13April22 DN15

So today we are going to go through Digha Nikaya 15, Maha Nidana Sutta, the great discourse on origination. Thus have I heard. Once the Blessed Buddha was staying among the Kurus, there is a market town there called Kamasadana. And the Venerable Ananda came to the Lord, saluted him, sat down to one side, and said, it is wonderful, Lord. It is marvelous how profound this dependent origination is, and how profound it appears, and yet appears to me as clear as clear. Do not say that. Do not say that this dependent origination is profound and appears profound. It is through not understanding, not penetrating this doctrine, that this generation has become like a tangled ball of string, covered with a blight, tangled with coarse grass, unable to pass

Beyond states of hope, the ill destiny, ruined, and the round of birth and death. So Ananda had his experience of stream entry, and then he saw dependent origination. But he didn't see all dependent origination. There were some things that he missed out on, and he thought, wow, this is amazing. This is profound, and it's so simple, so clear. And here the Buddha is admonishing him that there's more to it than what you've seen. So now he's going to elucidate and elaborate on what that is.

If, Ananda, you are asked, has aging and death a condition for its existence, you should answer yes. If asked, what conditions aging and death? You should answer, aging and death is conditioned by birth. What conditions birth? Becoming, or habitual tendencies, conditions birth. What conditions becoming? Clinging conditions habitual tendencies. Craving conditions clinging. Feeling conditions craving. Contact conditions feeling. Mind and body, or mentality-materiality, conditions contact. Consciousness conditions mentality-materiality. If asked, has consciousness a condition for its existence, you should answer yes. If asked, what conditions consciousness, you should answer, mind and body conditions consciousness. So for those of you who are familiar with the 12 links of dependent origination, which ones are missing? Success and name and form is mind and body. So Ananda was not able to let go of the ignorance, not able to see that, wasn't able to see formations, and wasn't able to see the six sense bases.

Ananda, mind and body conditions consciousness, and consciousness conditions mind and body. There's an interdependency between mind and body and consciousness. Mind and body conditions contact, contact conditions feeling, feeling conditions craving, craving conditions clinging, clinging conditions habitual tendencies, habitual tendencies conditions birth, birth conditions aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, grief and despair. Thus this whole mass of suffering comes into existence. I have said birth conditions aging and death, and this is the way that should be understood. If, Ananda, there were no birth at all anywhere, of anybody or anything

of devas, to the deva state, of gandavas, to the gandava state, of yakas, of ghosts, of humans, of quadrupeds, of birds, of reptiles. If there were absolutely no birth at all of all of these things, then with the absence of all birth, could the cessation of birth, aging and death, appear? No, Lord. Therefore, Ananda, just this is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition for aging and death, namely birth. I have said habitual tendencies condition birth. If there were absolutely no habitual tendency or becoming, that is to say becoming or coming into existence into the world of sense desires, into the form world, or the formless world, could birth appear? No, Lord. Therefore just this is the condition of birth, namely becoming.

Becoming, or habitual tendencies. We use habitual tendencies as an alternate for the word power, bhava. Bhava can be understood in different kinds of contexts. It's basically how the mind inclines towards a specific type of birth on the macro level, from lifetime to lifetime. And there are three kinds of births, or worlds. There is the sensual realms, which make up the six sensual heavens, the human realm, the animal realm, the hungry ghost realm, and the hell realms. Then there is the form realm, which is made up of the four brahma realms, the four brahmalokas.

And then there's the formless realm, which is made up of the arupa brahma realms. So the arupa brahma realms are infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, and neither perception nor non-perception. The understanding of bhava is that it is the inclinations, the mind's inclination towards a specific type of existence, and this is understood as being dependent upon, or conditioned by, clinging. When there is clinging, it gives rise to an idea of a me, mine, or myself, with a library of habitual patterns of action. It's a storehouse in which there are habitual tendencies, which then, when you act from, creates the birth of action that can lead to a specific birth in a specific realm, depending upon the formations.

When we talk about birth, we're talking about birth on a micro level, as birth in any of these different realms that you've just spoken of, or the birth of action, the birth of mental, verbal, or bodily action. This action then gives rise to aging and death, or rather suffering, the whole mass of suffering that we were talking about earlier. So the way to understand this is to see how clinging conditions the habitual tendencies, and how craving conditions the clinging. We'll talk more about this, but just understand how these links are all interconnected. So we'll go through a few other questions. Clinging conditions habitual tendencies. If there were absolutely no clinging, that is to say sensual clinging

clinging to views, to rites and rituals, and to personality belief, could bhava appear? Could habitual tendencies appear? And Ananda says, no, Lord. And therefore, just this is the condition of becoming, bhava, and that is clinging. So there are four types of clinging here that I mentioned. There's the sensual clinging, there's the clinging for views, or clinging to views, and there is a clinging to rites and rituals, and the clinging to personality belief. We'll break this down a little bit more, maybe later or tomorrow, because there's so much to unpack. But clinging is basically that mindset that says that I crave this because of so and so.

It's the rationale behind why you're craving for something. So craving is understood as the I like it mind, I don't like it, or I am this mindset. That is to say, identify with this man's side. So that is greed, hatred, delusion. That I like it or I want it, that's the greed. I don't like it, I don't want it, that's the hatred or the aversion. Or I am this, I identify with this, that's the delusion. When that happens, there is a rationale behind why you like something, or why you don't like something, or why you believe you are, or something.

So this kind of rationale can come in the form of those different kinds of clinging. I like this because so-and-so. I like the peanut butter and jelly because my mom used to make it when I was going to school. I enjoy rock and roll music because that's what I heard when I was a teenager. It's the rationale, it's the processing, it's the mind that comes up with associations for why the mind likes it, the associations for why the mind doesn't like it. When you have trauma, when you have PTSD, when you have certain kinds of

mental anxieties and things like that, which happens because you have certain kinds of mindsets rooted in associations. It makes an association. When you have phobias, it's because you associate something with another. This process of association is clinging, and so that initial jump into I don't like it or I like it is the craving, but the rationalizing is the thinking. And by doing the rationalizing, that this is why I like it, this is why I don't like it, you have a library of habitual patterns from which you act. So those habitual patterns, those habitual tendencies, are what incline you to a specific type of realm. That is to say, if you are of a mindset that likes or dislikes or identifies with the experience of the sixth sense basis, then your mindset will tend towards the sense realms.

At death, the bhava that appears will incline the mind towards a birth that takes birth in a sense realm. If you have jhanas and you get attached to jhanas, the first four jhanas, then when your mind passes away, when you pass away, the bhava, the mind, inclines with those formations towards one of those brahma realms associated with the jhanas. If your mind becomes attached to one of the arupa jhanas, and you cling into that, and you have an inclination towards that, then when you pass away, the bhava that arises will incline towards one of the arupa states, and you will take birth, or you will appear, in one of the arupa states. That was a quick question.

The person who becomes sotapanna loses the factor of self-identity and rites and rituals. Does that mean that when they have clinging, their clinging precludes clinging to self-view and clinging to rites and rituals? Then we have two other clingings left? That's right. So when you become a sotapanna, for example, you let go of clinging to personality view, as you said, and you let go of clinging to rites and rituals.

When you become an anagami, you let go of clinging to sensual experiences, and then when you become an arahant, you let go of clinging to views, including right view. Yeah? The rationale for clinging, is that also known as mental proliferation? Yes. Actually, mental proliferation starts from craving and then ends in becoming, but the processing of that mental proliferation is fueled by clinging. So craving conditions clinging.

If there were absolutely no craving, that is craving in the way of sensual craving for sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, and mind objects, could clinging appear? And Ananda says, no, Lord. So therefore, tanha is the condition of clinging, that is craving. But there's other types of craving here also. There's the craving for sensual pleasures, and then there's the craving for existence, and the craving for non-existence.

This is bhava-tanha, which still gives you clinging in the form of clinging to some kind of idea of an existence, which leads to bhava. Then there's vibhava-tanha, which is the clinging or the craving for non-existence. This is the mind that says, I don't want to be here anymore. This is the mind that says, I don't want to be this person anymore. The bhava-tanha is somebody who says, I want to attain this. I want to become a millionaire. I want to become an arahant. I want to become a sotapanna. I want to attain this jhana, and so on and so forth. So this kind of craving leads to a specific type of existence.

Can you still become an arahant with jyata craving to become an arahant? No. You have to let go of the craving to become an arahant, to become an arahant habit. Okay. And is the process gradual, where this craving tones down and the last chunk goes again? So in the case of the Anagami, we let go of sensual craving. But there's still the craving for form realms and the craving for formless realms. This is the craving for existence.

So when you let go of your attachment to the dhamma itself, let go of your clinging to the jhanas themselves and the arupa jhanas, which means you no longer identify with them, then that's how our haksha comes. That's dependent upon the conceit. So when the conceit of I am this, this is me, this is mine comes up, where I'm in this jhana and therefore this jhana feels good to me.

And now my expertise is in being in jhana or going into cessation of perception of feeling of consciousness. And there's that kind of attachment that prevents the mind from going into Aramcha, letting go of that career. So, is the craving for either existence or non-existence essentially the same kind of unwholesome citta for each? Essentially, one, is it the same? The craving for existence. And non-existence. Is it the same craving? It's the same kind of creature. It's just a different type of object. That's it. It's still the I want it, mine. It's still that or I don't. Yeah, exactly. So it's the other side of the same coin. Yeah. That's right. Just need a little bit more exaggeration on that.

