Revealing the Intention of the Buddha

Welcome! You can log in or create an account to save favorites, edit keywords, transcripts, and more.

Keywords:

Description: 

Samdhinirmochana Mahayana Sutra Chapter 1

Samdhinirmochana Sutra
Chapter One, Part Two
No Abode 3/21/09 PM

Notes: 
Trans: Karen Mueller
Transcript: 

“The Bhagavan was endowed with a mind of good understanding and did not possess the two (negative behaviors, Perfectly absorbed in the teaching o signlessness, abiding in the way a Buddha abides, having attained sameness with all Buddhas, having full realization without obscurations, he was endowed with irreversible qualities. Not captivated by objects of activity, positing doctrines (inconceivably), thoroughly penetrating the sameness of the three times, the Bhagavan was endowed with the five types of embodiments that abide in every worldly realm. “Having attained the knowledge that has no doubts regarding all phenomena, having attained intelligence possessing all capabilities, he was unperplexed with respect to knowledge of the Dharma. Endowed with an unimaginable embodiment, having fully given rise to the wisdom of all the Bodhisattvas, endowed with the non-dual abiding of a Buddha and the supreme perfections, he had reached the limit of the uniquely liberating and exalted wisdom of a Tatagatha. He had realized full equality with the state of a Buddha without ends or middle, wholly permeated by the Dharmadhatu, extending to the limit of the realm of space. “ He was also accompanied by a measureless assembly of Sravakas, all very knowledgeable sons of the Buddha, with liberated minds, very liberated wisdom, and completely pure ethics. They happily associated with those who yearn for the teaching. They were very learned, bearing in mind what they had learned, accumulating learning, intent on good contemplations, speaking good words and doing good deeds. They had agile wisdom, quick wisdom, wisdom of renunciation, the wisdom of certain realization, great wisdom, extensive wisdom, profound wisdom, wisdom without equal. Endowed with the precious jewel of wisdom, they possessed the three knowledges and had obtained supremely blissful abiding in this life and great purity. They had fully developed a completely peaceful way of acting, were endowed with great patience and determination and were wholly engaged in the Tatagathas teaching. “Also in attendance were innumerable Bodhisattvas who assembled from the various Buddha lands, all of them fully engaged and abiding in the great state of the Mahayana. They had renounced cyclic existence through the teaching of the Great Vehicle, were even-minded toward all beings, and were free from all imputations, ideations and mental constructions. They had conquered all demons and opponents and were removed from al the mental tendencies of the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas. They were steadfast through great bliss and joy in the taste of the Dharma. They had completely transcended the five great fears and had progressed solely to the irreversible stagers. They had actualized those stages which bring to rest all harms to all sentient beings. “Among them were the Bodhisattvas, Mahasattvas, Gambhirarthasamdinirmochana, Vidhivatpariprcchaka, Dharmodgata, Suvisuddhamati, Visalamati, and Gunakara, Paramarthasamudgata, Aryalokitesevara, Maitreya and Manjushri, all abiding together. “At that time, the Buddha Vidhivatpariprcchaka questioned the Bodhisattva Gambhirarthasamdinirmochana about the ultimate whose character is inexpressible and non-dual. ‘Oh Son of the Conqueror, when it is said, ‘All phenomenon are non-dual, all phenomena are non-dual, how is it that all phenomena are non-dual? “Son of good lineage, with respect to all phenomena, ‘all phenomena’ are of just two kinds: compounded and uncompounded. The compounded is not compounded, nor is it uncompounded. The uncompounded is not uncompounded, nor is it compounded. “O Son of the Conqueror, why is the compounded neither compounded nor uncompounded? Why is the uncompounded neither uncompounded nor compounded? “Son of good lineage, ‘compounded’ is a term designated by the Teacher. This term designated by the Teacher is a conventional expression arisen from mental construction. Because a conventional expression arisen from mental construction is a conventional expression of various mental constructions, it is not established. Therefore it is said to be not compounded. “Son of good lineage, ‘uncompounded’ is also included within the conventional. Even if something were expressed that is not included within the compounded or uncompounded it would be just the same as this. It would be just like this. An expression is also not without thingness. What is a thing? It is that to which the Aryas completely and perfectly awaken without explanation, through their exalted wisdom and exalted vision. Because they have completely and perfectly realized that very reality which is inexpressible, they designate the name ‘compounded’. “Son of good lineage, ‘compounded’ is also included within the conventional. Even if something were expressed that is not included within the compounded or