There's a reading list up here if you want. Continuing to discuss psychology in the Buddhist tradition, I wanted to mention that the way I've been talking about it and the way I'll talk about it tonight is not the only way it's taught, there are different schools of Buddhist psychology. The way I'm teaching it is the way that you might find it in the, particularly in the Abhidharma Kosha by Vasubandhu, which is a school of thought within Buddhism called the Svatrantaka school. but there's other ways of discussing the mind and how it functions.

[01:04]

I'll just go ahead and introduce this one and by way of review I would mention that all awareness are subjective in the sense that where subject means having an object. So I think in English the pair subject-object is often heard, right? So consciousnesses are all subjects which have objects. And also consciousnesses have the quality that they have no... they're clear like space in the sense that they don't have any... they're non-material, they have no color or location

[02:26]

and they also have the quality of cognition that they apprehend objects. And this apprehending of objects leads to a full range of types of cognitions, basic sense cognitions and also more developed kinds of cognitions like inference, understanding, rethinking and so on. And last time on Blackboard I was distinguishing between perception and conception. I can just speak up. How's that? Is that okay if I speak up like that? Is that okay? So I was talking about perception and conception. And perception is to know the object

[03:30]

or apprehend the object non-conceptually. And this kind of cognition or awareness is receptive, non-reflective, non-conceptual, And it applies to awareness of sense data, which simply put are sounds, smells, tangibles, tastes, and smells. but it is also possible for there to be mental sensing.

[04:39]

So this is perception where there is direct perception without any mediation of concepts. And this kind of awareness is the part that sort of new to you. It depends on three conditions. The first condition is called the dominant condition. The second condition is called the object condition, alambana prajaya, and the third condition is called the immediately antecedent condition, samanantra prajaya. So for a sense it depends on a dominant condition. The dominant condition for sense perception is the organ of the living being.

[05:55]

And for sense perceptions it is that ability of the body, that subtle materiality of the body, which is sensitive and responds to gross materiality. All this, the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, and the skin. That's the dominant condition for a sense perception. The object condition is the sense data. Electromagnetic radiation, mechanical waves, gases, chemicals and tangibles. Those are the object conditions. That's the condition of having an object. And the third condition is the immediate antecedent condition.

[07:00]

Another condition for the arising of consciousness is that there's a preceding consciousness and that that preceding consciousness has passed away. If you think about this a little bit, you might say, well, that means that there couldn't have been a first sense consciousness. That we're seeing a kind of a cycle here. And that's part of what is... I think that is implied. Now, when it comes to... and it's also possible to have mental perception In other words, the object, in this case the object and the, no, the dominant condition and the immediately antecedent condition are the same.

[08:26]

And this is a kind of a hard to understand this point, I think. The dominant condition is the organ. And the organ for the mind is the immediately antecedent sense consciousness. So when mind has a perception that's not a sense perception, but a mental perception, the organ is not the eye or the ear, the organ is the just deceased experience. So the condition for a mental perception of the, you know, the dominant condition is the organ, which is the immediately antecedent sense consciousness, and that's also the antecedent condition, so the same.

[09:43]

So just two, those two conditions for a mind, mental perception, direct mental perception. Maybe we can come back to that and you can think about what does it mean for the mind to have this deceased mind as its organ? What does that mean? What does that tell you about the nature of mind? Before we do that, I'd like to go to conception. So again, conception is is it's responsive and it's reflective. And reflection means the root of the word reflection is to bend back. And so reflection is that there's something there and it gets bent back. Or another way to put it is that in reflection

[10:45]

the object, whatever it is, the surface, not the surface, but the object which is reflected is bent back an image or a mental representation. So for conceptual cognition, what is known is an image of what was presented by . So sense consciousness presents the object, knows the object and presents the object, and conceptual consciousness or conceptual cognition then deals with that object which is given by , deals with it through an image, deals with the object as though the object were the image,

[11:52]

and apprehends the object as the image or the image as the object. So the cognition is via images or via signs. Yes? Would it be a good analogy to think of In a recovery we hope, coming back to consciousness and the unconscious, that the first stimulation, consciousness, is not just through the ear or sense of touch, but the prior The prior existing consciousness, prior to being conscious, would that be the reference to prior consciousness as the organ in that?