I don't want in mind with that. You said the grieving takes kind of leads you to. The aversion keeps you away from them, or how does that...? Repeat the question. The way I understand it is that creating art kind of ties into what kind of world, or rather, realm that you are drawn to. I'm trying to see aversion, what does that lead to? So aversion is, let's say, the category. Aversion is sort of like, yeah, it's a category, and within that there are subsets. So aversion means ill will. It means anger. It means irritation. It means annoyance. It means jealousy. It means all kinds of things related to that, and when you have these kinds of

subsets in the mind that can lead to certain kinds of minds, mind states, or that can also lead to certain kinds of becoming into one of these realms. So for example, anger can lead to a hell realm, jealousy can lead to a hungry ghost realm, certain kinds of irritation and things like that. That could lead to, it's not that it would lead to or will lead to, it's just that it has the potential to lead to.

And then it says feeling conditions craving. If there were absolutely no feeling, that is, feeling born of eye contact, ear contact, nose contact, tongue contact, body contact, mind contact. In the absence of all feeling, with the cessation of feeling, could craving appear? No, Lord. Therefore, Ananda, just this is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition for craving, namely, feeling.

How is that the case? We're talking about different kinds of craving, right? We're talking about craving for existence, we're talking about craving for non-existence, we're talking about craving for sensual experiences. When you have an experience, that is feeling, that is the sensation that you experience, and that can happen through any of the six sense bases. When the light hits the eye, that's contact. When the sound hits the ears, that's contact. When the smell, the odors, hit the nose, that's nose contact. When the flavors hit the tongue, that's tongue contact. When something hits the body, that's body contact. And when a thought object hits the mind, that's mind contact. Dependent upon that, there is something that arises in the form of an awareness of that, and the joining of these three, that is to say the eye and the form, or rather the eye of the form, the joining of these two brings about eye consciousness

likewise ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness, the awareness of that. I'm only aware of the eye when I'm seeing something. I'm only aware of the ear when I'm hearing something. I'm only aware of the tongue when I'm tasting something. I'm only aware of the nose when I'm smelling something. I'm only aware of the body when something hits me, my body. I'm only aware of the mind when there is a thought, when a thought hits the mind. So that joining of the three, that is the eye, the form and the eye consciousness, is contact. The joining of these, likewise for the other sense bases and the mind

from there there's an experience that is proper. That experience is the seeing, for example the seeing of the tree. I am seeing this tree. That is the feeling, the vedana. That vedana can be pleasant, painful or neutral. The knowing of that being pleasant, the knowing of that being painful, or the knowing of that being neutral, is perception. Yesterday I was talking about when I see the tree, I see the outline, I see the shape, I see the color, I see the form. That's the vedana. The knowing that that's the tree, that that tree is green and brown, and that specific tree is an oak tree, that is perception. That perception is rooted in memory because I've seen it before, and so the mind, when it experiences feeling, goes into the data bank and retrieves that information and perceives what that experience is. But what happens is when I take that personal and I see that feeling, that experience, as me, mine or myself

then there is craving that arises. This is the intersection between feeling and craving. Now there are underlying tendencies in feeling which, when acted upon, give rise to a specific type of craving, whether it's sensual craving or craving for existence or craving for non-existence, and leading to a specific type of clinging and therefore a specific type of problem. Those seven underlying tendencies we'll talk about tomorrow. Those seven underlying tendencies have to do with craving, have to do with aversion, have to do with doubt, have to do with views, have to do with becoming, have to do with conceit and have to do with ignorance. So we'll unpack that tomorrow because there's going to be another section under dependent origination.

Right now, I just want you to become acquainted with the different conditions or the links in dependent origination and how one leads to the other. And now there's a little bit of a turn, as it were. Here the Buddha says, and so, Ananda, feeling conditions craving; craving conditions seeking; seeking conditions acquisition; acquisition conditions decision-making; decision-making conditions lustful desire; lustful desire conditions attachment; attachment conditions appropriation; appropriation conditions avarice; avarice conditions guarding of possessions; and because of the guarding of possessions there arise the taking up of stick and sword, morals, disputes, arguments, strife, abuse, lying, and other evil unskilled states.

So what are these: seeking, acquisition, decision making, lustful desire, attachment, or aversion, appropriation, aversion, guarding of possessions? What are all these? These are behaviors, these habitual tendencies, and so there are processes within a papanca, mental proliferation. So acquisition also is a form of clinging. It's a form of acquiring something, a form of association, which then gives rise to other things, which gives rise to the habitual tendencies. This conditions decision making. The decision making is also the birth of mental action. You intentionalize something, and we have the birth of mental action that can give rise to further desire, which gives rise to attachment, which gives rise to appropriation: this is me and that's yours, this is mine, that's not yours. That then gives rise to aversion, and then avarice gives rise to guarding of possessions. So in other words, when you take something personal and say this is me, this is mine, this is myself, and you're dividing the world between what is yours and what is not yours, there is a tendency to protect what you think is yours, and because of that there is a tendency to have aversion.

and that can lead to violence, that could lead to mental violence and physical violence, and this is how wars begin. Majjhima Nikaya 18, which is the honeyball sutta, talks about this as well. It says how the world starts, and the Buddha goes through the process of dependent origination in a similar way. And he says the clinging, the becoming, and all of these things lead to a mind that wants to defend what it thinks of itself as a self.

And so when you have certain kinds of power, when you have certain kinds of wealth, you want to keep it. The mind has a tendency to say, this is my money, this is my work, this is my power. And therefore, the mind creates borders and boundaries and says, this is mine, this is me, this is myself. And anyone else outside of this who tries to tamper with it is an enemy. And so now that enemy becomes a target of your aversion.

And then that turns into arguments, that turns into debates, that turns into harsh speech, and that can even turn into violence and harming and killing. I have said, all these evil, unskilled states arise because of the guarding of possessions. For if there were absolutely no guarding of possessions, would there be the taking up of stick or sword? No. Therefore, Ananda, the guarding of possessions is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition for all these evil, unskilled states. States, I have said, avarice conditions guarding of possessions, appropriation conditions avarice, attachment conditions appropriation, lustful desire conditions attachment, decision-making conditions lustful desire, acquisition conditions decision-making, seeking conditions acquisitions.

I have said, craving conditions seeking. If there were no craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, or craving for annihilation, would there be any seeking? No, Lord. Therefore, Ananda, craving is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition for all seeking. Thus, these two things become united in one by feeling. I have said, contact conditions feeling. Therefore, contact is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition for feeling.

This is the four states of matter, another way of understanding. It is the four states of matter, or four qualities. There's solidity in the earth, there's fluidity in the water, there's temperature and heat in fire, and there's movement in air. So this comprises also the four states of matter as we understand them in terms of solid, liquid, gaseous, and plasma.

Plasma is not the plasma blood, but plasma in terms of fire, heat, energy. So these make up the body. These constitute what is just this body itself, this meat package here. This, from only this, could you experience the mental factors of mentality? If you didn't have the body, the mind wouldn't be able to have sensory reactions. Why? Because the body is also the eye, the body is also the physical ear, the physical nose, the physical tongue, the physical skin, the body and the physical brain through which the mental factors experience the sensory experiences.

Is everybody with me so far? Then, Ananda, just this, namely mind and body, is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition for all content. I have said consciousness conditions mind and body. If consciousness were not to come into the mother's womb, would mind and body develop? Or if consciousness, having entered the mother's womb, were to be deflected, would mind and body come to birth in this life? And if the consciousness of such a tender young being, boy or girl, were thus cut off, would mind and body grow, develop and mature? No. So what are we talking about here? We're talking about consciousness in the form of the panthera. That's the consciousness that carries forward formations, and then there is a nama rupa, or a nama if you are a former strong, and it, that consciousness, descends in the nama rupa at the point of conception, let's say in the human birth. But if these three were not possible, that is to say the sperm and the ovum and the union of those two, then would the consciousness be able to descend into that life?

Do you need these three? And then later on, if, as he says, in the womb, if that fetus were somehow to be stillborn or hurt or harmed, and if there was a destruction of the fetus, will the consciousness still remain? No. So the idea is that when you have formation, this is how karma on the macro level works. When a person dies, they go through a process of experiencing certain kinds of mental thoughts and ideas and images.

These mental thoughts, ideas and images are conditioned by formations, formations or sankharas, mental impressions. These mental impressions come about because of continual, certain continual actions, wholesome or unwholesome. If somebody has been doing unwholesome actions for most of their life, what are their habitual tendencies going to be like? Unwholesome. If their habitual tendencies are going to be mostly unwholesome, their mind will be inclined towards unwholesome images. So the birth of mental action there will be unwholesome images. There will be a reaction to those unwholesome images in the form of some kind of aversion.

That aversion, the fuel of that, that craving, attaches itself to that image. That gives rise to certain kinds of formations. These sankharas are the seeds for that new life, in terms of the karma for that new life. So it gives rise to a certain type of consciousness. That consciousness departs from that death or that body and then takes root in a new body.

But that new body is the union of these three, that is, the mother and the father, and the union of the consciousness to that will give life. If the union of the mother and father are there, but there's no consciousness, there won't be new life. So these are dependent for the life to come into being. Now when that consciousness comes into being, or it lands or descends into the new mentality and materiality, it takes with it, it transfers with it, all of the karmic formations from the previous life. This is how it is understood.