uncompounded it would be just the same as this. It would be just like this. An expression is also not without thingness. What is a thing? It is that to which the Aryas completely and perfectly awaken without explanation, through their exalted wisdom and exalted vision. Because they have completely and perfectly realized that very reality which is inexpressible, they designate the name ‘uncompounded’. Reb: So I’m going back to the statement that the Buddhas were endowed with unimaginable endowments. They are embodied; they have bodies but their bodies are unimaginable. We have bodies and our bodies are imaginable. The way our bodies really are is unimaginable. But the way we have come to be born as sentient beings is by imagination and is imaginable. Buddhas are not born by imagination. Buddhas have imaginations if they need to use them, but they are not born of imagination. They are born of compassion. But our bodies are born, perhaps out of compassion, but also out of conception. Now that we are conceptual beings, Buddhas are unimaginable for us, their bodies. Shoho: Not their minds? Reb: Yes, but right now I’m talking about their unimaginable embodiments. Our embodiment is born of imagination; theirs is not. In this Assembly, there were also measureless, innumerable what are called Shravakas, and Shravakas means, listener or hearer. These are beings who listen to the Buddha’s teaching and practice it and become wise, have become wise. Shravakas are a kind of Buddhist saint. And in this Assembly of this Scripture, there are measureless assemblies of these listeners, these hearers. Shravakas. All very knowledgeable children of the Buddhas, with liberated minds. Very liberated wisdom and completely pure ethics. So there’s the Bodhisattvas in this assembly, there’s all these other beings we mentioned and now we’re mentioning these saints, who at this time of speaking are not Bodhisattvas, but they have great wisdom and they’re in the Assembly too. They happily associate with those who yearn for teachings. They happily associate with those who yearn for the teaching. It doesn’t say so but I think maybe they don’t associate with those who do not yearn for the teaching. I think maybe they don’t. And in the Lotus Sutra, in Chapter 14, talking about the comfortable, happy, blissful practices of the Bodhisattvas, there is a discussion of the practices of Bodhisattvas which I talked to you about. And then following that, there’s a discussion of the realms of intimacy or the realms of familiarity of Bodhisattvas. And it then goes on to tell us the realms of intimacy of these Bodhisattvas and the realm of intimacy is described by all the different kinds of beings that Bodhisattvas are not intimate with. They’re not intimate..I won’t tell you who they are right now. But just they’re not intimate with these people, they’re not intimate with those people, they’re not intimate with those beings, they’re not intimate with those beings. Not intimate here; not intimate there. Not intimate a lot of places. But then after it tells you all these people Bodhisattvas are not intimate with, it says however; if these beings yearn for the teaching, then Bodhisattvas wholeheartedly offer the teachings to them. And then it goes on to say Bodhisattvas are not intimate with these people, not intimate with those people, not intimate…and then it says, if these people want the teaching really, the Bodhisattva gives it freely and happily. It’s not that Bodhisattvas do not associate at all with people who are not interested in the teaching, but they don’t really get close because these people do not want to get close with what Bodhisattvas have to give; the teaching. So there’s various ways to understand this. One is that, of course you can help people who do not want the teaching in some ways, but to really get close with what you have really to offer, that should be for those who want it, who really thirst for it, who really yearn for it. And those are the people Bodhisattvas are intimate with. And I would think that also the Shravakas would only be intimate with those who wish to practice, to receive the teachings and practice it. It would even be a disservice to people who do not want the teachings to get close to them and then have them reject them. That would be very bad for them. So, the Bodhisattvas wait to be really invited to give the teachings before they get close to people. These saints who are not called Bodhisattvas at this point, were very learned and they remembered what they had learned. They accumulated great learning. They were, “Intent on good contemplations, speaking good words and doing good deeds. They had agile wisdom, quick wisdom, sharp wisdom, the wisdom of renunciation, the wisdom of certain realization, the wisdom of great wisdom, extensive wisdom, profound, wisdom without equal. Endowed with the precious jewel of wisdom, they possessed the three knowledges and had obtained supremely blissful, abiding in this life and great purity. They had fully developed a completely peaceful way of acting, were endowed with great patience and determination and were wholly engaged in the Tatagatha’s