[12:59]

Would that be an analogy? It would be more than an analogy. In the case of a mental perception, it would be the organ. In the case of a sense perception, but you're not allowing a sense perception in this recovery room? It's before a sense perception? I'm thinking that what brings it back to consciousness wouldn't necessarily be a sense perception, but of the prior existence. I guess if you're saying that the person comes back to consciousness without a sense perception, and if they could have a direct mental perception, then your example would be that the previous sense perception before they went under the organ for this mental perception, which happens before they have a sense perception.

[14:05]

So in that example, yeah. But before I go, okay? Now the other thing I want, the other very important factor here is that conceptual cognition, knowing by dealing with objects via a mental image of them. So the living being is presented with an object. When you deal with the object directly, it reaches over, picks up an image of the object and looks at that, and that's what it thinks the object is. doesn't look at the object, it looks at the image, which it either looks or poses between the knowing and the object. And this image-making process is dispositional.

[15:12]

It is an intentional reflection. It is an intentional image. So it isn't just there's perception and now there's going to be conception. So now I'm just going to pull up a concept or an image with which to cope with. But actually it's almost like that. I have to take it back. It's like the organism is being confronted with sense data, with sense known, and it wants to cope with it. It doesn't just want to know it, it wants to cope. It wants to control. So it doesn't just know it, it pulls up a concept which will help control it.

[16:21]

and different people will pull up different concepts as their attempt to control the thing which they've just perceived. So you shift in a sense from perception to conception when you shift from just simple knowing to control what you know. This is the big difference between the two. And then we have dispositions or habits by which we pick images to deal with what's happening. The dispositions are set ways that we've tried to control our experience. So it's very fast, virtually automatic and habitual, but the root of it is to try to, like, get some control of our experience. and to fix in that mode is one of the ways to talk about the source of our afflictions because we're interposing distrust of our experience and our power relationship with our experience.

[17:48]

We're mixing that up with our experience which causes all kinds of problems and distortions. And again, before I go too much further, I want to mention that, as I did last time, a big part of Zen meditation is to train ourselves to let go of that conceptual imposition in the practice, similar to letting go of trying to control how your experience is coming to you. And the Zen teacher Wang Bo is very big on well at least as he's represented to us by one of his main disciples he says again and again to let go of conceptual thought to develop the mind

[18:51]

which is not a mind of conceptual thought. Do not grasp onto these mental images that are in your mind. He didn't say this, but I would say because these mental images are set up there basically to try to control your experience. And in fact you can to some extent control your experience by imposing these things. but then it causes disease and affliction, which just perpetuates itself until you revolutionize this process. Okay? Yes? What is the nature of the relationship between direct mental perception and perception? Between direct mental perception and conception? What I'm going to say is the direct mental perception, is that always a perception of a sensory experience?

[19:54]

So I have an eye organ that translates waves into a perception of life. Is then the direct mental perception something like a I am seeing, or there is a seeing of light, is it just an empty recognition of a previously occurring sensory perception, or is there something else? I think it's... I think it is simply the perception of the information that was developed through the sensory... through the sense perception. The difference between the mental perception of that sense perception and the sense perception itself is that the mental perception uses that previous... uses that previous sense consciousness as its organ, whereas the previous sense consciousness

[20:59]

the body of its organ. That's the difference. That's why it's mental, because it's not based on a physical sense organ. But there's no additional data. It's the same data that was developed, but it's not directly knowing the sense data. It's the cognition of the sense data. So it's knowing a mental event, which is the cognition of a physical event. and its organ is not a physical organ like for the sense consciousness. Its organ is a consciousness rather than its organ being a body part. And the relationship between the mental consciousness, mental perception and conceptual is that in the mental, the mental conception, the mental perception is a mind that's been trained away from, well I should say, once, I think all of us have a taste of this now and then.

[22:14]

this direct mental perception. But for the most part, it's something which we do not know about. It's only through training your mind through tranquility meditations where you train your mind away from this conceptual process back to the non-conceptual nature of mind that you have a sustained sense of what this direct mental perception would be like. Direct mental perception is something that can come to us if we train ourselves through stabilization practice or tranquility meditation to withdraw from grasping these images, these signs. In this direct mental perception, Is the object of that perception the event of a sense organ perceiving something rather than that thing it's perceiving?

[23:16]

What is the object of the direct mental perception? I'm not sure. I will research that. Yes. No more? Start over, please. What situation are we talking about?

