Tonight I thought I would bring up something that I think you people are okay hearing about and talking about. Now you've heard, I think, all of you the suggestion that all Buddhas and ancestors who Buddha Dharma had made it the true path of enlightenment to sit upright in the midst of self-fulfilling awareness And I've been suggesting to you lately that when we hear the statement that just wholeheartedly sit and thus drop away body and mind, that that's part of a kind of a hint

[01:25]

and justification for understanding that wholeheartedness or being wholehearted is the self-fulfilling samadhi. So you could also say that the true path of enlightenment is to sit wholeheartedly. And when one, and when we're in this wholeheartedness, in this Samadhi, our actions of body, speech and mind are imprinted or sealed by this being in this state. And at that time, the whole phenomenal world and the entire sky are also imprinted by this practice, join in this practice, are also part of the wholeheartedness.

[02:37]

And then in this way of being, we and all other beings are kind of resonating with each other and assisting each other in inconceivable and imperceptible ways. And these amazing, wondrous things are proposed to be going on in this path of enlightenment. And then we hear that all this, it's been hinted at before, but now it's specifically said that all this does not appear within perception. All this is not mixed with perceptions because it is unconstructedness. It's an unfabricated path. it is immediate realization.

[03:50]

And so it isn't mixed with perceptions. So I thought maybe we could discuss that, this practice, this self-fulfilling samadhi tonight, and discuss something that, you know, is not mixed with perception and yet the path, the true path. The true path is not mixed with perceptions. Yes? Is that saying that perception and realization are... No, it's not saying that. Now, it does say a little later in this discussion, it says, if practice and realization... Did you say perception?

[05:01]

Yeah. If practice and realization were two things, as it appears to an ordinary person that practice and realization are two things, or perhaps that perception and realization are two things, could be recognized separately. Or another translation is they could look at each other. But this is not the case. So your original question, is practice and realization separate? If things are not separate, how is it that you say it is not mixed with perception, or does not appear within perception? In a way, yeah. Okay, go on. If they're not separate, how can it be that they are not mixed, or not occurring within?

[06:03]

Mixing them implies that they're separate. And appearing within perception also implies that realization is separate from something, I would say. You could even go so far as to say that this path, this true path of enlightenment is that the practice and the realization are one thing, the same thing. But the practice and the realization don't appear within perception, and they're not mixed with perception. Now perceptions aren't someplace else either, because otherwise beings that are in perception wouldn't be part of the process. But the path is not a perception.

[07:04]

of some person. The path is the way that person is working together in mutual, in perceptible support with all beings. That is not... doesn't appear within perception and isn't mixed with perceptions, except in the sense that all beings who are having perceptions are totally included and interrelating in this in this wholeheartedness, in this samadhi. Yes? I was intrigued by the use of the word imprint. And I was wondering if within your awareness you used the word imprint, that is commonly used to describe what a hatchling does when it is first confronted when it's hatching behind the ball.

[08:09]

I don't want to exclude that zoological or etiological association. I did say imprint, but I meant imprint more in the sense of a seal, like a seal of authenticity or a seal of approval. And mudra means seal, like a seal of approval, it means a circle. And so there's an impression or a sealing or a verification of our action when our action is in accord with the samadhi. So in a sense, we are imprinted on this in the sense that you're meaning.

[09:18]

But it isn't just that when our actions are sealed or imprinted with this seal, that our actions are imprinted with this seal, but all other beings are also sealed. And then in Zen and in China, They often use a transmission as like, what they would do is sometimes you would break a seal in half and give two people each half of the seal. And then when you got the two seals back together, that would verify that it was authentic. So in this case it's like this mutual sealing of all things and each thing. The samadhi, the self-receiving, employing samadhi.

[10:38]

I just wonder if the self is... Receiving and employing samadhi? Right. So what does the self are in that process? What makes the self? Would you like self and perception be synonyms in that case? Would self and something be synonyms? And perception. Would self and perception be synonyms? Well, there could be a self of a perception, but you could also have a self of a person or a perception of a person. I wouldn't. You know, a self, in a sense, I mean, a perception, in a sense, has a self in the sense that this perception is different from the other. perception of green has the self of perception of green, and perception of blue has a self of perception of blue, but that's not an independent self, that's just a self by which, which is referring to the fact that it's not the same as other things.