teaching.” Again, “Also in attendance were numerous Bodhisattvas who assembled from various Buddha-lands. All of them fully engaged and abiding in the great state of the Mahayana. They had renounced cyclic existence through the of the Great Vehicle, were even-minded towards all beings and were free from all imputations, ideation and mental construction. They had conquered all demons and opponents and were removed from all mental tendencies of the Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas.” The people we talked about, these very wise people, the Bodhisattvas are removed from all the mental tendencies of all these great, wise saints. The Bodhisattvas might not be as wise as these saints. But they live by vows which these saints do not necessarily commit too. Even though they may not be as wise as the saints, they are committed to the welfare of all beings and the attainment of Buddhahood. So they’re different from these Shravakas, from these great saints. These Bodhisattvas were, “Steadfast through great bliss and joy in the taste of the Dharma, like the Buddhas. They had completely transcended the five fears and had progressed solely to the irreversible stages. They had actualized those stages which bring to rest all harms to all sentient beings.” The five fears by the way are, fear of loss of life, fear of loss of your mind or fear of losing control of your mind, fear of loss of reputation, fear of loss of livelihood and fear of speaking in front of a large assembly. These five fears are overcome by the Bodhisattvas, in some sense pivotally, because they practice giving. They practice giving wholeheartedly therefore they don’t ever lose anything. Everything they have, they give away before they can lose it. They give away their livelihood, their mind, their reputation and their life. So that they don’t lose it, they are just constantly giving it away. Therefore they are not afraid. Also they love to speak to large groups (Laughs) and small groups. And they also give the gift of fearlessness to all beings. They receive the gift of giving, they receive the practice of giving from the Buddhas and they practice it and become fearless. They receive fearlessness from the Buddhas and they give it to sentient beings. And they also give the Dharma to sentient beings, if they want it. If they’re tender enough and ready to receive it. This is the basic picture of who and what are at the site of this teaching. So all of us are included in this and there’s more than just us listening to this Sutra. Almost everybody is hear, ready to listen to the teaching. And, among those great Bodhisattvas, in particular, we mention in this Sutra, the Bodhisattvas, the great beings. The first one is Gambhirarthasamdinirmochana. The next one is Vidhivatpariprcchaka. The next one is Dharmogata. The next one is Suvishuddhamati. The next one is Visalamati. The next one Gunakara. The next one Paramarthasamudgata. The next one, actually, is Maitreya. The next one is Aryalokitesevara. And finally Manjushri. Each one of these Bodhisattvas is the main questioner in the ten chapters. So the first chapter, the questioner, or the questionee sometimes, the questioner is Vidhivatpariprcchaka who questions the Bodhisattva Gambhirarthasamdinirmochana. So this Bodhisattva who is being questioned in this chapter is the Bodhisattva who has the name of this Sutra in his name. So the name of the Sutra, Samdhinirmochana means Unlocking or Revealing the Intent. And Ghambirartha means the Deep Meaning. So the whole thing could be translated as Revealing the Intention, or Revealing the Profound Meaning of the Intention Bodhisattva. So it’s a good Bodhisattva to have at the beginning of this Sutra, cause this is the Bodhisattva whose name is to Reveal the Profound Meaning of the Intent of the Buddhas. And the questioner is our old friend Vidhivatpariprcchaka Bodhisattva. So at that time.. And, by the way, Vidhivatpariprcchaka means Logical Reasoning Bodhisattva. That’s his name. So Logical Reasoning Enlightening Being asks the great Bodhisattva Gambhirarthasamdinirmochana about the ultimate character. No, excuse me. The ultimate whose character is inexpressible and non-dual. So the first part of the teaching that’s being questioned about is, we’re questioning about the ultimate. In the first four chapters, we’re studying and asking questions about the ultimate. What’s the ultimate? It’s called “Paramartha”, “param” “artha”. “Param” means ultimate. “Artha” means meaning or object. The ultimate meaning is being questioned about here. There’s Gambhirartha which you know quite well, right? Gambhirartha. Profound meaning, the profound object. And so this chapter, and the next three, are about the “param”. “Paramartha” Param-artha. The ultimate, the final meaning. So in this chapter, we’re asking about the ultimate whose character is inexpressible and non-dual. And the other characters of the ultimate will be discussed in Chapters Two, Three and Four. So the question is, “Oh Son of the Conqueror, when it is said, ‘All dharmas are non-dual”, all dharmas are non-dual, “How is it that all phenomena are non-dual?” Shoho: It’s like this. 