[24:20]

What's the context of your comments? We were talking about the sense organs, they are a condition for mental perception, and then... We're talking about mental perception now? Is that what we're talking about? Okay, so I just want to be clear, we're talking about mental perception, yes? Conditions, there was a... There's two conditions for mental perception. because the first and the third conditions for sense perception are collapsed together because the organ for mental perception is deceased sense consciousness. So the immediate condition and the dominant condition are the same for mental, for mental perception, direct mental perception. So is that your... So it's a very separate object who perceives... No, there still is an object. The question is, is the object exactly the same as the object for the sense consciousness?

[25:28]

Or is the object what the sense consciousnesses did with the object? We do not want... Do you see that? So the sense consciousness directly knows, according to this school, the sense consciousness directly knows an external physical event. And there's some relationship between a direct external physical event and what it knows. So if it's... then the difference will be, number one, that the awareness won't have a sense, a physical sense organ as its organ anymore. The organ, the awareness will have the sense consciousness, which is deceased, as its organ. But will its object be the same, exactly the same object, or will its object be the object as it's known to the sense consciousness? without interposing an image.

[26:33]

Now, I think that's what it would be. In other words, not that the mental awareness, number one, has a previous mind as its organ, plus it knows. There's two possibilities. One is that it has a previous mind as its organ, and it knows exactly the same thing in exactly the same way as the sense perception. Or the other possibility is it knows not exactly the same thing, what it knows is it knows the way sense perception knows the object. Those are the two possibilities. Those two? I'm not sure which it is. I think it must, I think it's different. In other words, I think it perceives the way the sense consciousness knows without making it aware of the way it knows.

[27:41]

But I should check, you know, the researches of the ancestors on this before I say it. But you see the two possibilities that seem likely here? Through meditation you could try and you can also see what you find out and you can also read the books and see what the ancestors say. They discuss this. So basically what's being suggested here is this way of, this mental is something which we generally speaking Generally speaking, what's going on for most of us is direct sensory perception, but direct sensory perception is we barely know it because it is bare knowing. Things become very vivid for us when we know changes. So most of what we're aware of is conceptual cognitions. we have some sense now and then of direct mental perception and we have some sense now and then of direct sense perception.

[28:55]

But direct sense perception is aware of it or it's relatively unconscious in the sense that I mentioned a few weeks ago is that sense perception is parentheses conceptual consciousness. What we usually mean by is conceptual cognition. So you barely know direct sense perception and you barely know direct mental perception. But the more you practice stabilization, the clearer both of those get until actually concentration, you more and more are having direct mental perception and less and less conceptual cognition. Plus you can also see what the ancestors say. I would like to say something.

[29:58]

I just want to just throw in this comment that might be where this comes from that. For example, I take Dogen's statement that Buddhas are enlightened upon delusion is a statement that we cannot, let's say, so to speak, step outside of consciousness and see how it arises through transfiguration. Well, did you hear what he said? He's quoting Dogen saying, on or in the midst of or you could even say about delusion. Okay? The process I'm talking about is not yet enlightenment. It's a step in a sense before that. What I would suggest to you is that the practice which interacts this conceptual consciousness is concentration practice.

[31:05]

But concentration practice is not enlightenment about delusion. partly because in concentration practice delusion is dispersed. So that's why you can't concentrate it because delusion is just hovering out there undispersed. So in order for insight to happen you need to bring delusion back into the concentrated field. studied the delusion but the story we're telling so far either you had delusion without concentration and there's no enlightenment there or you've eliminated the delusion of conceptual consciousness by training yourself in concentration so the conceptual consciousness has waned now once it's waned and there's stabilization then we intentionally go back and start looking at all these delusions and understand them and that's where the enlightenment is

[32:10]

Did you follow that? I think I logically can follow that. But can I confess my doubt? It's very important to me. OK. I haven't heard it for a while. What is it? For example, I recently read that in order to realize of consciousness and objects. Meditators do not have to break down the objects to their constituent elements. I found that very reassuring teaching. But it sounds here now you're teaching breaking down consciousness into its elements.

[33:19]

I didn't think I talked about that yet. How did I make you think I was talking about breaking down consciousness into its constituent elements? Because I'm talking about different kinds of consciousness? Is that what you mean? Yes. Or a story about the different transformations. So these different types of direct perception and conceptual direct cognition and conceptual cognition are different transformations of consciousness. So do you see that as breaking down something into parts? Is that what you're saying? Well, I just sense a difference compared to the very clear teaching of being upright as near observation.

