area of consciousness. So not all questions deal with the whole of consciousness. But they may deal with a subset. What are the two things? Well, we do one. This group here in that group. Where's the consciousness directly? Well, the one-pointedness refers to Samadhi. One of the new dharmas is called Samadhi. And that reminds us that the consciousness has only one object. The dharmas reminds us of the nature of object consciousness relationship. One object and one consciousness. The whole field is the consciousness. And one of these things, either if you're an idealist, you have the object inside, if you're a realist, you have the object outside.

[12:12]

So one of these diamonds present at the object, either at the mental object inside, but at the physical object outside, according to this possible law. Both consciousness relates to this object by means of some receptive quality here, some receptive function, called the India. Well, there's another dharma. This ability to relate here is another dharma. So the fact that this consciousness knows one object that it didn't give at a moment, that's called samadhi. And that talks about the realm of perception. The realm of perception is the subset of the events here. You could talk about the subset. You talk about individual diamonds, you talk about subsets within the whole field, and you talk about the whole field. Consciousness, although it only is involved with one object, it still knows the whole field. So perception and knowledge are not the same thing.

[13:15]

The consciousness knows everything here. It knows totality, it knows the individuals, it knows all the subsets. But perception only deals with the objects, the consciousness, the body, the subsets. which will also include one other dharma, called sparsha, which defines their unity. And, of course, it involves samadhi. Samadhi defines it. Samadhi is not directly involved. People perceptually don't know the samadhi. But you can't perceive samadhi as an object. Samadhi could be the object that you see here. It'd be one point on samadhi. One point of that will not do this. I'm your daughter. I've got to go over here.

[14:18]

I'm your daughter. What the hell? I know. Okay. Okay.

[15:25]

Okay. Okay. Okay. Judge, if you have a book, you don't want to write this book. What? What? So that's a breach. How did one practice with these mental darmings?

[16:36]

When you're Whether you realize it or not, what do you do things? Well, I could do them based on your philosophy. And most of us grew up with a philosophy of mental phenomena that's quite primitive. And for example, we've talked a lot about how we've grown up with the idea that Anger is due to the object. And Abhidharma will not uphold that. Abhidharma plays the emotion of anger that it's an option to prevent. It's a thing to make up.

[17:43]

And there's no discussion, the description of anger that says that due to a certain nature in the object, you then will not really give rise to this thing called anger. The object is not even brought up. You will express anger towards an object, but... Or maybe you'll have anger even prior to an object, and you have anger towards an object with anger. sense maybe prior to angers being involved in perceptual arrangements. So if you learn these, if you learn these dhammas and discuss their function,

[18:52]

You'll start to look at the way you behave, particularly. It's not possible to actually watch yourself and catch all you've done in your son's work. I don't think that's the point. Rather, that's what I first thought, you know, What you try to do is try to be able to catch in a moment all these little diamonds doing their thing. But now I think that rather, by studying these diamonds and their definitions and their inner relationships, you restructure your philosophy about how things happen in a given moment. So rather than go in there and you see what's happening and then you reorganize it, But you reorganize prior to your experimentation.

[19:56]

And then in the process of your experience, you stop. You give up old ways of thinking about it. See the difference. So that's how I think you work with these things. You study them and you find out the ways that this state can happen. And first off, Although I'm not saying that it's done better than what they have already thought, it's obviously incomparably more sophisticated and refined and developed than what most of us have thought before. I don't think there's any question about that. There's nothing in Western philosophy that's detailed and well thought out about . It's not that much a matter of better, but just if you want to it, that's all. Whether it's better or not, we could also talk about it. I think it's also better. I think it's also clearer.

[20:59]

And it's, the better, there is a better, you know. Evolved here. Better means better for what? What's the crux of better and worse in this case for Buddhists? What's our value? More helpful. More helpful, yeah. And what's helpful? Freedom. Freedom, what? Freedom. Freedom, yeah. So what we mean by this is better because this whole trust is towards freedom. It may not be better in terms of certain other values perhaps, but you can't say better outside of context of Newton, because it may not be the most helpful way to get rich. You may not get rich by understanding your richer, but this is not the same thing that you will buy another.