[11:41]

That's more the self like the things, the things positioned in the phenomenal world, self. But there's two kinds of self. One kind of self is a self that is born in the advent of all things. The other kind of self is a self which is imagined to be, in a sense, prior to the advent of things and which acts upon things from its pre-existent independent state. So one kind of self, which is the self of delusion, is the self of enlightenment. But they meet. The enlightenment and delusion meet at the self. There's a self there. Like there's a you, there's a shoho. All things come forth and make, shoho.

[12:44]

into someone who can be deluded, perhaps. And now that she's made by all things, she can imagine that she now will make all things. Now that all things realize her, she's a person who could then think, oh, I can realize things. And in a sense, the things are there to be realized because they're there to realize you so you can turn around and realize them. If you forget that they realize you, then you think that you're independent of them. You lose track that your life is nothing in addition to them. So they make you, with you not adding anything to them, and you make them without being anything in addition to them. You make them perfectly with no residual, nothing more. So you make the whole universe and the whole universe makes you.

[13:50]

And one perspective is delusion and the other perspective is enlightenment. But enlightenment isn't the Buddha way. Enlightenment is only half of the story. Another story, you can have beings who, now that they've been born, can now think that they can act upon what gave them birth, rather than they're born together with what gave them birth. So the Buddha way is dealing with both enlightenment and delusion, not just the enlightenment part. And the way this happens, and the way there's learning, is to be open to what? Is to be open to the wholeheartedness of the whole process and to be open to something that's not going to be another perception in your repertoire of perceptions.

[14:56]

It's not going to be another perception. You can hear about it. Perceptions and conceptions of this teaching But the actual realm is not a perception. It's an existential realm where all perceptions are working together. So in that realm, in that samadhi, it's not perceived, you're basically saying? That samadhi is not perceived? You're right, it's not perceived. You could say that the samadhi is a perception. You could call wholeheartedness a perception. But the wholeheartedness is not perceived. It's not recognized. Perception isn't perceived. Well, I wouldn't say it doesn't appear within perception.

[16:03]

It is perception. And it's not mixed with perception. It is perception. Now, it's a perception, you could say, in which all perceptions are working together with each other. Enlightened perception. Enlightened perceptions. So the totality of a moment is this samadhi. Yes. It seemed in your description of that totality of the moment, I got a sense of constructiveness in that view, saying self is made of all these things together. But that follows with the question to me about perception. I mean, at that moment of totality, there is no constructiveness or... Yeah, the way we're constructed... is not a construction. We are constructed.

[17:03]

But the way that is, is the Dharma. It's not another construction. It's unconstructedness. And it's in stillness too. Nothing's really moving around. It's just all the conditions are there. you can say they come forth, but when they arrive, if there's stillness, and that is an unconstructedness and stillness, that is immediate realization. And it involves the construction of beings, and the way that they're constructed is enlightenment. But enlightenment is you know the way is something that's resonating back between all enlightened and unenlightened beings and that way of that's all working together that's unconstructed that's unfabricated and it doesn't appear and it can't be recognized and it doesn't get mixed with perceptions

[18:18]

Yes, Max? When you say perception, perception means that it has an incutation in it. It's a con, like, so by perception, so there are, let's say those solbutonics aren't black, is that right? Rather than, I just want to get the definition of perception there. Is perception, does that imply that it has sort of an incutation? According to our favorite sutra, or one of our favorite sutras, all phenomena have three characteristics. One of them is imputational characteristic. So perceptions have an imputational characteristic. Perceptual cognitions have an imputational characteristic. Conceptual cognitions have an imputational characteristic. Objects of awareness have an imputational characteristic.

[19:32]

Emotions have an imputational characteristic. Feelings have an imputational characteristic. And enlightened, you know, valid cognitions have an imputational characteristic. Invalid cognitions have an imputational characteristic. They all have an imputational characteristic. And they all have another dependent characteristic. And they all have a thoroughly established characteristic. Now basically all phenomena are other dependent characters. They have another dependent characteristic which means that they're constructed. It doesn't mean they're constructed because some phenomena are not constructed but they also have other dependent character. They also arise in dependence on things but they're not constructed. Like emptiness is a dependent core arising and it has another dependent character.