[34:28]

of the ritual arising of consciousness. A mere observation of what? Of the ritual arising and co-arising of consciousness. To be upright, And to observe the dependent core arising of consciousness and objects, to see how consciousness and objects arise, maybe be enlightenment, huh? Maybe. But what does being upright mean? Being upright means that you're not leaning into conceptual thought and grasping these concepts. So if you can be upright, then you can meditate on the dependent core arising of... But being upright means that you're not indulging in conceptual thought. It means you're letting go of your... if there's conceptual thought going on, being upright means you're letting go of it.

[35:34]

So being upright may entail that how you're grasping all kinds of conceptual analysis. Once you're not doing that anymore and you're being upright, then you can enter into this practice you're talking about. If you practice uprightness, then I would say you have arrived at letting go of conceptual thought. And I'm just... Number one, I'm teaching this psychology so you understand these different things, but then as you understand them, then hopefully you would... that would be part of the background Now what you're doing when you try to practice being upright, namely you're actually practicing letting go of conceptual grasping. Once again, if you have let go of conceptual grasping, then you're ready to study dependent co-arising. Once you recognize dependent co-arising, you act accordingly.

[36:44]

Right, well, once you recognize dependent core rising, you see the Dharma. Once you see the Dharma, you know what to do. Once you have your eye on Dharma, you respond accordingly. Pardon? What's before knowing? What you're doing. what you're doing before knowing? Well, just let me say something before I try to figure out what you just said. If there is understanding of dependent co-arising, the activity that arises Dependent co-arising is appropriate activity and it dependently, the vision of dependent co-arising dependently co-arises, that vision dependently co-arises with appropriate activity.

[37:57]

responsiveness to the dependent core arising. Responsiveness to the dependent core arising is the same as the activity which arises... Wait a second. There can be responsiveness to dependent core arising which is, you know, inappropriate, diluted activity. It's more, what I was talking about, a responsiveness to the dependent core arising of understanding of dependent core arising. Everybody is responding from dependent core arising, but not everybody understands dependent core arising. So the Buddhist teaching is to help us understand dependent co-arising. With understanding of dependent co-arising, there's a response with that understanding, and that response is wisdom, you know, compassion. So all kinds of activity dependently co-arise, but the Buddhist activity dependently co-arises with understanding of dependent co-arising. Does that make sense? And understanding dependent co-arising comes to us when we can watch what's happening without grasping conceptual thought because when we grasp conceptual thought we're trying to cope with dependent co-arising.

[39:17]

Everything that's presented to us is dependent co-arising or is a dependent co-arising but we usually interpose some image of what's going on so we can control dependent co-arising and if you try to control something you can't see what it is. So we train ourselves to give up control of our experience and then we can see our experience. Oh, I'm saying coping, I'm sort of saying coping equals control. Rather than just respond, you know, like somebody slapped me in the face, my response is already there. Like how I tried to make a story about how that was good or bad for me. Coping is one step removed from just direct experience. But because in a lot of situations we want to have it be this or that, how is that slap improving me?

[40:20]

That's a kind of coping. But before coping there's already a response and that's a direct perception. So coping and controlling are very similar. Judging is part of the control trip. Judging is one of the ways you might try to get some control woven into your experience. Judging is a type of conceptual thought. But conceptual thought, again, is a reflection of what's going on. So something's happening, and we make a reflection of it. which means we convert it into image. But that conversion is not arbitrary, it's not random, it has to do with what's going to benefit me. So I choose what's going to improve my situation.

[41:22]

Among the many images that my mind can create, I choose the ones which I think are going to benefit me. Plus I also choose the ones sometimes they aren't so beneficial but I know how to, but they're the most familiar. So sometimes we come up with stories about situations that aren't so good for us the nice thing about them is we're familiar with them and we know although they may not be good they might not be as bad as some other things we come up with if we try some new stuff but basically it's all about promoting the self this conceptual thought I don't know who was next We have Jonathan and Lynn. Were you ahead of them? We don't know. Was any other people way back there? I don't know. We have Renee, Jonathan, and your name is?

[42:26]

Diana, Donna, and Lynn. Whatever, you can work it out. I was going to ask real quick. I'm not quite understanding where you find the distinction of where you're finding that total perception. It's a bit different from conception. I feel like there's nothing but conceptions. I'm not sure where that is. You feel there's nothing but conceptions? Or, you know. Did you say you feel like there's nothing but conception? I think that actually that's most people's experiences. Mostly what we're aware of, what's vivid for us, is conceptual consciousness. And you're barely aware of direct mental perception. And perhaps even less aware of direct mental perception.