[22:04]

As a matter of fact, for example, it may be that the Calvinists understand the rental phenomenon, will get you richer. It may very well be that way. It may be that the, what do you say, the Carolinian liberalism, French Carolinian liberalism may get you richer than I'll be done. Because it encourages you to be a genius to develop your personality, to develop your individualism. You get out there in the world and do things and not worry about certain things. And Calvinism will maybe encourage you to feel that every time you get rich, that proves you're doing well. So both of them are systems which will reinforce themselves as you get richer.

[23:06]

They won't criticize you to become more powerful in a worldly sense. and more influential in the world itself. However, these ways, their liberative power is, I don't know, we haven't seen much of it. We haven't seen lots of saints coming out of these schools of philosophy. Even Calvin himself seemed to have been somebody who basically was He's a tremendously powerful logician, but almost no one looks backward at any of any love. I know of anyone who refuses his teaching for liberation. Maybe somebody does, but he said it's a great school for a colony who, you know, own half the Soviet Union for a while.

[24:06]

It's a great system for colonial powers. Whereas Abhidharma is not necessarily both their colonial powers. And Buddhism in general is not necessarily so good for that. So it's just a new way to look at things. And if you learn this way to look at things, you won't take your experience in a primitive way anymore. And also lots of assumptions, which are glaciers about how things go, although you may continue for a while, you'll take them as you say, with the grain of Abhidharma. You won't take them seriously anymore. Even though you continue to see this thing, or see these habitual patterns, you'll also see that they don't make sense. Because the things you're talking about is being involved by definition. By your definition, your understanding of them, it doesn't make sense that they would be associated in an individual form. Namely, it must be just another idea about how they're working.

[25:11]

rather than they really do work that way. So by the section we're studying now, we're learning that this is this, and this is this, and this is this, and this is this. And this is like this, and that's like that, and that's like that. And then you can see That this is like this, and this talks about the fact that this and this are habitually tied to each other. But already you see that that's why it's called a equation, because it's an illusion. Because it just violated the definition of these two, which did not include that they were habitually associated. And so then when you see this thing in the future, the experience in the place of the future yourself, you'd know why it doesn't make sense. And although you still seem to see it, it still seems to be there.

[26:15]

Just like the diamonds that are involved in the place, you seem to be there. There's a lot of, you say, tentativeness about the whole thing. You have very tentative freedom. And you know you just found yourself stories. Or rather, put it another way, rather than you know that you're telling yourself a story, you tell yourself a new story, that the old story is a story. And the new story, you judge yourself whether the new story is more fun than the old story. I personally have found that the new story often is, or the new story itself is not any better than the old story. The new story is an antidote to the old story. If you attach to the new story, the new story won't be better. Excuse me, I should say it won't be better, but it's still a problem.

[27:17]

It is better. There's two reasons why it's better. One is that it's a new story. Two is that you knew you could understand it and learned it. That you learned it in your adulthood. And you keep forgetting it unless you remember it. So by the fact that you learned it and you know you learned it, You know that sort of it is putting it on. You're more likely to do that. But still you may hold on to it because it's useful. What's it useful for? What's it useful for? What is use? I just said, what is use? What? Liberation, but in particular, you get rid of the old story. So Abhidharma's story, get rid of old stories. And old stories are what's your problem. The old stories, according to the old stories, you've got a lot of trouble. According to the old stories, you're a bum. According to the old stories, you agree, you're stupid, evil, or you're great.

[28:22]

Nobody agrees with you. Why not? This is the old stories. The old stories have all its inconsistencies. The old stories, in the old stories, you're right. And they're wrong, or they're wrong, or they're right. Or nobody knows which it is. The old stories are a big mess. And so you want to learn. I get free of the old stories. Here's a new story. And the new story speaks sometimes directly to the old stories. And sometimes doesn't talk about the old stories at all. But just talks about what's happening. And then when you see the old stories, you'll happen to notice that Abhita has something to say about them. Although it didn't directly speak to them when you learned it. And it'll sort of blow holes in your old story. So, that's the nice thing about it. Then another thing is, as I said, you know you just learned it. And you may attach to the, its ability to sort of blow those stories apart, but to capture it, it's still not too good because it's a story too. And then Mahayana comes along and tells you the story that you learned, the Abhya Dharma story, which got rid of the old story, is also a story.