Reb: So says Rev. Shoho And Gambhirarthasamdinirmochana Bodhisattva says “Child of good lineage, with respect to all phenomena, ‘all phenomena’ are of just two kinds: compounded and uncompounded.” Or you could also say, produced and unproduced or made and unmade or born and unborn. In this translation, compounded and uncompounded. That’s all the phenomenon that there are. Then he says, “The compounded is not compounded, nor is it uncompounded.” You got that? “The compounded is not compounded nor is it uncompounded. The uncompounded is not uncompounded, nor is it compounded.” So, you can say whatever you want, but it wouldn’t be true that you didn’t learn something today (laughter) cause you learned that there’s two kinds of phenomena, compounded and uncompounded. And that the compounded are not compounded, nor uncompounded. And the uncompounded are not uncompounded, nor compounded. Now most of you knew today before you came before, of course, that the uncompounded are not compounded and that the compounded are not uncompounded. But now you know more. You know the non-dual character of all phenomena, all phenomena, compounded and uncompounded. You see how they are non-dual now. To some extent you see that. Because of what the Bodhisattva told you. This is your introduction to the non-dual character of all phenomena. And the non-dual character of the ultimate meaning. Is that enough or do you want more of this for now? Speakers: More. Reb: One person wants more. Is one person enough? Several speakers: I’ll take more. Reb: You want more? You do? You really yearn for it? Ok! Well in that case, Daughter of the Conqueror, (laughs). In that case, Daughter of the Conqueror, Daughter of the Conqueror. Daughters of the Conquerors, ‘Why is the compounded neither compounded nor uncompounded? Why is the uncompounded neither uncompounded nor compounded?” And then, so the one who asked that question is talking to Gambhirarthasamdinirmochana Bodhisattva, and then Gambhirarthasamdinirmochana says, to Logical Reasoner Bodhisattva, “Son of good lineage, compounded is a term, designated by the Teacher. This term, designated by the Teacher, is a conventional expression, arisen from mental construction. Because a conventional expression, arisen from mental construction is a conventional expression of various mental constructions it is not established. Therefore, it is said to be not compounded”. Because the compounding didn’t get established. Sorry. “Further, son of good lineage, the uncompounded is also included within the conventional expression. Even if someone were, even if something were expressed that is not included within the compounded or uncompounded, it would be just the same as this. It would be just like this.” You’re copying the Sutra, hey? Shoho: It’s here. It’s happening. 