[43:29]

But direct sensory perception is going on It's just so simple that just sort of like as to the big clunky images that our mind creates. And direct mental perception occurs sometimes right at the beginning of certain mental events. And it occurs as you get more and more concentrated. So you may not have familiarity with it, so you may not know about it much. Right. So, Renee? We're talking about projection? Yeah, it's a projection. I'm actually projecting something. It's not really the same.

[44:37]

And it seems to be the other kind of suffering, which I'm often not only aware of in meditation, is when my mind divides. ...for knowing is there is a kind of division. The division is the subject and its object. There is a kind of division there. The mind doesn't really make that division, but the mind kind of understands that division, or thinks there is a division. It doesn't really make it. Well, but it seems like you initially see something that's good and bad, and then you don't see that it's good and bad. If, for example, I'm not upright enough, my experience is that my mind comes in to be blinded again. I think the mind can do later divisions, but the original division is just a division between the subject and its object, the subject which possesses the object.

[45:48]

There is a kind of implied division there, but if you look at it carefully, it doesn't hold up because you can't have one without the other, so they're not really divided. It just seems like they are. But you don't have minds floating around not knowing something. you have minds possessing objects and knowing objects. So that you could say, well, isn't that a separation? But if you look at it, where does one stop and the other start? You never have one before the other. But once this consciousness arises, then you can imagine all kinds of separations later. Which again, if unexamined, will hold up as separate. And if they stay separate, then they're sources of suffering. Because the holding of them separate is a conceptual imputation by which all kinds of afflictions arise. But really the mind can't divide anything. It can only imagine that it divides things.

[46:48]

So conceptual consciousness can imagine that it divides whatever. But that's just an idea. Which again, if it examines, if you examine it, it collapses. There's, you know, things being separate make no sense if they're not connected. There's no issue of separation between things that aren't connected. Pardon? Yeah. Yeah, right, I'm saying that. There's no direct perception of separation. That's why we like to develop the mind which has direct perception because that mind, things aren't separated. And you can directly perceive without there being separation. Even though you could step back from that and think about how that really was an example of a separation.

[47:53]

And then you're back in conceptual thought again, thinking that in the area where there wasn't conceptual thought, those people just didn't know what was going on. They're just missing the point of separation. However, they're also missing suffering and affliction. And they're not projecting, imputing, interposing anything. Donna? Well, first of all, do infants have it? Yes. And are what connected to karma? Definitely. Karma is all about this, you know, trying to control experience. Not perceiving, conceiving. Conception is a key ingredient in the karmic process.

[48:59]

It keeps conception going and conception creates karma. Well, if you, yeah, meditating you're both letting, you're letting karma fulfill itself when you're meditating. In other words, you're letting your karma but also you're operating in a non-karmic way, so you're not generating new karma. So meditation allows the fruition of the karma, and it also brings on the fruition earlier, and the earlier the karma matures, the easier it is to deal with, and also it's generating new karma. And part of meditation also is to admit that you've done karma, and intend to give it up. That's part of the meditative process. In the actual meditation practice, if you're not involved in karma, you're letting the past karma mature.

[50:04]

And it does need to mature. It isn't that it's eliminated. The way you've thought before has to come to maturity. And meditation allows that maturity to occur. Yes, Lynn? You spoke of training the mind to come to direct conception. Yes. Are there two kinds of training, training the mind not to grasp conception and training the mind not to have conception? Not to have conception? rise to any conception, or is it only not to grasp what you can't help rising? I think it certainly is training the mind not to grasp conception. To train the mind not to give rise to conception also could be part of it, but even if the mind was trained not to grasp conception, and if the mind was not giving rise to conception, you still need to bring conceptions out and study them, to test to make sure that you can work with conceptions without grasping them, because in order to help people, you have to come back and study them.

[51:20]

So Buddha's still... In one realm there are no conceptions. They're not grasped because they're not even there. No, that's understanding emptiness. In concentration they're temporarily dispersed. In insight they have no inherent existence. They can't be grasped by their nature. But the Buddha also lives in the world of conception so that the Buddha can talk to people. You need conceptions in order to talk to people, in order to understand what the problem is. So you still need the conception to do the whole program. Right. But before you come back into the realm of conception, there's this training. And how do you train the mind to do these two things, to not grasp conception and not to give rise to conception? you don't exactly train the mind to rise to conception, you train the mind to understand that conception doesn't arise, because in fact it doesn't.