[29:31]

and not get rid of that story. And by the way, this story, that other story is also a story. So don't even get attached to the story that gets rid of the story that gets rid of the stories. One step at a time. Hopefully when you get it in Mahayana, it keeps turning itself. Basically, you stay in the same boat. You just keep capsizing at that point. So that's hopefully some context for studying individual dharmas. And see if you can identify, when you're reading about these dharmas, see if you can identify the experiences they're talking about. And when you take your experiences and bring them into this form, Then you transport your experience into a benevolent system, a system which is primarily set up for your good.

[30:43]

And although you... So it's not just learning a system, it's learning a system which, once you learn it, then it's sort of like, now that you've learned it, now we can take care of it. Now that you committed your mind to working with these ruts, now you can be taken care of. As long as your mind's flying off on the old stories, who can control it? Who's in charge of the old stories? Well, in America today, one of the problems is that no one can be charged with the stories. There was a time, perhaps, in the history of the West, that somebody was in charge of the stories. So certain people would come and help them. They'd come and say, well, you've got that wrong. You're looking at it wrong. Try this way, try that way. A lot of these stories come from Christianity. But there's no Christian teachers around telling you to correct your stories so you're in trouble.

[31:45]

If you transfer to these new set of stories, then Buddhist teachers can help you. And Buddhist teachers can help you. Because now you have books which are about your new stories. And if your stories get off, you just look up here and see if you've got your story right. So you're embedded in a big caring system that will take care of you. And then, when you're all safe and cuddly, strong and free, then there's another set that's thrown out of it, which is also taking care of you. In other words, it takes into account that you're a human being and you have attachments, and it transports you into that realm, and it takes them away from you, but it takes them away from you in a way that happens to work. This doesn't knock you off. It replaces with better and better sets until finally you're able to get along without any and still function. So I don't know if it's a great conspiracy or what, whether they're getting it covered up or what.

[33:00]

But anyway, we have recollections of this thing being . Even if you get attached to it, there's an antidote to that. Now, any other questions at this point about what we're doing generally about what we're trying to do? Well, all of that, like I've just been talking about, I think, but specifically, we'll be talking now about mental events. And this part of the 20th century is talking about these intended armies here. And as you see, there's only one page. So there's not much treatment of it now.

[34:03]

So you probably should go and try to find them in other places where they're discussed in some more detail. And some places where you can find out more about these, you know that list of popular terms that has the subtle definitions of H1? How many do I talk about? Do you have it, Della? Yes. This is a thing, several sheets of it, and it's called 75 diamonds that we set off the mountains. And we've got them. It doesn't have any form, but people are about.

[35:05]

But they're all in mental diamonds. And all of these are just in the sky. And do we have a map of that? So do you make more? Possibly by a cent. Maybe, maybe, huh? And you know, penny down. You're fed with the first penny down, what did you get? But to get settled that permission, so it's only a couple of cents per debt permission. Anyway, you have here then, for example, Perveton and I, they have several definitions, and you have also Perveton and Chinese. They have the Sanskrit, Pali, and then several definitions of Perveton and Chinese. Chinese often help us do with Chinese. Then also, there's some books that talk about But this city mother talked about, not just these, not just these characters here, under number 27, but all those donors associated with the city mother.

[36:24]

Does anybody know where the city mother talks about it? What? Where unfortunately, what do you think? Well, under what skandha would these come? What skandha would you find these practically in Part 27? Or what skandha would they go in? What? They go in samskaras skandha. So if you look in the Visuddhimagra, under the aggregates, which is the skandhas, and look under the samskaras skandha, you find a description of these. of these dharmas here, plus all these mental dharmas will be under the, either under Veda, Samya, Samskara. Most of them will be under Samskaras. Then in the manual of the dharma also, you'll find it talked about individually.