And so how is it that it takes it to a specific type of knowledge? It's through the karma. It's through the formations. It matches certain genetic markers in the mother and the father, like that. There's no delay in it. It matches with that, and so the union of the mother and father provide for that consciousness and those formations a perfect match, so that the karma can be played out in that process. It still seems like a logical leap, right there. It's a logical leap. It's a logical leap.

This part is very esoteric. But you see this in certain suttas, referred to as the Gandhava. The Gandhava is the consciousness that carries forward the karma. So this is something that you can only experience when you see for yourself through past lives. So until then, you can take it for what it's worth. So it says here, therefore Ananda, just this, namely consciousness, is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition of mind and body. I have said mind and body conditions consciousness.

If consciousness did not find a resting place in mind and body, would there be subsequently an arising and coming to be of birth, aging, death and suffering? No. Therefore, Ananda, just this, namely mind and body, is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition of consciousness. So for the mind and body to grow, it needs consciousness. But for consciousness to continue, it needs a mind and body to house itself.

Therefore, Ananda, just this, namely mind and body, is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition of consciousness. Thus far, then, Ananda, we can trace birth and decay, death and falling into other states and being reborn. Thus far extends the way of designation, of concepts. Thus far is the sphere of understanding. Thus far the round goes, as far as can be discerned in this life, namely to mind and body together with consciousness.

Now it takes a different path. He says, in what ways, Ananda, do people explain the nature of the self? Some declare the self to be material and limited, saying myself is material and limited. Some declare it to be material and unlimited. Some declare it to be immaterial, and some declare it to be immaterial and unlimited, saying myself is immaterial and unlimited. So, material and limited is the idea that the self is made up of matter, that is, the body is the self, and it's limited. Material and unlimited is that it's made up of all of this; the self is all of this matter.

That is to say, the entire universe is the self. Immaterial and limited: that is to say, there is a self in the body, which is an apne, which is a spirit that resides in the body. Immaterial and unlimited: there is this idea that there is a super spirit that pervades the entire universe. That is the substratum of the entire universe.

Whoever declares the self to be material and limited considers it to be either now or in the next world, thinking, though it is not so now, I shall acquire it there. That being so, that is all we need say about the view that the self is material and limited, and the same applies to the other views. So much, Ananda, for those who prefer an explanation of the self.

In what ways, Ananda, do people regard the self? They equate the self with feeling. They say feeling is myself, or feeling is not myself. Myself is impercipient, or feeling is not myself, but myself is not impercipient, it is of a nature to feel. So these are the different kinds of self views in relation to feeling. That is to say, to very, very much simplify that language, basically it is: self is me, or rather, feeling is me, or feeling is self. Feeling is in self, and therefore it can't be perceived, it's impercipient. Or the feeling is outside of the self, and so it is owned by the self. Or the feeling is separate to itself, there's a self and there is a feeling. You can apply this to any of the five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, formations or consciousness. So these are the 20 different types of self-views, which we'll talk about.

But just to get an idea of both, the 20 types of self-view are basically the five aggregates multiplied by the four types of basic self-views. That is, for example, the five aggregates are me, the five aggregates are self, the five aggregates are in the self, or the self is in the five aggregates, or the five aggregates are separate from self. Now he'll break it down even further. He says, now when the one who says feeling is myself should be told there are three kinds of feelings, pleasant, painful, and neutral.

So there are three kinds of feeling, pleasant, painful, and neutral. Which of the three do you consider to be yourself? Which self are you? Are you a pleasant feeling? Are you a painful feeling? Depends what you ask. So it says, when a pleasant feeling is felt, no painful or neutral feeling is felt, but only the pleasant feeling. When a painful feeling is felt, no pleasant or neutral feeling is felt, but only a painful feeling. And when a neutral feeling is felt, no pleasant or painful feeling is felt, but only neutral feeling.

Now, pleasant feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, bound to decay, to vanish, to fade away, to cease. So too are painful feeling and neutral feeling. So I have to unpack this a little bit. Maybe you already understand this, but in the Indian culture, ancient Indian culture, there was this idea of a self, this idea of an atma, or this idea of an atma and permanent, which is the self, in some traditions.

And the idea is that which is the self is always there, it's permanent, it's all-pervading, it's unchanging, and it is a source of happiness. So this is the touchstone upon which we can judge whether feeling is self or not self, once we understand what they mean by self in this Indian context. What they mean by self is that which is permanent, the source of happiness, and basically all-pervading.

So it says here, pleasant feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, dying to decay, to vanish, to fade away, to cease; so too are painful feeling and neutral feeling. So anyone who, on experiencing unpleasant feeling, thinks this is myself must, at the cessation of that pleasant feeling, think myself has gone, and the same with painful and neutral feelings. Thus whoever thinks feeling is myself is contemplating something in this present life that is impermanent, a mixture of happiness and unhappiness, subject to arising and passing away. Therefore is it fitting to maintain feeling is myself? No, no. How would you say that's itself? But that system is dependent on something. What we're saying is this self is operating: permanent, independent, and a source of happiness, unchanging. But that process is continually changing.

This process that we're talking about is dependent, or is efficient. That is, contact gives rise to the feeling. So a new kind of contact will give rise to a new kind of feeling. So it's dependently arisen. If it's dependently arisen, then it's not independent of that process. But the process itself is made up of different causes, conditions, and components.

And those are always shrinking anyway. So can it be said that itself? Are you saying that self is a process rather than an entity, if that's the argument? Well, you could say that the idea of a self arises depending upon that process, but that self will also go away once that process goes away. So the idea of a self comes to be in habitual tendencies.

It's in the library and storehouse of different habitual tendencies, this idea that this is me, this is mine, this is myself, and it comes at the point of bhava, at the point of becoming. So there is that sense of self, but it changes, it continues to change, because it's dependent upon thinking, dependent on... So a self arises but it also passes away, so it can't be understood to be that self, that self that is permanently persisting with you. So that means there is a self which you see as an impermanent self that comes, but it's not yourself, it's not you, it's still an impersonal process. But that self that arises also passes away. So if it passes away you can't say that I cast away, I can't say I arose and I passed away. Yes, which, I don't know how that ties into... ties into such an arm, right? So that means all-pervading, always there. Yeah, it's existence, the chip is its conscious, and ananda means it's a source of happiness.

So that's what we're talking about, that's the touchstone of the self. It doesn't tie to a person as a self, it just thinks that there is something beyond an individual, and that is, and that's my... I'm very naive and this is a mother talking about, but that was my understanding, is that there is this all-pervading consciousness which is pure and happy. Yeah. Yes, tied to a personal self? Yes, but within certain schools of Vedanta, depending upon the kind of school the person subscribes to, there's Advaita Vedanta, which is the non-dual. There's the Advaita which says there's a self and there's a Brahman, that's also... and what is Brahman? Or there is Vishishta Advaita, or there is Bhedabheda Advaita.

There are so many different classes and schools. But basically all of them say that there is a self and there is a universe, there's an existence. Some say that that self and that existence is one and the same, and some say that that self is a manifestation of that existence, and some say that that self merges to become an existence, and so on and so forth. But ultimately, whether you say it one way or the other, the idea is, if it's the self or the Brahman, we're talking about the same core concept.

And that core concept is the idea that it is all-pervading, permanent, and therefore a source of happiness. It's always blissful. But this process that we see of the arising and passing away of selves also gives you painful feelings, also gives you neutral feelings. So pleasant feeling changes, and therefore it is inherently painful. Painful feeling changes, and so it's inherently pleasant. And because it's changing it's impermanent, and that which is impermanent can be a source of dukkha, can be a source of suffering. And therefore if we say that self is supposed to be satyip a number, supposed to be unnumbered, then that particular thing is not self.

So if form is impermanent, if feeling is impermanent, if perceptions are impermanent, if intentions are impermanent, and if consciousness or awarenesses are impermanent, then they are all seen as being liable to change, and therefore can be sources of dukkha, and therefore not always providing fulfilling, lasting happiness. And because of that, one does not consider it to be self. The Buddha doesn't go on to say that there is a self or that there is no self. Somebody asks him that question directly and they say, what do you say? Do you say that there is a self or there is no self? And the Buddha doesn't answer either way.

Because if he says that there is a self, then the mind conceptualizes, oh, then this is my self. And if he says that there is no self, then the mind makes that no-self concept a self. The mind says, oh, there is no self. And so there's a clinging to that view. What the Buddha is talking about when he says anatta, which is the Pali, and anatma, which is the Sanskrit, he's saying, what is not self? What is non-self?

What is impersonal? And so all conditioned things are impermanent, and therefore they are considered not to be self. But he never makes any ontological claims. Because every time they come to ask him about ontological claims, all he says is, I teach two things: suffering and the cessation of suffering. The rest of whether there is a self or not a self gets into an intellectual exercise, which leads to suffering.

Is the mistake that we make in this human life that we assume there's a permanent self? And then, from the standpoint of the links of dependent origination, we kind of pick our favourites. Like, I am these views, you know, like I am Catholic and this is the right way to view the world, blah blah blah blah blah, or, you know, I'm always angry, that's just how I am, this is my craving, these are my reactions, or I always feel this way about whatever it is. So we kind of pick and choose these things and make a hodgepodge of some kind of self, would you have?