Reb: It’s just like this. Could it be just like this? “An expression is also not without thingness. What is a thing? It is that which the Aryas completely and perfectly awaken without explanation.” “What is a thing? It is that which the Aryas completely and perfectly awaken without explanation.” Whisper: What’s an Arya? Reb: An Arya is one of these people who have great wisdom. “What is a thing? It is that to which the Aryas completely and perfectly awaken to without explanation through their exalted wisdom and exalted vision. Because they have completely and perfectly realized that very reality which is inexpressible, they designate the name “compounded’.” “Because they have realized the very reality which is inexpressible, they designate the name, they express the name, by the designation ‘compounded’.” Shoho: Roshi we chew on a little bit on “karma is not established”, that point? Reb: Yeah. Anon: What was the question? Reb: She wants to look more closely at how come it’s not established. “Uncompounded’ is. Oh that’s the wrong, earlier. “’Compounded’ is a term designated by the Teacher. This term, designated by the Teacher, is a conventional expression arisen from mental construction. Because a conventional expression arisen from mental construction is a conventional expression of various mental constructions, it is not established. Therefore it is said to be not compounded” Speaker a: Is that the same as emptiness 
Reb: Is that the same as emptiness? When you say is “that” what is the “that” you are talking about? Speaker a: Compounded and the uncompounded. Reb: Is one of them enough, when you say “that”? Rather than “them”? Speaker a: Not sure: Reb: Pardon? Speaker a: I’m not sure. Reb: Well, I recommend you chose compounded, for starters. ‘Cause then you can say “that”. Is “that” compounded? We’re talking about compounded now, ok? ‘Compounded’ that is a term designated by the Buddha, by the Teacher. This term, designated by the Teacher, is a conventional expression, arisen from mental construction.” Ok? Because a conventional expression is arisen from mental construction, it is a conventional expression of various mental constructions. It is not established. Now if you say, is “it”? Ok? Do you mean the compounded? Speaker a: That arisen compounded. Reb: That arisen compounded. Do you mean is that emptiness? Is that what you were saying? Well, yes it is. And because it’s emptiness, it is said to be not compounded. ‘Cause emptiness isn’t compounded. However, if you say ‘emptiness’, or if you say ‘uncompounded’, the same thing will happen to the emptiness. It will also be not, then the uncompounded will not be uncompounded, so the emptiness won’t be emptiness either. So this is talking about the non-dual character of all phenomena. And also it’s now coming into the inexpressible, because this reality is inexpressible. And, those who understand it make conventional designations, like ‘compounded’ and ‘uncompounded’. And then they use compounded and uncompounded, using these words in this case, to demonstrate the non-dual character of the ultimate. The non-dual character of emptiness which is either compounded or uncompounded. And if it’s compounded, it can’t be established. And if it’s uncompounded, it can’t be established. This is the non-dual character. This is a little talk about the non-dual character of the ultimate. And those who understand that this is inexpressible talk about it in this way, according to this Sutra. Speaker B: To say that it can’t be established, does that mean that..? What does that mean? Reb: It means that anyway that you would use to establish it; you couldn’t get a hold of. Speaker B: You can’t pin it down? You can’t…? Reb: You can’t pin it down. Yeah, uh-huh. Can’t find it. Can’t grasp it. But you can talk about it. But when you talk about it, that’s one of the ways you find out that it can’t be grasped. So we do talk about it. The Buddhas make the conventional designation so we can understand that all phenomena are non-dual. So again how do you do that? Well, in this case, we just take all phenomena, and what are all phenomena? Well, they are compounded and uncompounded. That takes care of them all. And neither of them can be established, so they are non-dual. Speaker C: Can anything be established? Reb: Can anything be established? Yes. The ultimate can be established, in a non-dual way. Which you just saw, somewhat. We just established the ultimate here, in a non-dual way. Reb: Yes? Speaker C: I’m just wondering if using the term “non-dual” instead of just saying “empty” or “emptiness”, they’re empty, they’re mental construction, therefore they are empty. Reb: You’re saying use the word “non-dual” instead of empty? Speaker C: Yeah. How is it? It seems like maybe it’s the same thing. Reb: Maybe. But maybe not. So “empty” emptiness is empty, but empty doesn’t necessarily say non-dual. So now we can say emptiness is non-dual. Speaker C: So the original question had to do with phenomena. Is that correct? Reb: The original question was, “Oh Son of the Conqueror, (Oh Gambhirarthasamdinirmochana Bodhisattva) when it is said, ‘all phenomena are non-dual, all phenomena are non-dual. How is it that all phenomena are non-dual?” That’s the first question. You could also say, when it is said that all phenomenon are empty, how is it that they are empty? But that’s not what was being asked here. Asking about non-duality and inexpressibility. But it is true that all phenomena are empty. There’s no non-empty phenomena. Speaker C: That would be a different conversation. 