[20:36]

but it's not constructed. But all phenomena, constructed and unconstructed, have another dependent character. What's the other dependent of emptiness? It depends on, for example, that it's emptiness of something. Emptiness isn't emptiness all by itself, it's the emptiness of something, for example. Or it's the emptiness of a perception. So it itself is not constructed, but it's the characteristic of all constructed things, and it's also characteristic of one unconstructed thing, actually more than one unconstructed thing, it's emptiness. Emptiness is also a characteristic of emptiness. Emptiness is the emptiness of it. Yeah. Emptiness has the character. All things have the character. All things have the ultimate character.

[21:39]

Everything, ultimately, it has this wonderful character called emptiness. It's a wonderful character because of emptiness. As Nagarjuna says, that for which emptiness is relevant, is relevant. Emptiness pertains, pertains. So because of emptiness, everything is relevant, which is wonderful. In other words, everything is relevant. Nothing is like not relevant in this universe because of emptiness. And anything for which it does not pertain is not pertinent. Any non-empty phenomena are not pertinent or relevant to anything relevant. To the life of happiness, it's not relevant. if you have a non-empty thing, because there are no empty things.

[22:42]

But empty things are not just the way everything is. It makes everything pertinent and relevant. So we're getting a little off here, but all phenomena have this character of emptiness. They're all sealed and marked by emptiness. But they're also all marked by other dependent character. But they also are all marked by the imputational character. Like emptiness has the imputational character by which we can talk about emptiness. So emptiness has this imaginary quality of having a substance. It has a character, an imagined character like it has a substance. And a person has an imagined character, an imaginary character by which it seems to have substance, and therefore that's the basis of people and emptiness. But emptiness is actually the absence of that imaginary character by which we can talk about this thing.

[23:51]

It's the absence of that thing and its basic other-dependent character. So, back to perception. Yes, perception is the original character by which you can designate them. They have a kind of like imaginary substance. They don't have a substance, but they have a quality of an imaginary substance by which you can talk about them. And then going again back to the sutra, the problem is that the way you know the basic other dependent character of things the way you know how things are dependent on other things is by adhering to them as the imputational character. That's the way we basically know things. And knowing and adhering to things as being the imputational character, adhering to dependently coerced things, that gives rise to affliction.

[25:02]

I'm saying it does have the three characteristics, and I'm saying that because of that sutra, that wonderful sutra that says so. But we also have a situation where To realize the other dependent character of things is another way to say that you realize wholeheartedly that you realize the samadhi of self-receiving and employing. You actually enter into the realm of dependent core rising and enter into the realization of dependent core rising. However, that's not going to be a perception. Perceptions are dependent, co-arising, are not dependent, co-arising. Perceptions are wholehearted, but wholeheartedness is not a perception, and it's not mixed with perception.

[26:13]

Wholeheartedness, or the samadhi, the self-fulfilling samadhi, includes everything. We're all moving in this samadhi, But no consciousness or no perception reaches it. But it can illuminate consciousnesses. But the consciousnesses it illuminates are not it. It's not an illuminated consciousness. Consciousnesses, illuminated or otherwise, don't reach it. But consciousnesses can be illuminated by it, which is kind of helpful to consciousness. Like our consciousnesses can be illuminated by this samadhi, by this realm of being, but our consciousnesses do not reach this realm of being.

[27:17]

It's perceived at that point. Pardon? it consciousness is illuminated. And how is that perceived? How is that validated? Illuminated consciousness won't... For example, the appearance, certain appearances, like appearance of separation, it will be illuminated and will be free of believing, you know, certain delusions. And that would be one way that the person could have a sense that the consciousness was illuminated. For example, an absence of fear this would be a benefit coming from the illumination of a consciousness by this realm. But the illumination of consciousness and being free of fear isn't the path of enlightenment. But it's included in the path of enlightenment.

[28:24]

The path of enlightenment, the actual practice, is not my consciousness getting illuminated. The path of enlightenment is functioning fully whether my consciousness is illuminated or not. And my consciousness being illuminated is kind of handy for me and my friends, you know, because then I can study better and practice better more wholeheartedly. How do you help others find that illumination? by teaching them how to deal with consciousnesses and to deal with objects of consciousness so that they can open to this realm in which they're already living. But tonight I'm just bringing up rather interesting and amazing and difficult to understand teaching

[29:25]

that we're not opening up to this samadhi-like opening up to get something we're going to have a perception of. We're not opening up to try to get a perception of this realm. We're opening up to awaken to it, to be illuminated by it, and to enter it. And having our consciousness illuminated can help us and help us open to it and enter it, and also if we open to it, it also tends to allow our consciousness to be illuminated. And is there a reflection of that? Is there a reflection of that illumination? There can be, but not necessarily. Like it says, when Buddhas are truly Buddhas, they don't necessarily think they're Buddhas. Other people being illuminated by the reflection of that person's conscious, that light.