Going back to the links of dependent origination, let's say for example, somebody craves for peanut butter and somebody craves for strawberry ice cream, and then they cling to the idea, I like strawberry ice cream because that's what my mother used to do, that's all I eat, that's all I eat now, and therefore I am someone who likes strawberry ice cream. You take that away from me, then there's cause of suffering from that. So the idea of collecting favourites: these are my favourite flavours, these are my favourite ideas, these are my favourite songs. This is clinging, and then the library of that creates the sense of I am the person who likes this. You take it away from me, take away the strawberry ice cream, I'm going to kill you. That is the birth of action that leads to something. So any identification, I'm a Buddhist, I'm a Buddhist teacher, I'm a meditator, I'm a sotapanna, with fruition.

These are all according to what you're saying. This argument always ends up in suffering. Yes. So when you identify with anything at all, including the Dhamma, it can lead to suffering. And this is happening hundreds of thousands of times in a second? Yes. Thereabouts. I have one more follow-up question on the hill. In some of the Thai traditions, they talk about purifying the chitta.

And I'm trying to understand that the chitta and consciousness, and sometimes they are changeable, and even some of the sutta talks about glorifying the citta. Yeah, and when the citta is fully pure you have attained... you know, yeah, I think the Buddha talks about this. He talks about the mind being luminous, he says pabhassara citta, and pabhassara citta is actually the quiet one, the experience of the quiet mind that you have in either perception and non-perception. And what he says is this becomes defiled, defiled by anger, defiled by cravings, defiled by lust, so and so and so, but you never say anything about citta itself being permanent. Okay, I just, this must be my understanding, that some of the... that was the bird is like, they say the chitta is completely purified, you have become, and you have become, you are not that. That was my understanding. And yeah, it comes from no, that's true: when your chitta is completely purified, that is to say your mind is completely free, a mind without feeling if you will, but that mind of the arm of itself is empty of any concept of permanence or impermanence.

it's permanent to the extent that it is unshakable vibana for example is seen as unconditioned therefore it's not impermanent because it changes the mindset it gives a different quality that is unshakable that is that you're not liable to fall from it in that sense it's permanent but beyond the concepts of permanence in terms of it is everlasting and it goes beyond that and so on It's not the case.

Oh, somebody else had a question? Or no? You asked that. Oh, good. So, anyone who says, feeling is not myself, myself is impercipient, should be asked: if, friend, no feelings at all were to be experienced, would there be the thought, I am? To which he would have to reply, no. Therefore, it is not fitting to maintain feeling is not myself, myself is impercipient. Why?

What does impercipient mean? Non-percipient. What does that mean? Non-perception. Right. But that means that it's not being able to perceive. You're not able to perceive the self. But isn't perception tied to feeling, right? When what you feel, you also perceive. So what he's saying is, "Friend, if no feeling at all were to be experienced, would there be the thought 'I am'?" When you go into the cessation of perception and feeling, unconsciousness, do you have a sense of 'I am'? In perception? No. No. So sorry, I've been told. So I've been told anyone who asks, "Feeling is not myself," but "myself is not impercipient, myself is of a nature to feel."

Should be asked, "Well, friend, if all feelings absolutely and totally cease, could there be the thought 'I am'?" This, therefore, it is not fitting to maintain, "Feeling is not myself, but myself is not percipient, but myself is of a nature to feel." That means the self is something that is dependent upon some kind of a feeling. The self only arises if there's some kind of feeling that arises. If all feelings disappeared, with that idea in mind, would they be yourself? It wouldn't be so. One way to look at it is there are impermanent selves. There are millions of impermanent selves arising and passing away, but that couldn't be considered to be the self as we understand it in the Indian context, which is that such a blissful, peaceful, all-pervading awareness, as it were. So we're talking in absolute terms. And so, but there is the

relative self. Yeah, the relative self is that which arises through the process of the pentagon generation, right? Yeah. And that's what you were talking about, the process. It is the process of a relative self. Yeah. Yeah, yes. But it continues to rise, impossibly, that self. It continues to rise from the time, Ananda, when a monk no longer regards feeling as the self, or the self as being impercipient, or as being percipient and of a nature to feel. By not so regarding, he clings to nothing in the world. Not clinging

he is not excited by it. He has this passion, and by not being excited he gains liberation, and he knows birth is finished. The holy life has been led. Done is what had to be done. There is nothing more here now. He gives another kind of idea. And if anyone were to say to a monk whose mind was thus freed that the Tathagata exists after death, that would be seen by him as a wrong view. As far as the cycle reaches and revolves, that monk is liberated from all of that by superknowledge. And to maintain that such a liberated monk does not know and see would be a wrong view and incorrect.

So there's this idea. There are other suttas in which people ask the monks, "So what is it? Does the Tathagata exist, or does the Buddha exist? Does the Arahant exist, or does the Arahant not exist? Or does the Arahant exist or not exist? Or does the Arahant neither exist nor not exist?" So the idea is, first of all, let's define what does that mean in terms of being. There's a concept of a being, from the Pali word sattva, or sattva in Sanskrit. And the Buddha says the idea of a being is that idea of clinging to, or clinging for, form, feeling, perception, intention, and consciousness.

That identification process with that denotes a being. So if an Arahant has let go of all identification with form, feeling, intention, perception, consciousness, is he a being? Got you. Yes. Exactly. You see how it is? It's like, if you say he's not a being, but then you can't say he's not a being. So that's an understanding. But there's two kinds of experiences, through understanding and through development. Now, through development, can that be known?

Through development, it can be known that the Arahant is neither a being nor a not a being. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, wow. That's cool. Well, I think it's cool. Ananda, there are seven stations of consciousness and two realms. Now, what he's talking about are the different types of rebirths. Now this is where we'll talk about the things that you guys want to talk about.

Which are the seven? There are beings different in body and different in perception, such as human beings, some devas, and some in states of woe. So the idea is there are different beings with different bodies. We all have different bodies. Devas have different bodies. Animals have different bodies. We also have different perceptions. We perceive differently depending upon our formations.

So that's the classification. There are beings who are different in body and different in perception. There are beings different in body and alike in perception, such as the devas of Brahma's retinue, born there on account of having attained the first jhana. In the Brahma realm, it's understood that the beings have the same kind of body, and they also have the same kind of perception, because they are all experiencing the first jhana. They're all experiencing thinking and examining, thought. They're all experiencing bliss and ease, and they all have bodies that are alike, all of them.

So this is the second station. There are beings alike in body and different in perception, such as the Abhassara devas. This is the second genre. Now, how is it that they are alike in body but different in perception? Because in some cases there are beings still with a little bit of thinking and examining. So they still have certain kilesas, as they might be known, of thinking. They still have some process of verbalizing.

And so that's how their perceptions are different. So this is an area I haven't studied at all, so I'm very naive. How do devas come into existence, and how do they have bodies, and where do they have bodies? Do they have parents? Do they gestate? I mean, just kind of in general terms. The understanding within the Buddhist cosmological context is we have different types of birth. We have birth through gestation, we have birth through an egg, we have birth through moisture, and we have birth through spontaneous generation. They spontaneously generate, they just spontaneously come into being, dependent upon previous kamma. And where are they? They can be in any location. Oh, on this plane here, you mean here on earth? Yeah, where are they? Everywhere.

They're just behind the scenes. Yeah, don't you see them? I had one set of peppermint in my car the other day. So, okay, the way to understand it is we only see certain kinds of frequencies of light, a certain kind of spectrum. They come into the scope of outside of that spectrum. That's why we have to develop the inner vision to be able to see them, if we want to see them. Okay. Yeah. Now, in the Buddhist cosmology, is there more than one earth, or is this earth? Are devas born in other parts of the galaxy or the universe, or am I just being... No, I can answer that. I mean, yeah. So there's an understanding that there are different kinds of world systems, different kinds of cakkavalas.

There is the hundred world system, the thousand world system, the ten thousand world system, and the ten thousand times ten thousand world system. And these are the different designations of solar systems and galaxies and clusters of galaxies and universes or multiverses. And so what's understood is there is difference in every galaxy. There are different devas, so it's not only horizontal in terms of the different clusters but vertical. So classifications of beings are also in different galactic realms. We have a burgeoning population of humans, we have a decreasing population of animal life, but it doesn't matter, because there's 10,000, 10,000 universes. They can be anywhere, you can go anywhere. The majority of beings are in hell. Well, this plane, I would say, is a very beautiful hell, a very terrible heaven.

Do you have any more questions? Can you see Deva right now, like here? If I could, and I told you I could, would you believe me? Yeah, I would like to. So the devas, when they appear, they're understood as balls of light. They're spheres of light. And then eventually you're able to see the outline of the deva. And then eventually you start to see the features of the deva. But devas have different kinds of nervous systems, let's say. They experience more pleasure than they would experience pain. Their nervous systems are geared to experience no pressure. They're luminous beings, so they don't have, like, this meat bag here. It's more luminous in nature.

Like photons. Like photons, yeah. Some of them are floating on it. Well, they would be standing right here. Why are most beings in hell, and where is that from? Because most beings don't have right view. So within the Buddhist cosmology, the idea is that very few beings, in the grand scheme of things, have developed, cultivated, and attained right view. And if you don't have right view, you are liable to experience hell realms, or a hungry ghost realm, for example. So the balance of beings in that sense, the majority of them are in hell, and then some are in the human realms, and then some are in the deva realms.

And how do you get to the deva realms? No. We're talking about the six sensual realms, six sensual heavens. When you have generosity, you have love and kindness. When you have compassion, when you develop your precepts and continue to maintain those precepts, the idea is that you can get into a deva realm. But you can still have wrong view. And when you finish your time in a deva realm, you go all the way back to a hell realm. So when you have right view, when you have stream entry

then those three realms of the hungry ghost, the animal, and the hell realms are completely cut off. And how many stream enterers are actually in this world compared to, you know, quintillions and quintillions of beings in some side? So that's just under the cosmological perspective. So who figured this out, that most of them are in hell, and also who's going in there to take them out? Nobody's going in there to take them out. They leave this through their kamma, how they leave this, through their kamma, when their karmic fuel is gone.