Reb: It’s a different conversation which is also found in here quite a bit. But we’re starting with the ultimate and talking about its non-duality, its character of non-duality; and character of inexpressibility. That’s the first part here. And you could say, ‘well, isn’t the ultimate emptiness?’ Well, yeah. Isn’t it empty? Yes. But that’s a little different discussion then the fact that it’s non-dual. But you could say, “isn’t emptiness empty”? Yes. And “isn’t form empty?” Yes. “So aren’t form and empty, non-dual? Yes. You’ve just made a point that wasn’t there before you made that point. Form is empty, form is emptiness. And emptiness is empty of emptiness; therefore, it’s form. That’s part of our discussion here. That’s the Prajna Paramita which we’re so familiar with. Now this is a new Sutra, which is talking now about the non-duality of all phenomena. All phenomena are non-dual. And also the ultimate has the character of non-dual and inexpressible. Its character is non-dual. Ok? K: Non-dual means there’s no subject and object? Reb: That’s one kind of non-duality. But it isn’t so much that there’s subject and object, but there isn’t subject and object. It’s just that there’s no subject that’s separate from object. Because in English even, nice good old English, subject is something that has objects. So you can’t have a subject floating around without an object. And you don’t have objects floating around without subjects. Subjects make objects. Objects make subjects. They are born together. They dependently co-arise. But they’re non-dual in the sense that they’re not different things. They’re part of the same reality. But we, we subjects imagine that we’re separate from our objects. This is part of our affliction which comes from mental construction, which this Sutra is trying to help us with. Yes?
 Speaker D: So is the ultimate born of imagination and thus imaginary? Reb: Yeah! The ultimate is also born of imagination. Everything exists depending on some kind of mental construction, or some kind of mental imputation. However the ultimate although it arises in dependence on imagination, it is actually free of imagination. It’s this wonderful thing that’s free of imagination, that depends on imaginations to arise. It’s a dependent co-arising, just like imagination is. But imagination, ultimately imagination is also free of imagination. But the way imagination is free of imagination is the ultimate. ‘Cause the ultimate is innocent of imagination. And in the context of the ultimate, there is no imagination. But the ultimate doesn’t say there’s no imagination. It’s just in that context, there’s no imagination, because in that context you can’t find or establish anything, including imagination. But still the ultimate also depends on imagination and it’s imaginary. Because the ultimate is that there’s no ultimate. The ultimate is everything is a dependent co-arising. So you can’t get a hold of anything without getting a hold of a lot of other stuff. And you can’t get a hold of other stuff without getting a hold of something. You can’t grasp anything really, finally, ultimately. Yes? Speaker E: So is this teaching about separation of mental formation from “it”? That’s what it seems to me that I’m kind of getting. Reb: Not separation. Speaker E: Not separation but maybe distinction would be a better word. Reb: Ok, the distinction between what and what? Speaker E: Between everything that’s mental formation and the “it”.Reb: Between everything that’s mental formation and the “it”? The distinction? Yeah, you can make that distinction, however “it” is also a mental formation. Speaker E: As soon as we talk about it. If we experience it, if there’s an experience. 