[30:30]

You mean if someone is illuminated, do other people see it? No, does that help others be illuminated? Does it help others be illuminated? Yeah, it does. Because that person then is highly encouraged to continue the practice by which they opened to the illumination. they understand that the practice is created by this illumination, even though the realization itself is not separate from the practice, or rather they understand that the realization is not separate from the practice. But there's a certain period of time when you're practicing and feels some self-clinging in the practicing, so then the practicing seems to be different than the realization. But when the practice and realization are not two, then the realization and the practice are both unconstructedness and stillness, can't be recognized.

[31:42]

So if you do recognize it, is that a sign of... It's a sign of? Falling off. Recognizing it is a sign of, well, I guess I would just say delusion. Because you are now realized looking at the practice, or now you're practicing looking at the realization. When you recognize it, you're splitting them. And that recognition splits something that's actually one piece. So this instruction is to tell us about that, that when we recognize it, if we recognize things but don't think we're recognizing the practice or don't think we're recognizing the realization, then we think, well, I'm just involved in ordinary delusion. So that's correct.

[32:47]

But to think that you're recognizing enlightenment or recognizing the practice which is one with enlightenment, that would be a mistake. Yes? If there was a notional person... A what? A notional person who was basking in the self-receiving and employing Samadhi, was turning into enlightenment with the sky. You mean a person was basking in the samadhi, do you mean this person was basking in the samadhi and like sitting there enjoying the samadhi? Having an experience of the samadhi? Notional person, you're referring to a person who has a notion about the samadhi? No, I was going to say owl, but then I thought that was a bit specific. I didn't find a name for the person.

[33:52]

Okay. If there was a person who was basking in this samadhi? Yes. Yes. It may not appear that they may be given life in a way that doesn't look skillful from the outside. Is that right? Someone could see them as not skillful. Is that what you mean? Someone would see them as not skillful? Yeah. That's certainly possible. Some people have thought that Shakyamuni Buddha was not really a skillful guy. Yes, I'm wondering how does karma still play out in that?

[34:56]

How does karma play out? In that realm, the karma is aligned with the samadhi. So the karma is played out as in the whole world becoming enlightenment and the whole world sharing in this wholeheartedness. That's the way karma plays out there. That's the way thoughts, stories, vocalizations and postures play out there. They're like emanating light and receiving light in this resonance with all other forms of karma. That's that realm. That's the realm which is the path that we're talking about here.

[35:58]

And again, entering this path where karma is, receiving the Dharma and emanating the Dharma, where karma is an opportunity for realization and practice together, you must care for your karma. You must learn how to deal with all kinds of phenomena, including your cognitive activity, your karma, and the vocal and physical ramifications of it, you have to take care of that in order to enter this realm. And then after entering this realm, Of course, you continue to take care of the karma, but the way you take care of it now is called the entire sky turns into enlightenment. But you'd still be taking care of it.

[37:03]

You'd still be taking care of your voice, which is now sealed or imprinted with this Buddha seal, or which expresses the Buddha seal. Actually, it says when you express the Buddha seal, when you express the Buddha imprint with your voice and your thinking. So karma now becomes an expression of this Buddha seal in the samadhi. But that's not my perception. What I'm doing, although I could have that perception of what I'm doing, my perception of me doing that is not the actual way that it's doing this. So karma is still working where practice and realization are totally integrated with it. So the Buddha still had perception, he just didn't believe in it anymore? Did he still have perception?

[38:06]

Well, again, we talked about this before, that there's different... Buddha has three bodies. One of the bodies of Buddha is that Buddha responds to beings and manifests in the world of beings. So if a Buddha manifests as a human, they manifest with perceptions. and they manifest with a body that has the ability to have perceptions and conceptions. So now, there's another kind of Buddha which isn't really manifested as a human, but can manifest as a human, and can manifest as a dog, and as a tree, and as a tuft of grass. If that would be helpful, Buddhas would naturally, spontaneously, by the conditions of their If it's a person, then people, persons, human beings, I should say, they have perceptions, so Buddhas would have perceptions.