They generate somewhere else. So if there's still, because there's not always just absolute bad or absolute good, until you completely let go of all identification, but you have absolute bad, then that means there's no possibility for you to come out of hell. So there's still formations that are rooted in goodness, that are rooted in the wholesome, that allow the person to, once they've finished their jail time, go out. Then whatever formations are there will give rights to whatever bird is there, so then they can go from the hell realm to a hungry ghost realm, or from a hungry ghost realm to an animal realm, or an animal realm to a human realm. Well, is that right?" - "Yeah, so within this cosmology, I'm very familiar. There is this cadence of a Buddha arising only one at a time, but what I've never found, and I've been curious about, is whether there's any canonical description of that.

description of is is that saying that you can only have one buddha on earth at a time or like one bit in the universe or in the realm like are there multiple buddhas that those populations are just not aware of each other yeah so i think the theravan understanding the purely theravan understanding is that they cannot be one put down there cannot be more than one book at a time in any part of the universe wow is there some logic i'm sorry yeah yeah why did you ask the same question what oh sorry yeah what were you saying i mean i'm just wondering why is it i mean what is the logic for why you can never have more than one buddha i think it's more of a doctrinal thing yeah that's what i'm saying it could be a doctrinal thing because you have my own understanding that there's other buddhas everywhere okay so it's just it's a it's a doctrinal sort of yeah that's okay we made it up i'm going to add a follow-on question so one of the questions i'm going to ask you eventually anyway so maybe once is

How do you distinguish the things that the Buddha proved from the things that he, or other people, were saying? Because they're all pronounced as if they're true, and we're all supposed to believe the Buddha, but you get into the fourth jhana and you see all sorts of weird stuff. You get into the jhanas and you see strange things, and what is a belief, and what is..." So when it comes to cosmology, and when it comes to the idea of rebirth as well, I would say: don't take it. Just don't take it for what it is. You don't even have to go into that perspective, that it is real or it isn't real. It's just a wonderful, unique, rich addition to understanding kamma. But these can also be understood on psychological levels too. You could experience hell on a psychological level. You could experience the brahma realms on a psychological level, by virtue of the fact that you experience the first, second, third, and fourth jhana.

Likewise with the arupa realms. So when somebody is generous, somebody is more giving, somebody is more loving, somebody is more kind, they have a deva kind of psychology. When somebody is more greedy, somebody is more jealous, somebody is addicted, they have a more hungry ghost kind of psychology. Somebody who has more anger, more ill will, prone to violence, they have a hellish kind of psychology, and so on. So I would say this is all a wonderful, rich tapestry, but at the same time it can be understood as a way of understanding our own psychology.

Okay, so when it says that you have, one of the things we're supposed to do is to believe the Buddha, yeah, but we don't have to believe all this about the hell realms and other things. Those are just suffering, and the end of suffering." - "Yeah, the suffering is enough." - "Yes." - "Okay, you had a question. I'll have a question for you guys. So if I work really hard in this lifetime but never attain stream entry, and then somehow I go to a bad realm, and then I go back to becoming human later, how can I possibly remember that? How does that process work? Do I... what is that like? If you somehow... how do you continue the Dhamma path?" - "Oh no, no, you're not doing it. You're not doing it. What happens is, the kamma, kamma is such an interesting and intricate kind of concept. So the idea is that there will always, always be formations rooted which lead to the Dhamma. So you'll come into circumstances and situations

where you'll be born in a family of dhamma followers so you'll come across friends who practice the dhamma or you'll suddenly watch youtube and see a dhamma video or something like that kind of sort of as you didn't tell you know like having that invitation stored in the carbon It's in the formations, in the sankharas. Sankharas, the codes, those are the inputs through which then all of these other karmic actions come to be.

But sankharas in and of themselves are impermanent. They're ever-changing, and they're influenced by choices. Choices you make will influence the next set of sankharas that come into a future time period. So that's why they can't be considered to be permanent. They can't be considered to be like the self. They're considered to be changing, because your intention continues to change. Your actions and your thoughts continue to change, and so they continue to develop, or rather influence, the next arising of the sankharas in a future moment. And then that cycle continues and continues and continues, until you purify the formations.

Until the formations are rid of creating and conceiving the universe and the identification it carries from one moment to the next moment. It's a sankhara, but it changes, it can change. Not just one sankhara, there are multiple sankharas. There are three, well, it depends on who you ask, but there could be four or five different types of sankharas. But the three main types of sankharas are mental sankharas, verbal sankharas, and bodily sankharas. And these influence what you say, the verbal sankharas, and the mental sankharas influence how you think,

and the bodily sankharas basically determine your breathing pattern and different aspects of your body. There's ayu sankhara, which is known as a sankhara that influences your age, how fast you age, the aging process, and when you're done. So sankharas are the fuel for existence, whether it's in physical existence or otherwise. Do you like the word construction, or an English word to approximate sankhara?" - "Yeah, construction is a good word, because it's what constructs the whole process. It builds it, it adds to it. That's a good word for some sankharas. Another one would be formations, but another one would be preparations." - "Preparations, yeah, or even the original Sanskrit samskaras, which are impressions, mental impressions, verbal impressions." - "So what you said, so number one, devas can experience anger, but then the understanding, again, all of this is within cosmology, right? So take it for what it's worth. Devas can experience anger, and that anger can make them explode, so physically explode

and that's how they die. That's it, that's the end of the deva. If they experience any kind of negative emotion, it can intensify and it can kill them. But devas are inherently good, in the sense that they're predominantly more generous. It's by virtue of the fact that in a previous life they were generous, they were kind, they were compassionate, they were developing the different wholesome qualities of mind and action.

Because of that, they're kind of leaving the benefits as a bela. Now, I wonder if you could capture a bela on infrared light. That was the other question. We should try. We saw something around the house with a camera that kept triggering. Oh, okay. Unexplainable. It doesn't sphere of light. So when we said it threw our money. - It couldn't have been a firefly? - No, no, it's not, it's a very large fear of life. It's like this large. - Maybe it's a very fat firefly. - All hours and hours. - Yeah. - Spade, anyway. - Yeah, yeah.

So the aim has come to be where there's a lot of wholesome intentions, a lot of wholesome qualities of mind and presence. So at a Dhamma talk, for example, when people are meditating, when people are being generous, the idea is that devas are there, and devas can also protect. That's another idea, that devas can protect those who are wholesome in mindset, and they can be playful guardian angels." - "Guardian angels is one concept." - "Exactly. You've been wanting to ask your question for one time." - "So my understanding is that the more human, in the time, the physical space available, is very rare. Yeah. Can you develop right view without a Buddha in the world?"

Without a Buddha in the world, you can develop right view, so long as the Dhamma is still there, available." - "Yeah." - "But when the Dhamma is done, like we're halfway through..." - "Yeah, yeah." - "Then it's a dark age, apparently, for a long time. That's why there are so many healthy ones, or that's the rationale behind them." - "Okay, so, do you think that because we're in a Catholic place here, do you think Catholics can become devas, or because they're good? Anyone who has good qualities?" - "Yeah, yeah, any human who has good qualities can become a deva." - "So Buddhists don't..." - "It's not me." - "Oh yeah, this is just for us." - "No, it's not an exclusive club." - "Yeah, and I'm not even Dummy."

"If you enter this stream, then you have seven more lives, are you...?" - "That's pretty good, that the seven lives will be before the Dhamma disappears." - "Yes." - "I have a question. If you are a Buddhist, can you have a real job?" - "Yeah, you can. I mean, even in the Buddha's time there was a man named Anathapindika, who was a stream enterer, by the way, and he was at that time a millionaire, a banker. He's the one who donated all of that land to the Buddha. The story goes, you know, the story about him having to cover the ground with coins."

Yeah, what's that? He paved the part with coins? Yeah, he just paid the entire part with gold coins. No, he didn't give it up. He was still a millionaire, he was still a banker. Yeah. And then when he died, that he became big, so many rich people in the time. They just... Right. Yeah, that's an interesting idea, because... So yeah, after you become an anagami, you sort of just lose interest, yeah, in any kind of household life. But Chitta was still a householder, as a man, I know. Were there any more questions, people? Did you have a question? No. Somebody was answering that. You did? Yes. I was wondering, are there any enlightened societies in the 3D, in what we have at Lee?

Are there any enlightened societies in Lee? In this universe, or galaxy? - If there were, they probably wouldn't want anything to do with it. - Would they not want to help with that? - No, I mean, they wouldn't be interested in anything, actually, and eventually they would just have help. It could be seen as an issue for someone who has a lay life, but I think the rewards are just really nice when you become a woman. Much better than money. I think part of my question about the earth and the human beings, being born a human during the time of development is I'm trying to understand: do humans exist only on the earth, or are there universes where we have beings which, so do they mean specifically when they say being born a human, do they specifically mean born on planet earth, or do they mean any earth-like planet?

Any Earth-like planet. They could be human-like beings. They could be human-like beings, I see. In fact, even in the cosmology, it talks about the four great continents. When you look at the cosmology of the four great continents, the way I look at that is probably not continents, but actually planets. And there's different types of humans there, human civilizations that have different ways of living, and so on and so forth.