Reb: Did I just say “it” is a mental formation? Take it back. It depends on some kind of mental imputation, some kind of mind imputation. It depends on that in order to arise. But it is, in fact, it is the fact of not being able to find any mental imputation. So you can distinguish between mental imputation and “it”. But it is actually telling you that there is no way to actually establish it separate from anything. Because it is dependent upon, it is the nature of everything. So you can make the distinction, that’s ok. But it’s also non-dual with what it is being distinguished from. Speaker E: But isn’t “it” dependent co-arising? Reb: And it is dependent co-arising too. The ultimate is dependent co-arising. But dependent co-arising, and dependent co-arising is the ultimate but you can distinguish between the two. And dependent co-arising isn’t the same kind of ultimate as… Dependent co-arising isn’t the same as that you can’t find dependent co-arising. Dependent co-arising implicitly refutes the substantial existence of things. If you study dependent co-arising of something, you find its lack of self. You find it’s non-self. But non-self immediately, directly, explicitly refutes the self. It is selflessness rather than the selflessness which is the same as the thing by which it is. It’s a dependent co-arising. So you make the distinction. There is a distinction. And they are non-dual. And the distinction could be between a mental construction and that which is free of mental construction. Free of it but depends on it. Because it is the nature of mental construction. You can’t have the ultimate nature of mental construction without it but it is free of mental construction. But dependent on it. Speaker E: Maybe a better phrasing of my question, what I meant was a distinction between mental formation and dependent co-arising. Reb: The distinction between mental formation and dependent co-arising? You can make that distinction. But, mental formation is a dependent co-arising. Speaker E. Yes Reb: So you can make a distinction about they way all phenomena are and a particular phenomena which is an example of that. One is a general thing and one is specific. You can make that distinction. It’s good to make that distinction. Reb: Is it Wafa? Wafa: Yes. Earlier you mentioned like signlessness, and you said, ok when you marry your wife you should remove the sign of “wife”. Is it something applicable, what you are saying now is the same thing or is it totally different? Reb: It’s not totally different, no. So if you have your wife, you remove the sign of “wife”. Wafa: I think you said.. Reb: Yeah that sounds good to me. It’s the same thing. Yeah. And the wife, innocent of the signs of “wife”, cannot be found. But the wife is still, is now just like she was before. She’s the wife. It’s just that I can’t get a hold, I can’t perceive her anymore without the signs. But I can perceive her signlessness, I just can’t perceive her in signless, in her emptiness. And also I have no wishes anymore from my spouse. Which is really good. Then you can be a good servant of the ultimate, which is non-dual and inexpressible. So there’s a little bit more in the wonderful Chapter on this topic and next month I will finish this, this Chapter I think probably. So if you want to come back next month and here the end of this Chapter I will, I promise to try to finish this Chapter next month. And then you can find out more about other aspects of the ultimate in Chapters Two, Three and Four. And then, I think we’ll be ready to publish the book which is about Chapters Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. But that part’s already kind of done. Shoho: When did you do Ten? 
Reb: When did I do Ten? Oh darn, I didn’t do Ten. So I have to do Ten also. Sorry. That’s going to be tough. But I think these first ones…..Anon: Isn’t Ten sort of the Hallelujah Chorus? Reb: As a matter of fact, yes it is. So we could have, we could turn this, we could have chorus here at No Abode. So thank you for your great openness to this awesome text. I felt like you were really, what’s the word? Whisper: Patient. Reb: What? People were patient. Yeah, people were patient. And what’s the other word? Tender! You were tender. You were very tender. You were more tender than you’ve been some other times in your life I think. Did you notice that you got kind of tender? Anon: (can’t hear the comment) (Laughter) Reb: Well I thought you got tender. By the way, was I tender enough? Group: Yes. Reb: Was I tender enough, Gordon? Gordon: You tried. Reb: I tried. (Laughter) Gordon: I tried too. Reb: Anyway, I tried to be tender about this topic. And I vow to continue to try to be tender and gentle about this teaching of these great Bodhisattvas and these Buddhas about the intention of the Buddhas and what they’re trying to teach us. And I want to also Yuron (Sp?) and Robin for the cookies. Thank you very much and also for the Star Wars lore. Thank you very much. And thank Shoho for preparing the ground of the temple for us. And thank the Institute of Buddhist Studies for sending more parts to the altar. Did you see the new parts? Laurie, we got some whole new parts. I’ll show you if you want to see. We got eight new parts for this. And we got three fabulous new parts for the other one in there. And there’s two more, three more boxes of missing parts to make this place into a Buddha-land. And Ilene, thanks for organizing everything as usual. Thank you. And thank you all for parking so nicely. Please take care of your dear bodhisattva hearts.