[39:09]

Now what's your question about their perceptions? Just whether they have them or not? No, the way that I imagine it is that they would have them, but they wouldn't believe in them anymore. Well, they would have them, but they wouldn't believe in them the way most people believe in them. They would believe in them as perceptions, which they are, but they would also understand that the imputational character was a fantasy. They would understand the other dependent character of the perception. They would understand that the imputational character is actually absent in the other dependent character. In other words, they would understand that whatever kind of perception they have is relevant. they would see that it's relevant to benefiting beings. So they have perceptions, but all their perceptions are medicine and all their perceptions are like in this great samadhi. That's the kind of perceptions they have. Their perceptions would no longer be like under the sway of dispositions and habits. They would be the perceptions that arise simply in beneficial relationship.

[40:14]

You know? that they meet a person and the perception arises, the medicine for their relationship, that kind of perception. And it would still have those three characteristics, but they would understand them and then be able to teach people about them. And they wouldn't be fooled, they wouldn't confuse the three characteristics with each other. Most people will use to get a handle on the other dependent, giving rise to suffering. The Buddhas will not mix the two. They would see all three. And the third one is they would see that the first and two are not mixed. They would see that all the time. So their perception is mixed with... I mean, their imputational characters and their perception would never be mixed with the other dependent character because they're never mixed with the other dependent character. Only people hold them together because of past karma which they haven't worked on enough.

[41:17]

Does that make perfect sense? That's kind of a lot, I know. How do you do that again? Can you speak to that? How do we make sense to it? We kind of like, you got these two and you grab one, grab hold of one to get to know the other. Because it's something about our nature, you know, that the universe has made it. We like to talk about ourselves and other people. We like to say, That's my husband. That's my kid. That's not your kid. This is my hamburger. You know, we like to talk like that. In order to do that, the way we've evolved, like, mix the imputational character with the other dependent character of the hamburger. Otherwise, we don't have a way to talk about the hamburger. So we like to be able to, we've got this language system which is very powerful. for our, you know, situation.

[42:18]

And in order to make conventional designations, we have to, like, mix the ungraspable, other-dependent nature of our lives with an imposed, a superimposed a substance with a label, a word, a designation. So then we can kind of indirectly, through that imposition of this fantasy, designate the ungraspable vitality of our causation. And the way we do it, we take a hold of one and mix it with the other, or hold to that the dependently co-arisen nature of our life is a substance. Which is, a substance means it isn't a dependent co-arising. So dependent co-arising allows us to project a non-dependent co-arising on dependent co-arising so we can talk about dependent co-arising.

[43:20]

And Buddhists also have to do that in order to talk, but they don't confuse the two. They just do it so they can talk to people. Yeah. And when they're not talking to people, they wouldn't put them together anymore. They would just see them as separate, which they are. They're actually separate. All three are separate. But they're all related, too. They depend and co-arise together. In that realm, it is our responsibility if we actually receive ourselves, then we are responsible for what we perceive and think and do. What we perceive, yes, and everybody else is too, because they made us.

[44:26]

How do you share that? Well, there's two ways to share it. One way, how you share it, is how you actually share it. And that's not at this point, how we're actually sharing it. But one way you can act, you can sort of perform sharing, like act like you're sharing, is to, for example, like I just talk a certain way. So my way of talking was to say we do share. I just told you in words that you are responsible for the person that you've become and again that you've become and again that you are responsible. But also I'm responsible. So one way I would act that out would be, you know, I wouldn't act like I thought you weren't my responsibility. And I wouldn't have a responsibility to you. I'd act like I do have a responsibility to you. I'd act like your life was my life.

[45:29]

That's how I would act. That's how I would dramatically enact the fact that I'm responsible for you. But that's not That's not actually the way I'm sharing with you. The way I'm sharing with you is I'm sharing with everybody else. Some people who are not dramatically enacting this I'm also sharing with. So everybody that's acting out the sharing of life is sharing life with all those who are not acting it out. Those who do not feel responsible for themselves or for others who are actually responsible for themselves and for others but don't accept it, those people are actually sharing life with those who do. And those who do accept it accept that the ones who don't accept it are sharing it with them. Like children. you feel like you're sharing your life with them. I mean, you understand, you're responsible for them.