Yes. You know, you hear the story of monks saying that they see there was that helped them through whatever obstacles they have. How does the sphere of life take on a form of a body in order to help someone else? How does that work? I never understand a connection. I've always thought they were like an entity of a body and not like a frequency. Well, how do they help them, in the sense... well, I guess you would have to give me examples of helping, because I know John Brown, when we went to Perth, he talked about that he hears about it and he didn't believe in it, and then, you know, what a monk was saying, that they were walking through whatever the saying was, and there was no water or nothing, and someone up here showed up wearing really nice clothes and give food out of nowhere. Yeah. And so, and you read these stories. Yeah. So devas are understood to be pretty much

Very powerful, so that they can shapeshift. They can manifest in different realms. They can engage with the physical realm. They can, depending on what kind of devas, bring things out of seemingly nowhere, and all kinds of things like that. So devas are sort of almost unlimited in the ability to do things. They can read people's minds. They can walk through walls. All of the different cities that we hear about in the suttas, they're basically capable of that. Where does the bodhisattvas fall into this thing? So there is the bodhisattva in Tusita heaven, which is the future of Buddha, who is going to come after the Dhamma ceases. So once the Dhamma no longer is available to people, people forget that there was a Dhamma before. Will forget that there was a Dhamma before.

At some point, the material without will incarnate, will take rebirth and be a bodhisattva for one last lifetime, and they become so. Most all the bodhisattas will be in to see that. That's the understanding. Well, most bodhisattas will be, or all bodhisattas will be, in Tusita heaven prior to their final lifetime, in which they become so. What's the... I mean, cosmology... yeah, what's the sort of life expectancy? I think I heard something like... a thousand world cycles. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So you're talking about in the range of

hundreds and hundreds of trillions of years, depending upon which realm you're in. Yeah. You have maha kappas, you have kappas, you have four maha kappas, and things like that. Yeah. So, incalculables, that's the asenkhayas. Yeah, yeah. And that's the universe coming in and out of existence. Right. That many times. Right. So one expansion in world of attraction is a maha kappa. Yeah, and so we're eight trillion years into the Big Bang and it's still running. Right. And then it'll contract, right, and then there's a dark period. Yeah. Then it explodes again. Yeah.

It just goes on and on and on, and they only happen. But the only Buddhism only appears as the world expands, as it expands, not the contraction. Right, the dark period. Right. And all beings only appear when the world expands. Right, not when the world contracts. Since you brought this up, there is also the idea that the universe gets destroyed by three elements: the water element, sorry, the... yeah, the water element, the earth element, or is it... yeah, the water element, the fire element, and the air. So the idea is, then, depending upon which kind of destruction happens, all of the realms up to a certain realm are completely destroyed, but any of the realms from the third jhana onwards, I believe, are never destroyed.

So all of that which is destroyed, the hell beings and the animals and all of that, they all take birth into the third genre on roots. That's a pretty good deal. Any other last questions before I continue? Yes, it's Kate. So... There are beings alike in body and alike in perception, such as the Subhakinha devas. These are the third jhana broken forms. And they are alike in body and alike in perception.

That means they have the same kinds of bodies and the same kind of perceptions. In the first jhana, you have different kinds of bodies but the same kind of perception. In the second jhana, you have beings that are alike in body but different in perception. And here you have beings that are both alike in body and alike in perception, meaning their radiance is basically the same. Their light is the same everywhere. And they experience the same qualities, which are the qualities or factors of the third jhana. That is the fourth station. There are beings who have completely transcended all perception of matter by the vanishing of the perception of sense reactions and by non-attention to the perception of variety, thinking space is infinite. They have attained to the sphere of infinite space. That is the fifth station. So anyone who gets to the fifth channel is reliable to go into infinite space, to be born as a deva in infinite space.

There are beings who, by transcending the sphere of infinite space, thinking consciousness is infinite, have attained to the sphere of infinite consciousness. That is the sixth station. There are beings who, having transcended the sphere of infinite consciousness, thinking there is no thing, have attained to the sphere of non-thingness. That is the seventh station of consciousness. The two realms are the realm of unconscious beings and, secondly, the realm of neither perception nor non-perception.

So the realm of unconscious beings are known as the asanyata. They are. They don't have perception. And the way to get into this realm, or this kind of consciousness, is someone who goes into a state of suspended animation. And then suddenly they find themselves in this realm. Of course they're unconscious, so they don't know. So what happens is their karmic stream freezes.

So all the karma and formations and all of those things that come up, it freezes at the level of the unconscious beings. And it just, just their life span, whatever it is, when it decreases and it ends, whatever formation comes up that gives rise to a new life after that, so they have no control. And neither perception or non-perception, here there's no intention, there's no way of fully deciphering what is there and what is not there. So beings who experience neither perception nor non-perception go to the realm of neither perception nor non-perception. But that's not even a being, right? It's just a frozen, something from before. Right, exactly.

Exactly. And so in the same way, any formations that arise will then give rise to your neighbor. Now, anatta, as regards this first station of consciousness with difference of body and difference of perception, as is in the case of humans and so on, if anyone were to understand it, its origin, its cessation, its attraction, and its peril, and the deliverance from it, would it be fitting for him to take pleasure in it?

In other words, once you understood the impermanent nature of being in this realm, would you take pleasure? No. And with regards to the other stations and the other two spheres? No. Because they're conditioned. Ananda, insofar as a monk, having known as they really are these seven stations of consciousness and these two spheres, their origin and cessation, their attraction and peril, is freed without attachment. That monk, Ananda, is called one who is liberated by wisdom.

There are, Ananda, these eight liberations. What are they? Okay, let's, okay, we'll come back to liberated by wisdom. So we're going to talk about that. But let me go through this first. There are another of these eight liberations. What are they? Possessing form, one sees forms. That is the first liberation. Not perceiving material forms in oneself, one sees them outside. That is the second liberation.

Thinking it is beautiful, one becomes intent on it. That is the third liberation. These three liberations are all talking about the four jhanas. These are gateways to the jhanas, the form jhanas. Possessing form, one sees forms. What does that mean? One is looking at the different parts of the body and it gets into a jhanic state. Not perceiving material forms in oneself, one sees them outside. One creates a kasina, for example. One sees certain colors and things like that, and makes that a meditation object.

That is the second liberation. Thinking it is beautiful, one becomes intent on it. This is in relation to the Brahma Viharas. One becomes intent on the beautiful, which are the Brahma Viharas, which take you all the way to the fourth jhana. Loving kindness takes you all the way to the fourth jhana. Now, by completely transcending all perception of matter, by the vanishing of the perception of sensory actions, and by non-attention to the perception of variety, thinking space is infinite, one enters and abides in the sphere of infinite space. That is the fourth liberation.

That is the seventh liberation. By transcending the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters and abides in the cessation of perception, feeling and consciousness. That is the eighth liberation. Is that whiteness or is it nirodha we're talking about? Nirodha, yeah. Cessation of perception, yeah, yeah, yeah. So when they say liberations, what they're talking about are temporary liberations. Why? Because when you are in these states, you are liberated from the hindrances in that state. Ananda, when a monk attains these eight liberations in forward order, in reverse order, and in forward and reverse order, entering them and emerging from them, and as and when, and for as long as one wishes, and has gained by their own superknowledge here and now, both the destruction

of the taints and the uncorrupted liberation of the mind and liberation by wisdom. That, monk, is called both ways liberated. And, Ananda, there is no other way of both ways liberated that is more excellent or perfect than this. That is what the Blessed One said, and the venerable Ananda rejoiced and was delighted in the Blessed One's words. Superknowledge, yeah, is that when he said, is that like superhuman, or knowledge of the destruction of the taints? Okay, yeah. But the superknowledge can also be the six higher knowledges, like the six powers, let's say, so to speak. So that's like being able to read other people's minds, telekinesis, being able to walk on water, these kinds of miraculous powers, the divine ear, the divine eye, seeing past lives, and finally

the sixth one really is the destruction of the teens that's the super normal or super knowledge that leads to liberation of the others are just you know anybody else to do them if they wanted to but only when you get to the obsession the paints you become an honor so to speak so the first ones they can be experienced by a person who is not enlightened a person that is not on the as gained to the noble path so that is okay and so that would be a what was the name of that what was What was the name of that? Janagami? Janagami? Janagami? Does that be a janagami? No, no. Janagami is anyone who is a noble one.

Oh. Sotapanna or Sakadagami, who then attains chakra. Oh. And then because of when they pass on, there's no five fetters in their mind, they become an anagami. Okay. That's the idea. But these are people who are ascetics or yogis. Worldlings. Yeah, you could say worldlings, or even yogis from the Yoga Sutras, who study the Yoga Sutras and obtain siddhis and stuff like that, they can attain the five higher powers. But the sixth is only through the destruction of the taints. Yeah, somebody had a question. Yeah. So, in that very last sentence, is he describing, I'm hearing a couple things. The first set is the ability to go in and out of jhana and cessation at will,

in any order. And then the last bit would be final liberation, same dependent origination, and where the Buddha's talking about seeing it forward in reverse order, that's the destruction of the taints. Is that, am I hearing all that? Yeah, that's the destruction of the taints. That's an arahant. That's somebody who is both ways liberated. That's one of the seven types of people that I was talking about. You want to take a break? What's the both ways liberated again? The back-and-forth is both ways liberated. Yeah, both ways liberated because they go back and forth, and then they attain the destruction of the taints. Can you be one way liberated? I'm gonna explain that. Yeah. Thank you.

