It's not like that, but... As it refers to Enlighten them at the moment. You know, when things happen, no, you will be out. You know, how do we have the right way? Because you can't prepare for anything. I could sort of deal with it every once in a while and Zachary Smith. Yeah, that's nice. And Mary Elliot, I don't know if she's still around. What is the meaning of a cheat in every work? Ask the market again. The master just can't find it. The battle. The market. Deeply.

[01:01]

Are you getting out of it? Do you also believe in... Oh, okay. I'm certain that I also destroyed it. Use my instruments. Oh, no. Thank you. I'm going to let you tell me what's the next thing I should do. On and off, you know, it's the reason we've got this little pamphlet book up here by the Oxford Press. Hi, Rick. Hi. Hi, how are you? I'm going to ask some questions. Can you read six and two? And it also said, well, that's all you do.

[02:16]

But it said, why are you doing it? And it's not right. It's bling a little bit. Everyone gets better. We use this one for our children. [...]

[03:17]

Thank you. Thank you. It's deeper and self-awakening. It's funny. It's dark, like, yeah. Have a few from us to think we're kidding. I'm sorry. [...] Thank you.

[04:20]

Yes, good morning, yes. This is your seatbelt. I don't know. I don't think somebody sits. Sorry. Here. [...] Okay. Where is this? It's just it. Come on, why? Why don't you say that? Are you sure anything? It's just a little bit of a case out in the garden. Very neat. Thank you. Welcome everyone. We are going to bow in first and we'll be a servant. Very good.

[06:11]

Welcome, everyone. So as usual, we'll do introductions first. My name is Tim Wex, and I currently serve as planter or head of practice here at City Center. Yeah, yeah, we're all. We're all here. We're all here. Great. I'm Ben Khaju. I'm one of the resident priests here at San Francisco Center, and also the director of online contact. And I'm Kim Kogan-Dial-Bot, a former presenter, and currently sitting at a peaceful census presenter. Okay, so as usual, we will have a presentation for 10 minutes, and then we're going to talk for 10 minutes, and then you all are going to go break up into smaller groups and talk for 20 minutes, and then we're going to leave. Then we're going to get back together.

[07:14]

Then we're going to get back together. Then we're going to leave. Then we're going to get back together, yes. Any other housekeeping? But you should say that it's the last one, so that people... It's a part of my talk. It is the last one. And it's a part of my... Maybe I'll just also add that there is an online area dedicated to this discussion salon, which will remain open and available after this if anyone wants to access the PDF of the readings or any of the various notices that we've sent out The easy way to access that will be to register online for this event, which you can still do through today, the Disappears from the Calendar.

[08:23]

And if anyone has any questions about getting the digital materials or anything related to the online component, feel free to get in touch with me or anyone at the San Francisco Center that can direct you to me. And recordings of these sessions are also being posted on our YouTube channel. If anyone wants to revisit all of the wonders, we're going to make sure that we're done. And while we're all in this space and being a wonderful academic one in here, I just want to let you all know that we came from a lot of the folks who were online and they've also been saying how much they're really enjoying it and sending feedback and stuff. So our song is so much bigger than everybody you see in this room. And so please that all you guys can like. So we've made a characteristic of a salon, which is what this is, the salon, tea. So if you don't have any tea, please feel free to get up and get some. You should feel free to use the restroom or anything like that as you need to.

[09:24]

So this is the last. of our new show salons. Welcome to everyone online. Thank you all very much for coming. I mentioned in the first meeting that I was going to collect some definitions of Uddinature, and I've done that. My friend Ron, who was here for the first class, he said, you know, I found on Wikipedia a definition of Buddha-nature. It's two paragraphs. One, so the implication was that he didn't really need to come to the class. He's not here tonight. He might be online. A lot of people are online. But it's actually much shorter than two paragraphs. The definition of Buddha-nature on Wikipedia is the innate potential for all sentient beings to become a Buddha, or the fact that all beings already have pure Buddha essence.