[46:33]

And I would understand that they're responsible for themselves, but they don't think I'm responsible for them sometimes. They feel responsible for me, and they don't care. And they may or may not be responsible for themselves. But in a lot of kids' lives, you think that I'm responsible for them, but they're not responsible for me, and they're not responsible for themselves. So there's various possibilities, right? Some kids don't think anything about responsibility. Some kids think, I'm responsible for them, but they're not responsible for me. Like, you know, some Zen students might think, I'm responsible for them, but they're not responsible for me, and they're not responsible for themselves. That's possible, right? Sometimes students think that they're responsible for themselves, but I'm not responsible for them and they're not responsible for me. So that's the full realization of responsibility. The full realization is I'm responsible for me, I'm responsible for you, you're responsible for you, you're responsible for me. That's... I shouldn't say that's a realization, that's an expression of, I think, the totality of the possibilities.

[47:38]

Without the tension. If you actually start to practice living as though other people were your life, you will become light-hearted. When you first think about it, you think, oh my God, that's so hard. But actually, when you start practicing, you'll be light-hearted. Before you do it, you're actually heavy-hearted because you think that that would be like A lot of work. Yeah, you think it would be a lot of work. So you're heavy-hearted. But when you actually get into it, you find out, well, this is actually about light-heartedness. And everybody's supporting me, and I'm supporting everybody. That really makes things light when you actually practice it. And again, the realization and the practice are one thing. But still, when you say, how are we sharing? This is big-time inconceivable. How... I can't make a perception about how we're sharing.

[48:43]

It's the same thing again. It's unconstructedness and stillness, but we can practice it. We can practice the unconstructedness and stillness, and that would look like being open to everybody, being generous with everybody, being tender with everybody. Everyone is my life. Seeing my life as everyone's, that's the same as being generous. That's the same as being tender, because I'm tender with myself. unless I'm really sick. And sometimes, even when I'm really sick, I'm tender with myself. I value my own eyes. This is a dramatic expression of the samadhi. And you practice that way, and you come to realize that that practice and that realization are the same. And then you don't think that that would be recognized. But it can illuminate you and encourage you and make you feel light and fearless, you know, and up for, you know, whatever without having that be heavy.

[49:55]

So I enjoyed bringing this up to you tonight. In some arenas I feel like I can't talk about this, but I thought I could talk to you about it. I hope it was beneficial. Arlene? Yeah. You're not clear about it? Impute, what it means, or superimpose, it means you're putting something on the situation which isn't there. Like you're putting a substance on what doesn't have substance. And we do that. All phenomena have this imaginary quality that they have a substance.

[51:14]

And to mix them, to hold to the superimposition as being that upon which it's superimposed, this is the source of suffering. But in actuality, our life, our creative life, doesn't actually have any of this superimposed in it. This is superimposed over this. My hand is superimposed over my other hand, but actually this hand does not have this other hand in it. But I look at my right hand through my left hand, because my left hand is superimposed on my right hand. and I think my right hand is my left hand, and it's a mistake. Actually, my left hand is absent in my right hand. That's the way it really is. And if I realize that, that cures me of believing the superimposition is the thing upon which it's superimposed.

[52:17]

So that's practice, is to learn how to know the superimposition and not take it to be the other dependent. Learn how to do that and learn how to see that they're absent in each other except that the other character also has another dependent character because it dependently co-arises too. So this is in chapter six of the Samdhi Nirmacana Sutra. Samdhi Nirmacana Sutra. I'm sorry you missed that class. That was going on for about six years. You went to some other ones. Well, we all were, but some of us were studying it with aid of this text, and you weren't. You took a little break.

[53:20]

But, you know, there are four million hours of tapes on it if you want to listen to it. And the text, you can read the text. It actually, you know, you might understand it. It's possible. And you might read the first five too, but chapter six is where they talk about these characters. Okay? that we're having a one-day sitting on the Saturday after Thanksgiving, if you'd like to come. And we're going to have another one-day sitting on the 15th of December. And next week is Thanksgiving. And I don't know if we'll have a meeting on the 29th or not, a meeting here. So don't assume that, but if, If there is going to be one, we'll send you word if we have a meeting on the 29th, but the 22nd we won't because of Thanksgiving.

[54:28]

But I hope you have a nice Thanksgiving. I hope it's a very meaningful day for you. It will be a big adventure for me because I'm going to go flying in the air on Thanksgiving. I mean, if the plane takes off, I'll go flying in the air. I'm going to Hollywood. North Hollywood. To visit a little guy and his mom. May our intention equally exist. to every being and place.

[55:24]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_85.65