Because he was talking to him from the perspective of what Ananda was experiencing. So he was only talking to him about what Ananda experienced, not exactly the whole scheme, because he was trying to give him bearings. But tomorrow we're going to go through all twelve. But then once you have it, then you want to protect them. Yeah, from a practical standpoint, the only way of not doing that is just to be a wholeness. Yeah. Basically, be a static among many times, right? That's right. Or an equivalent. An equivalent of somebody who's a wanderer, somebody who just is depending upon the kindness of other people.

And yet, if everybody's like that, there's nobody to be in the Sangha. That's why the Sangha is so important in terms of the lay Sangha and the monastic Sangha. They depend on each other. The monastics depend on the lay for the requisites, and the lay depend on them for spiritual guidance and instruction. Right. So from a kind of close standpoint, it's just difficult, in some ways, to progress at a certain level. One has to let go of what's known as the fetters of householdship. That's right. Meaning let go of the idea of you're a householder. And how does one do, in a false practical sense, this is when they put everything in a trust and have somebody else manage it?

Yeah, that can happen. And then they just continue studying the Dhamma and, if they want to be becoming a monk or whatever. He's not a teacher, he's a meditator. Anthony Liebeter. Hopefully I'm pronouncing it right, Liebeter or Liebeter, I don't know. In our house camera, we didn't catch this thing, because we were staying somewhere else for several months, and the camera kept catching something in motion. And what we saw in infrared was that this spherical, transparent thing was just moving, moving around. And I believe there's nothing, no cobweb, no cobweb. So from this side, it's transparent, and it doesn't look like a projection. Because projection, when you get into this curve, it would occur also in this case.

I'd love to see that footage, that'd be great. I had a student in Cambodia, there was a festival in Cambodia called Trunbun, which is where you offer the food to the monks and other things, and then the merits are given to your loved ones who have passed away. So they had done it for a transfer of marriage, so they had done it for somebody, and what they said was they saw that person in this luminous form as a Deva or something at that festival when they transferred them there. It's like they visited them or something. So Deva sometimes shows up as these balls of light. Balls of light, or they can appear kind of a luminous form, like a humanoid.

So, before we continue, does anybody have questions? Yeah, I have a question about. Is it possible to go from no jhana to the fourth jhana without going through the first, second? Yes. I used to think the other way, you had to go through, sort of like an elevator. Yeah. But you can sort of arbitrarily pick and choose.

Yes. And you can also experience cessation from the first jhana onwards. So it doesn't have to be from the base of either perception or non-perception that the mind goes into cessation. It's just easier, because the mind is very subtle. But from the first jhana onwards, you can experience the cessation of the perception of your mind consciousness. Why? Yeah. Oh. I mean, so is that -- can that be done by will, or in a sense, is it a matter of sort of releasing some kind of whatever you're like, if you're focused on or if you're experiencing equanimity, and essentially the six-hour equanimity

and then there's nothing. That's the neurota. That's the sensation. Is that how it works? Yeah. You let go completely of any of the factors of the jhana and you see it from wisdom. You see it as being impermanent. You see it through the three characteristics and then you have no clinging to that jhana and it's just done. Are there tree spirits? Yes, and if they are, they are. Tree spirits are not exactly devas. There's yakas who live around in the forest.

There's fairies. There's some very interesting characters. There's what do you call those, nagas, yeah, which are like water spirits, they're like serpentine or reptilian in nature, and there's a lot of different kinds of... there's kinnaras, there's... So these are all living in the vicinity of what's known as the realm of the four great kings. So they are still on the earth clean. - Are they always in that one? - No. - To talk to tree spirits to know if they're nice or not. - Most of them are nice.

Yeah. - Okay, I'll give you another question. - Yeah. - Do the beings in those realms, are they aware of each other? That's one question. And then my other question is, what if your person wakes up in a realm and they go, no, no, no, this isn't right. Is there like a court of appeals? No, I had that job. The answer to the second question is no. The beings who are able to interact with each other. Well, for example, it's like this. The understanding is where you're at, you can interact with the beings in your realm, and you can go down to other realms. But you can't interact beyond them. That's why in the first Brahma realm, the first jhana realm, there's a Brahma there who thinks that he's the creator, because he doesn't realize that there's other beings beyond that.

So they feel like, that's it, we are at the all, we are at the conflict. The same with the second, the third. And by the way, the pure abodes, they are in the realm of, or within the vicinity of the realm of the fourth jhana, the fourth permaloka. We're going to switch gears and talk about the seven different types of people.

So your liberation means attainable? No, liberation means arahatship. Although the context can change, as you'll see, as we go down. The one liberated by wisdom. This is basically somebody who goes through one of the first four jhanas and attains the cessation of perception and feeling and then attains the destruction of the taints. Would that be like a dry, you know, call it dry? Yeah, you could call it that. What's this, a dry arahant? Dry is gross. As opposed to a wet one. A dry one. A lush. A dry arahant, I think you come across this term, where is it from, Kim? I think it's mostly Mahat and traditionally a dry. Well, why did you bring that in, Kim?

A dry arahant is somebody who develops wisdom through understanding but they don't have mastery over the jhanas. They have gone through jhanas but they don't have mastery over the jhanas, whereas somebody who's liberated in both ways can go with any jhana and will go into cessation and will run something. So, liberated by wisdom, we did that one, right? The Body Witness. Body what? The Body Witness. So, the Body Witness is anyone who is a stream-enterer with fruition, all the way up to anagami with fruition,

who's gone through the four jhanas and the four arupa jhanas. That's the Body Witness. And the one attained to view is one who was a Dhamma follower, and I'll explain what that is, and becomes a stream-enterer or beyond, up until anagami with fruition. The one liberated by faith is a stream-enterer with fruition all the way up to anagami with fruition. And the Dhamma follower is a stream-enterer with path. And so is the faith follower.

The difference between these two is the strength of their faculties. So there's the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of faith, the faculty of wisdom, the faculty of concentration, and the faculty of mindfulness. So a faith follower, their faith faculty is much stronger, and they become a stream-enterer. They can become a stream-enterer upon, just being able to understand the impermanent nature of things, and then realize, oh, okay, everything is impersonal, and then everything drops, and then they become a stream-enterer with that. The Dhamma follower is somebody who cultivates the mindfulness and concentration faculty more so.

So, in that sense, you could probably differentiate between the Dhamma follower and the faith follower in saying that the faith follower is one who is a stream-enterer by path upon hearing or by having listened to the Dhamma, and the Dhamma follower is somebody who has attained it through jhana, let's say, stream-enterer with path, so they still need to retain fruition. And the other two, the other three after that, which we talked about, those are anyone who's a stream-enterer with fruition, all the way up. There's no dumb questions. Yeah, so path is entering into that particular attainment. So there are the experiences you, you know, normally, let's say, you attain the sensation of perception, feeling, and consciousness, you come out of it, and then you experience the dropping of the fetters.

And by doing so, you attain the streaming truth. The fruition aspect is a repetition of that experience, which just locks in that attainment. That's why we were talking about yesterday, somebody asked, was, if somebody is a mentor would have will they be able to lose it and the understanding is not be if they don't attain fruition within this life they will attain fruition at the end of that life so fruition is guaranteed if you make it onto the path yes is that for all attainments yes

Why? Because when your mind, when you die or when you're dying, your mind goes to what was the most sublime state, and the most sublime state there was the experience of cessation, for example, and you drop certain experiences. I've seen it written that the fruition is one who has practiced the path knowledge that they have, so they not only have the knowledge but they implement that. Yeah. And then at a certain point it just becomes part of their karmic DNA, and then they have another experience equal to or maybe exceeding, or something like that. So another big, oh, wow. Yeah, yeah. Any questions? People experience nibbana multiple times. Do they stay in there for a long time? Does the quality improve or the duration improve? I would say the clarity into understanding the kind of origination improves, so when you experience nibbana as a result of having seen the kind of origination.

Nibbana is nibbana, but the insight into reality becomes much clearer with each attainment. So with the Sariputta, like for example, what's his name, Ananda, he experienced the dependent origination, but he missed out on ignorance and formations in the sixth sense basis. But then later on, as you become a sakadagami, you get much more clarity on the dependent origination. And when you get all the way to the arahatship, you see it in different ways. You can just understand it in different contexts, in different spaces, in different times, all kinds of ways.

So the attainments give more clarity to dependent origination. I have a bit of a cynical question. So these seven persons are worthy of gifts and hospitality, and I mean, it just seems open for exploitation, right? Like, I went on a retreat, you know, I became a sotapanna with fruition, oh yeah, you know, so it's in your best interest to give me money or feed me or house me, because you know the rewards for you, my friend, are going to be so much more than what you give me. Yes, yes. You know, that would be the exploitative side. I imagine people who have attainments won't run around telling people to give them stuff, right? But you know, they might want to if they want their friends to benefit, right? In a non-exploitative way. Hey, give it to me. Yeah, trust me. You know, just, yeah, I'm just curious how

I have a hard time processing, like, you're going to just, it seems open to people taking advantage of this, and it just always makes me wary. When I first came to Buddhism, this idea of merit was very strange to me. Yeah, it's not familiar with it, didn't grow up with it. So when they were saying, like, you know, be the monks and you make merit, give them stuff, make merit, my reaction was, well, that's convenient, you know? It's a great social structure. Yeah. And so I was very cynical about it. I'm not now, but again, as a newcomer to this, it just seemed very self-serving and convenient. Oh yeah, absolutely, it is. Is there another spin you can give on this for folks who might be unbelievers and have a hard time with it? There's nirvana, and then there's the nibbana element, and when you use those terms, are they interchangeable? Yeah, they are interchangeable. Sorry, I missed number seven. The last one was Dhamma follower. What faith follower is different from liberated by faith? Yeah, faith follower is a stream-enterer with path.