[37:32]

or he, it was the beautiful story. Discussed in the, uh, or took the roots of the word. And then, uh, it's a quality of the, you know, you get to it. All the mental ones. But I'm talking about these kind of things, but the tech here isn't going to tell us much. But the ,, of course, I'm not going to tell you individually much about these, right in this section. I'll give you other books to read about these 10, but also all 46. And if you notice that I'm giving you the ,, which is not of the same school as the ,, not as . But when it comes to describing the mental dharmas in particular, how they work, as you'll see from that list that I took,

[38:34]

that I list over there, you'll see that the Pali and Sanskrit spell works very similar, and the meaning is very simple. So when it comes to the individual dharmas, particularly mental dharmas, particularly mental dharmas, you'll find that the Shavastavadi analysis, the Sutheran Kapital analysis is very simple. In other words, How experienced, technically, how did you experience the mind, how the mind is experienced? It's pretty much the same in two schools. The big difference will be, in the theoretical area, so the Nipayutta Samskara, the Sarvatava, it's quite different from similar theoretical dharmas and theoretical teachings. Southern works. There you have a big difference. And there you won't finally make reference to the Siddhi Manga. And the manual of Abhidharma is also a southern Abhidharma text.

[39:42]

But also you won't get messed up by that much. And in Gunther, he treats both the northern and southern Abhidharma schools. So there, he'll treat these dhammas individually under both to a certain extent. You'll see it, you put not some out there of kosha, and in the city, you have to track which one to read. But they're quite similar, so it's not using that station now where it's coming from. There's a little difference. 49 on what? Oh. Oh. Thank you. I guess I would say it's simulation.

[40:50]

What you might do is take the English translation here. There's ten diamonds here, right? Krona, Maksha, Maksha. Once you try to put those in correspondence with one of them listed, you can figure it out. Look up the same way. It means the sky. He needs to hide this guy and put it in a different form. Like Freud. Freud writes in a simulated, he assimilates his, a lot of his stuff. So if you want to know that, that actually psychoanalysis is three days.

[42:02]

They assimilate that because he lived in, he lived in a hotbed of antisemitism. board to just come right out and say what he was coming from. So that's the stimulation of progress . But on this ,, I think we'll excuse him. OK, so that's . Make sure you know what Sanskrit word for these English translations here. And you can use some of the other books to figure it out and look up the words in that chart. I mean, that sheet that has studied right down as put as any definitions. And then also, there's a book called The Mind in Buddhist Psychology that was called by Britu. And I see that has Tibet. So if you have this chart here that has Tibet, then you can see which one he's talking about.

[43:08]

So there, also, extended discussion of each one of these from Tibet, which will be more also, and so on. So you can use these other books. If you just read this section of chapter 2 of card 23 to card 35, on the mind and mental states. You'd not have learned very much about each individual one. And it's back up here as a center. This is more of a system of talking about some individual ones, but I thought I'd talk a lot about each one. At some point in my past, there is dealing with these things, and I'm working together at an extended deep level. So I would suggest that you look through very clear with the assignment.

[44:17]

Any questions about where do we look at? Just start. It's being a six books that should be a good one. All right, so the first two of these two diamonds, the previous two, which are the which will be defined below, I think that I always found in bad minds. Yeah, maybe we should go to Carter 32 for a moment.

[45:30]

What? No, then afterward I just drank those Carter 27. Okay, well, I just read the explanation of the card was 26 B.D., okay? Now it says the card that 32A is the definition of these two boundaries. Okay. It's a lack of respect. It's a lack of admiration. It's a lack of admiration. It's a lack of respect. It's a lack of respect.

[46:33]

It's a lack of respect. I don't know if it wasn't a man left to see it wasn't as much as I said. Saying, is that just one I could tell? It wasn't as much as I said. [...] understand by the expression of not seeing a positive consequence. What do you interpret? What do you interpret? What do you interpret?

[47:35]

What do you interpret? [...] but actually powerful, so I'd say that there are requests to catch up to. There will be a declaration of the perspective. The president's secret of the file files, which can be acknowledged with the second base, which simply has a big event. In addition, I'm only at the receiver signifies the file [...] It's basically what we do for patients. The test for all of us will be used in definition. It will be a very important spot to drop it. For example, we asked it. I mean, I can't get. We have to change. Because that we don't feel.