[52:27]

In other words, by training your mind to give up conception, you enter into states of concentration, a chance to study conception in order to see that conception doesn't really arise or cease. In other words, you understand the non-arising and non-ceasing of conception. In other words, you understand the emptiness of conception. But you don't actually make conceptions not arise and cease. Nothing actually arises and ceases. You don't make things not arise and cease. You don't make the Heart Sutra happen. You just see the Heart Sutra. But you need to meditate usually. You need to study the Heart Sutra. understand it intellectually and then you need to actually enter into so you can actually see the Heart Sutra in your daily life. Seek and see that conceptions don't arise or cease or increase or decrease. That's the way they already are. It's a matter of seeing what's actually under your nose already.

[53:35]

You don't have to make what's under your nose. No, I think the first step is to admit that you are grasping the conceptions which you think are there. That's usually the first step. The next step would be maybe to notice how uncomfortable that is and give rise to the intention to give up that grasping. And then after you decide to give it up, to notice that you're still not giving it up and just keep noticing that until you notice sometimes you do give it up. So in that, then the actual giving up takes quite a bit of training. Which is just, as you say, admitting and... Yeah, right. Admitting what you see is a big part. It's basically the training. That's basically what it is. Admit what you see. Be mindful. And then as far as an approach to the concept... the mind that doesn't give rise to conception.

[54:39]

Say it again. I understand the training now about not resting. Yes. The conceptions. Yeah. As far as training the mind not to give rise, not to... Take your time. Not to see the concept as aggressively following. No, it's more not to see. It's to see that it doesn't, rather than not to see that it does. Oh, I see. Because a lot of people don't see that it does. That doesn't do them any good. They still think it does, and they just assume if they look... but to actually see that phenomena do not arise and cease, that they have no inherent existence, then when you see that, you can't grasp them anymore. So in the training, you try to give up grasping something you think you could grasp. You try to train yourself to give up what you think you could grasp.

[55:44]

then when you calm down you have a chance to see that the things you're grasping cannot be grasped and then you don't have to try not to grasp them anymore because you just can't even imagine how. So then you don't have to train yourself anymore. Okay? It's getting close to nine o'clock and I just want to mention that this room is not going to be available for our meetings much longer. I wanted to switch to Tuesday night, and we thought it would work, but it's not going to work. But it's a possibility that we can meet at a Japanese temple down the street, down in Laguna. It's called Sokoji. So next week, maybe, if the following week, we can meet at Sokoji, which is also on Laguna.

[56:47]

Zen Center used to be over on Laguna at Sokoji years ago. Laguna is a big street for Zen Center. Greens is also on Laguna. Greens is on Laguna. The old and new Sokoji are on Laguna. And the present Zen Center is on Laguna. And the future Zen Center... Yes? So anyway, next week we'll know whether we can meet at Sokoji the following Tuesday. So I just want to mention that. Yes, we are meeting next Thursday. So next Thursday we'll let you know if we're going to meet the next Tuesday or whatever at Sokoji or not. No, it's not a permanent move. It's just a temporary move. This group will not have a permanent abode. It will be Tuesdays.

[57:49]

It will be Tuesdays for a while. And then... No, no, Thursday. No, Tuesday. Sorry. Next Thursday, but then after that, Tuesdays for a while. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I did it. And one other thing I want to mention, this is the one-year anniversary of my heart attack today. Today? Today. Yeah, thank you for your support. It's been a great year. Yes, Greg? To sign and seal. And that being the case, I know there's a few people who already have it. If anybody is interested in acquiring it right now, I will open up the bookstore and do a project right now.

[58:50]

OK. So if anybody, could you just give me some idea about what he's interested in doing with that? So next week here, and the following, and then after that, maybe Sokoji over in Japantown. Thank you very much. Yeah? Is the meditation pretty much taken care of? Or how is that? I'm not sure. The whole thing is kind of mysterious to me. But anyway, I'm still alive, as you can see. And thanks for all your support. Keep up the good work. I'll do it on that desk.

[59:59]

Or I better, or I can have it on the table. Four. Did you do something bad? Okay, I accept your skillfulness. You'd like to confirm.

[60:12]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_82.64