Liberated by faith is a faith follower who experiences stream entry with fruition. And is there, maybe this is for another occasion, is there anything beyond dependent origination, and could you talk about that sometime? Yes. Maybe not tonight. No, maybe not tonight. Stay tuned. Yeah, that's what I was hoping for. And are you going to talk about voidness? That's a big deal in certain meditation circles. This might not be the night either, but I would like you to render that at some point. Sure, sure.

Didn't you have something that you wanted to talk about from yesterday? Oh, the six hours. I can do a quick summary. Yeah, yeah. So, do you want the mic? No, no, I'll just use the mic. I'm from Wisconsin, so we talk loud. It's like Minnesota, the movies. So the six R's had a genesis. So I'll start in the kind of middle of workshops. So I first was introduced to it at a retreat in Joshua Tree, and Don, you were there.

You were there in 2010, and it came out of something that was being used in the earlier Joshua Treats with Monte Villa Moramze at Ruz Denison's Vipassana Center, right? And so he had used the word 'drops' to help guide meditation. I put it up on the board: don't resist or push, soften, smile. And I think it was maybe the year before that, he had a student that was using drops, and it was not as a learning device, it wasn't quite as good as what became known as the six R's. Okay, don't resist. Okay, I won't resist. So that is sort of like acceptance, right? And that's you recognize or push, so that is right effort, right? And so

he got a note from a guy who came in to see him at an interview, and he said, 'drops' is a good acronym, but here's how I like to kind of practice, and he came up with five R's, is how it started. So that's the six R's. You recognize a hindrance when it hijacks your mind, right? Release it. They were using 'kind of let go', but 'release it', so okay. And then relax, and that has its genesis earlier on, and then that's the soften, okay? It was softened, and then it sort of became relaxed, and then the re-smile, okay, and that came from some metta work that Bhadi was doing. And then, we're, and then return to your home base, right? And at that time we were using breath. I think before 2010 we were using the Anapanasati Sutta, we were using relaxing on the in-breath, relaxing on the out-breath, relaxing on the in-breath, relaxing on the out-breath.

And then in 2010, we changed the metta. Yeah, and I had a heck of a time with that. That's another story. I couldn't do it. I've had too much, like, full lotus meditations to, like, feel anything about it. Anyway, so then after that retreat, they wrote it down, and then they put, like, 'repeat the process whenever this happens, whenever you get distracted,' and then they stuck it on and said, instead of five hours, yeah. So that is sort of where it came from. And the relaxed step came from Bhante Bill and Ramsey meeting Bhante Kunaji in Asia, who said maybe you wanted to stop following the teachings, and then the Sugimago, which he and a bunch of us have done for years, decades, and try looking at the suttas. And he found this little passage in the sutta that said to tranquilize the bodily formations, and that bounced around in his head for weeks, and finally he said, I think it means to relax, and he tried it, and his mind just expanded, and then he went and experimented, and the rest is history.

There's where the six R's come. Now you're not. So, any last questions? Anyone else? Another question on dependent origination. So it seems like Buddhism is hard, and it's like, no wonder so many people are in hell, because it seems like a hard, it's hard to get the right view, because it's not just, first of all, even if you just read the dependent origination, that's super challenging, but the idea the right view is not just being able to talk about it. The right view here is to actually have that experience, and that is, you know, so difficult to have. So it seems like just so few people

are going to have that. It's like, oh my god, this is a really challenging religion. If I were a Martian who came to work and was looking at a of religions, which one should I follow, and I saw Buddhism, like, well, this looks interesting, and then it's like, oh wait a minute, I don't know if I'm going to get there. I can just be Catholic and make an act of faith and I'm good to go, right? But here it's like, holy mother, I don't know if I'm going to make it at the end of all of this. So, I don't know if you can comment on that. It just leaves, it's a little unsettling. I find it a little bit unsettling, just how, I mean, it's the path, but it's so hard to follow that path. Well, actually, if you think about it, there's so many components to the Dhamma, right? There is the eightfold path, there are the four noble truths, there's the three marks of existence,

there's the five faculties, there's the four bases of psychic faculties, there's seven enlightenment factors, there's the four right efforts, there's the five aggregates, there's the six-sense spaces, or sometimes even twelve-sense spaces, if you want to go that route, and twelve links of dependent origination. And, spoiler alert, there's also the twelve links or eleven links of transcendental dependent origination. But the thing about it is, if you just start with the understanding that you are suffering, that there is suffering, and you start to let go of that suffering, these things come to you organically.

You try to analyze them and reflect on them and try to wrap your head around them, it becomes an intellectual exercise. But in order for you to actually have right view, you have to relax, you have to be able to use right effort, and once you start doing that, that's why I keep saying right effort is the heart of the faithful path. It leads you from wrong view to right view, because it shows you where your suffering is causing your suffering. So right there and then you're actually starting to see the first noble truth, and then the second noble truth, and then experience the third noble truth by using the six actual right effort. So if you start with that premise, then everything else kind of falls into place. Okay, that's helpful. So if you look at Buddhism as a religion, it is as useless as any other religion. Yeah, and it's in church mostly worldwide, right? And every country has its own Buddhism. Yeah, that's true, that's true.

Yeah. It just reminds me of one of the first things I learned about Buddhism, this conversation you two are having, is that the biggest difference is that Christians love Jesus, Buddhists thank you. Going back to right view, I think there's like three elements to right view. It's like, renunciations or renunciation. Oh, that's the right intention. There's two right views: there's the mundane right view and the super mundane right view. The mundane right view has to do with understanding that there is causation, there's cause and effect, that my actions, mental, verbal, bodily, have a repercussion. That's, I mean, if you were to put it under one summation, that would be it.

But the breakdown of that is there is mother and father, there are teachers who know this, there is meaning in giving, there is meaning in merit, all these other things that are there, but it's all tied up to the understanding that there's cause and effect. There are causes and conditions. Then that opens up the right view of super mundane right view. Once you go through the whole path, it re-informs you of the four noble truths.

So it installs in your mind the four noble truths, which happens at stream entry, and then 'profess' at arahant. Just to give me some hope: I don't need to read any of those texts in order to practice, and I don't need to go through all of the intellectual stuff to reach nibbana? Is that correct? Because there is a, look at that, and I'm like, God, I'm thinking finish off in this lifetime. Yeah. It just seems so confusing, and there's so many entwined little stuff. In fact, I would say anyone who's a newcomer and reads the suttas, it's like a secret language. You cannot make heads or tails out of it. But once you start practicing and once you experience

What we're talking about, and you go back to the suttas, it's like you have the codex, and now everything is sort of becoming clarified, and as your wisdom clarifies, and as you have different attainments, it becomes even more unlocked and more unpacked. And you look at the same statement, you realize, oh, I thought it was this when I had this attainment, but what they're really talking about is this, now that I have this. So that's what's interesting about the suttas, but as you said, you don't need the suttas to start with. You just need the ability to practice right effort, which then will bring everything else into place. This may be a little bit of a personal question: since do you understand Pali and the Sanskrit? Yeah. And so when you read the suttas in English, do you feel that they're an accurate representation of the translation, or would it be, you know, just... Yeah, sometimes I will change the translation a little bit just to give clearer context

Based on my understanding of Sanskrit. So, like the other day I was telling you, he talks about he pervades his entire body with the jhanic factors, what we were talking about yesterday, and I said there's two words for the word body. There's rupa, which is the physical, and there's the kaya, which is the mental body. So you wouldn't really be able to, I mean, the average person, let's say, wouldn't be able to really know what the difference is unless they actually looked at the different words, and they would just mistake that for being a whole physical matter. To me this is my understanding, growing up in India and having seen this book, and even in the languages you say

Yes, so that to me kind of ties to character of a person, what forms the character of a person. But somehow in this, because that just doesn't seem that I listen to it in English. Yeah, it doesn't seem like an accurate, or for me it doesn't, because, because, yeah, because in Hindi, sanskara means character, sanskara means tradition. Yeah, sanskara also means, yeah, basically that, or it could also be the samskaras, like the 16 samskaras, the rituals. Have you heard of that? Okay. Or, in Sanskrit, or when you look at the Vedanta and the Hindu philosophies, they use samskara, but they use it in a different context. Samskaras, there are understood, vasana samskaras. Have you heard of those? So vasana samskaras are basically mental impressions. They are the things that influenced the mind. And in here, sankharas are basically the preparations, the formations. They construct, constructions, constructors, that create your experience of the world or influence your experience of the world. Now, sankharas could be

Equivalent to the understanding of synapses in the brain, you change sankharas. You're pruning away certain synapses that are leading you to unwholesome choices and strengthening neural pathways that are leading you to wholesome choices. It could even be, it could also be understood like the Ayusenkar can be understood as telomeres or genetic markers. There's different ways of understanding sankharas in the Buddhist context.

Thank you. We can share some marathon, may suffering ones be suffering free, and the fear struck clear to speed, may the grieving shadow grief, and may all beings find relief. May all beings share this merit that we have thus acquired for the acquisition of all kinds of happiness. May beings inhabiting space and earth, devas and havas of mighty powers, may they well protect the Buddha's dispensation. Thank you.