[48:36]

We have to change. [...] He did not say that once in the act is a shame, I've signed a paper. First, I leave there, and I want to go up. When the president was not fair for shame in Sandy, considering himself, there is an apathomia I've formed from that confusion, which was not fair for the shame he's sitting in the public. Me and apathomia are supposed to be too bad now. The declaration of the point in most areas was that So back above, any questions? Good question.

[49:47]

The discrimination between the difference of seeing, what does not bear seeing, that there's no bad results in the other way of not seeing. In one case, you're seeing it correctly. In the other case, you don't even notice. In one case, you see it correctly. You see, but you make the wrong discernment. In the other case, you don't even pay attention to what you don't notice. You don't see any. In one case, you see that there isn't any. In the case, you don't see that there is. So depending on what way you look at it, one way is that you fear the consequences. And in one case of respect, veneration, fearful submission. And the other one, fear of consequences. The other side, modesty and respect. Yes? With an example of how many people, when you're having a kind of struggle, a mental struggle, whether or not you think it's the best group or something else, it will be easier, but not really likely, and you decide to go the easy way.

[51:26]

Would that be the doubt of me? I think that black and purple skin could probably be the point. For any kind of stroke, you have a pretty good idea of what we should be doing. Well, Audrey is... You have a great idea of what you should do. Or in other words, you have an idea of what a respectful thing would be. Well, if you were a fine, you know what a fine person would do.

[52:27]

Yeah, yeah. You know what a Buddha would do. Yeah. And yet, so you don't think that you're, but you're not, you're not going to live up to that standard. Correct. At the particular moment. In other words, you don't think you're in that class. Therefore, you pull off this thing over here. Yeah, that's all three. The other one is, it's all three is just, you know what a respectful person, what a worthy would do. And you say, I'm not going to do this kind of worthy thing. I'm going to do the worthy thing. I have respect for your beautiful. Work my beautiful anyway. Your goodness. And the other one would be you know what people like.

[53:36]

And that you don't do what they would like. Okay, so that's R3 on Apocatis. Now we go back to 27. And someone read the text on the card, part 27. What parents have said, because they had the seared boom, the paratacration, the paratacration of small passion,

[54:47]

. They are associated only with ignorance, with the ignorance that should be expelled through the tank of that place, through the ignorance of the domain of the mental consciousness. This is why they are in top pressure. And what we studied in the picture. We've studied five categories in the picture. There are other metal states that are in the internet. I mean, we got it. Which are sometimes associated with a good mind. Sometimes with a bad or neutral mind. Or, crick, crick, picture. And yeah, in the character, you kind of, and so on. How many metal states are necessarily produced with each mind of the ASRS?

[55:50]

Those are the ones. So they're not dealing with . But also, you should study. It's quite important to study. We have, in one of our articles that's on our reading list, discussed it in some detail. The article by Johnny called Depraved to Some Scars. You know that one? We discussed stuff. And also, in the introduction to the Arbidanga Deepak, you'll find the target of each other. But also, the target of each other will be discussed in all the other sources that I mentioned. They're sort of important because they have to do with language and speaking with support.

[56:59]

And also, their function and relationship to the state of trance and . And of course, . And Rod also is important, and so on. So these are important, darn the goal that you determine that there's still you should know about. But I don't intend to go through one by one class there, unless you, for some reason, say you want to do that with people. But you can read about it quite well. And also the Opti-Sanghi is in the next place. You know, the Opti-Sanghi is a commentary on the Dhamma-Sanghi. There, too, they'll look through and they'll talk about each one of these mental dhammas.

[58:05]

They give you lots of examples of how these things work. Not sort of a more metaphoric picture. philosophical or psychological. So I would suggest that if you read these books, you get background in all these mental times. It's not, if you have any questions about that, I have to bring up questions. I think it's something that even if we talk about in the class, you start to immerse yourself in Thinking about what these are, the familiarity with the society has flexibility in response from the very description. What is the meaning when they are associated only with Victor?

[59:07]

It means that all, well, there's three roots, right? Only associated with Victor is with Mohawk, not with the other two. They could be associated with the other two also, but then they'd be one of the other kind of states. They aren't necessarily associated with lust or with virtue or virtue. They're not necessarily. They could, if they are, I mean, you'll finally figure out that they're in that kind of state. But they could be in a state that doesn't have lust or doesn't have virtue. What? It's a different kind of anger. It's not the Vesha. It's not the one of the roots. If you look on a chart, there's actually three kinds of anger. There's Prota, Papillata, and Vesha.

[60:13]

Vesha is the most fundamental word. It needs to talk about mental events. So that would be an interesting thing to do, is to think about what to do between hate or aversion at the root, which is called , and . They all seem to be talking about aversion or hatred or anger. There's a little bit of difference between them. Would someone like to study that in your report? I asked someone to do what happened. get results. Do you want to try it again? What? For when? You want to do it? What are you going to be done? That's the question. Do anyone like to help with you?

[61:17]

These people will be willing to help just my phone. We'll do that. Okay, let's see what I'm doing. You can do it. [...] Each one is a little bit different. If you try one and it isn't interesting, try another one. Probably with all the different proofs, you'll start by one that sort of catches your fancy, so it's readable for you. And once you start reading one, then the others will be nice to get built. Once you start learning a little bit about it, then you'd like the other ones to help people learn a little bit more to get a little different slant on the same diamond. So you can read one, then go read the other one in the same .

[62:23]

Or you can read right through on various of them, then go read, read right through on various of them again. If you just, I would suggest, keep scrolling around to find which one sort of hits you, whether it's . Those are primary sources. Or whether you like secondary sources, like , or something like that. Maybe like the original. Sometimes some days you like the original more than the secondary, some days like secondary more than the . But don't just let you hit the wall quick. Just if you don't quite enjoy it, look at another one of the wall. And as I say, once again, you have to spend some time getting yourself familiar with stuff. There's not enough time to expose you to stuff enough so that you have to save sand if you have You know, examples are very helpful with people doing none of this stuff. You know, a few examples.

[63:23]

And that, this is true of anything, once again, but generally speaking, it needs to really have a combination of personal work, what you do all by yourself, and what you do with others. So in class you work with others, but I would also suggest, if possibly, what you talk about, talk with each other about Abhagadha. ask each other questions about it, because you bring out lots of things that you can't bring out while you're alone. Clarify a lot of things in the discussion, what do you get with your own study? But you have to do your own study, too, or there's nothing to bring out. There's something to bring out, but it's not really much. Because it's more like, you can talk about how we're done with our background, but then it's something to clarify, just kind of mind, but not clarify. study this material and discuss it. So now let's read the next section to find out about the numbers of things that can be in the different kinds of states.

[64:44]

We have studied the five categories of mental states, five categories of kathosika dharmas, or the de-prayukta, samprayukta samskara, de-kitta samprayukta samskara. There are other mental states that are neutral, so on and so forth. How many dharmas are necessarily produced with each mind, with group mind, bad, neutral one. OK? So if you have any idea, so for a good mind and a common thought too, how many times would be there? So as it is always associated with Vitarga and Vichara, the mind and a common thought too, when it is good, Ours, it means 22 netflix days.

[65:48]

Sometimes you must have regret. So... We have a comma dot two. This is the doctrine, and this can be karma, kind of karma. So yeah, kushala, akushala, and agyakita. Yeah, karma, rumpa, and arukya. In the Commodatu, it's good.

[66:52]

In the Commodatu, there's always . Do you know that? What's the Commodatu? Here in this world, there's always . In other words, you can always . And here, the third speech says 22. So what are the 22? What are the 22? Do you know Marilyn? Do you know what's going on? Ten mahabumikas? Ten mahabumikas? So I'm looking at the text, you know?

[67:57]

Just by reasoning, how many are there? Huh? Ten kushula, right. What? What else? They target each other. And sometimes you add regret. Carprecha. Carprecha. You sometimes add that. It may or may not be there. So you might have carprecha. OK, now, if it's a common tattoo and it's awkward, how many would it be there? Do you know or not? Why don't you know? Do you see it? Look over here. See it over here? Do you see this? So how many are over here? What does this mean? Ten what?

[69:06]

So how many will be over here? What? Do you know why the ten mob will be over here? Okay, so you know there must be 10 here, right? So what else would be here? What? What else would be in that? How many are there? Six? How many are there with you? Those are the monochromicors. They are crucial. So you know you have 10 monochromicors, and you have two monochromicors. What else do you have there?

[70:13]

Look up here. What are you going to be there? Will they be over here? Why? Because it's associated with all mines? No. Why? Why, Janet? Because it covered up. We just said a minute ago that Vitarka and Vitarra are a comedoptic. I wasn't a comedoptic, so Vitarka and Vitarra, where else? Where else would be here? It's an awkward state. Where else would be here? Anything? You couldn't have a cliche about it. What? It could be there. Or will they be?

[71:15]

If one of them was there, they have to all be there, right? And if they're always there, then they should be . They should be . So we're talking about what has to be there. So at every ,, you probably have at least 14 dogs and maybe If you're right. Okay. How was that with the tech senate? We say 14. All right. Yeah. Okay, bad mind. So what are they calling you?

[72:21]

What's missing? So here it says, the bad mind admits 20 mental states when it is independent or associated with 21 when it is associated with one of the poor passion, anger, and so on. The regret. So this says that it has those things which we say were optional. It says it has the klesha mahabhunikas. OK, so we have a question here.

[73:54]

Why, if you put the six .. [...] And they can also be here. There you go. So, all is associated with Aakurshiva, but the maha-ulmika, but these two are always only associated. So maha-ulmika means always only in this case. See the difference? You know?

[74:58]

Well, these two. If they're there, you know it's a non-crucialistic state. They define a non-crucialistic state. If they're there, it's a non-crucialistic state. If it's a non-crucialistic state, these six are here. But these six are here. You don't necessarily have a non-crucialistic state. are necessary and sufficient definitions. These are necessary definitions, but not sufficient. And these can also define another state. In a Krishna, in a neutral state, these can also be there. So that's the difference between these two.

[76:02]

No, they have to be there, but they aren't . These are necessary. If you have these two, you also have these. If you have these two, you don't have this. will be necessarily efficient to find this part, but these don't, because these could be over here. So these are necessary for pot pushing, but they're also necessary for . So they're not . Yeah, they're necessary for both . Okay, so that's the, Okay, now what I'm looking at, here's a rupertizer, okay?

[77:13]

So how many will be in the rupertizer? I'm even good. Why is that right now? [...] Because what? Anybody else? Can they be the common doctor with a reproductive? Can they be our reproductive?

[78:19]

Any category where they can't be? Yeah, they can be anywhere. But we could go right ahead here and put them in all places like that. But this is the basic machinery of a conscious moment, is Ken. Okay, now what else is in the Rupadatu? I'm good. What? The Tarkic H.R. will be there. Sometimes, sometimes they will. So where are Tarkic H.R.? These are four layers. What? So in the first layer, in the first echelon of the glucodactyl.

[79:29]

The glucodactyl is not here, but the glucodactyl is here. In the first level of the glucodactyl, we have to be talking to each other. What? . There's an intermediate, there's even a little path forward state here. The bottom one you have both of them, and the next one you only have the second one. So the first one actually is tiered with respect to Vitarpa Kachara. Okay? So... So in the first level, in the first path of the rupa-dhakti, you have ten Mahabhulingkas, Plus what? What else do you have to do with that? The first tier, you have to talk to each other.

[80:32]

Fourth and the first half of the first tier, and one and the second happens, Peter. And then the third, second, third, fourth, later, you don't have to talk to each other. Which means what? Can't talk. And also you can't understand teaching somebody to come up and say, how are you? You don't know what they're talking about. Why do you know what they're talking about? Right. The sound, if you had to watch your jigger in your head, some kind of checking your brain to notice that your brain was ticking off. It's one of the sound. It would be a little oscilloscope and still keep working. But you wouldn't be going like this. The word, you wouldn't be... squishing it together with those inalienable sounds. We wouldn't be doing that anymore.

[81:33]

And I'll say we wouldn't be putting it together into words. Because the target is what defines the target is what you need to define and make the edges of the word. And you take those, put those together into words. Without that mental function, you drop that mental function, We can't talk anymore. Paul Steele won't see a person. Why won't you see a person? Why won't you hear? How do you get in such a state of care? Why is it that way? What? What? What? Do you look novel? To who? If you have one here, Looking at another one. Neither one of us will see each other. Maybe have some other guy just standing around, watching.

[82:35]

How you doing, man? Do you look alright? Depends on who you look. If you're both in the Rupadatu, second stage. If you have one in the first stage, and then somebody else is here talking to them, this one would understand the speech, but not see any people. This one wouldn't understand the speech, and wouldn't see any people. But you do it here, it's not. What do you respond appropriately like if a tree is falling down? Well, I would say that if a tree is falling down, it would not be able to see something that you saw, like you see a lot of different colors coming through.

[83:40]

But you wouldn't necessarily know. It wouldn't necessarily know you spoke to the moon. That's why they said that it would probably tree We have lost a few audience. No, you wouldn't. I wouldn't tell you how to do so, handsome. What? Would you have a party? Would you be crushed by a tree? I mean, it's... I don't know. But if somebody said, watch out, face falling, this guy, he'd be able to move.

[84:41]

He'd say, oh man, I don't beg you out of the way. I don't know what, you don't exactly see a tree, you don't see a tree, but you understand that the tree's falling. This person wouldn't understand the case, partner. The thing is, you see folks, this is a good kind of problem. This is a bad problem. So you're much, generally speaking, you're much safer. If you're over here, even though you've got all your senses out there, you're sort of very great, and it happens still, you're shooting stuff. It doesn't help. Fensiveness is not what keeps you getting in trouble.

[85:44]

Anyway, so that's how it appeared in the Why? What? Oh, we didn't finish, huh? Yeah, what happened to them? Yeah, what happened to them? Yeah, what happened to them? Where are they? Yeah, I scared. Anything else here? Are they here? Yeah? Okay. Anything else here? So according to that, there'll be 20 dharmas in this state.

[86:47]

22 here, 21 here, and up in here, just 20. Is that right? Check the text. I'll do it now. Then how about . What? . Well, what drops are? Remember what he dropped out? Who remember what dropped out? So great, easy. Picard with each R. You just policy me. Have a look at five layers. First layer, you drop Picard. Second layer, you drop Picard.

[87:51]

Next layer, you drop Picard. Next level, you've got Sukha. And the top level, you get that picture. OK? But we're not talking about all the time that's here. There could be Sukha here. They say the same. One of the ways to tell the difference between ascending on this level is that you get rid of various kind of emotional encouragement. When you get here, you're no longer me. yourself by how much fun it is to be in the state. You like it without being excited about it. But the lower state, this is really great. You get up, get into it. And that's why I ask the question, how do you get into the state where you can't see trees anymore, you can't hear people anymore? How does that happen? Perhaps it's because you desire to be someplace where you can't see trees.

[88:51]

You desire to be someplace where you can't see trees. You think about, you desire, you get interested in. That's why I say emotionally encourage yourself to be interested in colors, right, or trees. Just colors. And the same thing, Attitude towards sound, you get interested in fundamental sounds rather than articulated sounds. If you become interested in underground, you give up the ground of specific composite visual things, specific composite what? Automatic things. We give up that ground, we get more in the underground by virtue of your obsessive compulsive desire. It's television, they're gone. That here, how do you get it this day? How many are here? We also find the same thing here. We desire to be one who's grown so strong with an even-minded one in this space.

[89:59]

You are so excessive in your conceptualizations that you're born in realm of most conceptualization. You're not born. Now, how about this one? How many dharams are in this day? Ten Mahapunikas? What? Can you? What do you say, folks? Yes, or no? Oh, yes? How many for years? Four, two, three, four. Five, six, seven, eight. How many per now? One, two, eight, five, six. Five, six. We know it was one. It's okay, you know, what's in here?

[91:01]

We know it's winner, yes. We know it's winner, yes, it's winner. Yes, it's winner, okay, yes. It's okay, we know it's winner. Must be. It's our question, right? Am I being me? Care to fall? Ah, that's that question. But he knows we're right. You can't get into a triumph of unholding consciousness. The reason why you can't get into a triumph is what? What are the health statuses? What? Did you speak up? Did you ever call to me? Can I go to Paulie? I ran to work. I ran to school, folks. Who knows? Where's hell?

[91:59]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_47.51