[10:33]

And I've got two others, one from Chohaku Okamura, which is, Buddha Nature, that is, the pure and undefiled mind, as the essential self nature, hidden and covered as it may be, thanks to our deluded, discriminative minds. And Kokeo Eko, The ungraspable, luminous, compassionate nature of ordinary awareness itself is called Buddha-nature. A lot of crossover there, a lot of essences. Those examples are doing what it is that the Dogmen, I don't think, really wanted us to do. And I've kind of had a feeling, as we've been doing this, Dobin is sort of standing behind me right there going, No, that's not it.

[11:42]

And that's not it either. And Dan actually spoke last week about how difficult it is to talk about other nature and how difficult it is to define, how difficult it is to really grasp it. And so I just want to say you're all very brave for coming here and sticking at it. And it's very impressive to me. The reason that I chose the section that I did was because Dobrin speaks about how it is that Buddha nature is not just sentient beings. My first teacher, when I came to Buddhism some 25 years ago, was a Theravadan Buddhist. As we studied with him, he began to feel as though there were some exclusivity to our practice. we would talk about ending suffering for sentient beings. And because we're all scientifically aware right now, we would ask, well, how small do you go when considering, say, for instance, the precept to not kill?

[12:47]

How far as far as sentient beings do you go? There are microorganisms that we're killing all the time, so can we still consider ourselves to be following the precept of not killing? And my teacher, I don't think he was really stumped, but he decided to ask his friend, he has a friend named Christopher Titmuss, who's an eminent terror-violent teacher. What he asked Christopher Titmuss exactly is included in sentient beings. And Titmuss said that any being that has a mother or a face is a sentient being. So any organism that self divides or is so small that it doesn't have a recognizable face wasn't considered to be a sentient being. This is kind of like a cutoff once it gets so small. And for those of you who are not familiar with the term, a sentient being is one that has senses and responds to touch and taste and sight and so on.

[13:56]

So this cutoff point of Christopher Titmussis struck me as incredibly arbitrary and exclusive somehow, and not influenced by what it was that I was beginning to understand at the beginning of my practice, beginning to understand as all-inclusive Buddhism. It smacked of the exclusivity that I was also beginning to recognize in Theravadan Buddhism. In Theravadan Buddhism, the ideal is that of the arhat, the lone monk who goes off into the mountains to seek their own enlightenment. It was beginning to appear to me in my Sangha with my teacher as though the Sangha was really supporting the enlightenment of my teacher. We were kind of like assistance to his awakening. So the whole reason why I came to San Francisco, I studied with this teacher for four years and slowly was coming to a few things here at San Francisco Zen Center and the whole reason why I ended up only coming here and kind of not practicing the teacher anymore was because of the inclusivity of the Bodhisattva way.

[15:07]

The Bodhisattva works towards liberation just like the Bharat does but for those entering Nirvana to all beings awaken together. And this very much appeals to my democratic sensibilities, and they felt inclusive of all beings, much more so, if not, like they had been before. And here, in this reading for this week, Dovid takes a step further by talking about insentient beings having Buddha in nature as well. This is true inclusivity and speaks to the impermanence that is essential to Buddhist practice. all phenomena lives a life that passes and their form changes into something else. So on page 21, and my translation is the little one, the Tanahashi Weizmann translation, but down at the very bottom it says, all living beings, Dogen says, have bodhi nature.

[16:19]

Grass, trees, Land and earth are heart. As they are heart, they are living beings. As they are living beings, they have living nature. Sun, moon, stars are all heart. As they are heart, they are living beings. As they are living beings, they have living nature. So Dogen uses the Chinese character of Shin, and Shin is literally translated as heart-mind. In Eastern Frisianomy there is not such a big divide between the mind and the heart as there is in our Western cultures. However, Waddell and Ave, this is their translation, Dengen's translation, and Nishijima Cross, Kim's translation, they all translate shin as mind, which has got a totally different feeling.

[17:30]

So when you read all that, all living beings that put in nature, cross trees, land, and earth are mind, rather than our heart, it has a totally different meaning to it, to me, anyway. I really like the Tanahashi Weitzman translation because these are Tanahashi and Mel Weitzman are sensitive, or as I am, and the translation of Shin into Heart is really important to them when talking about life. That all phenomena in its impermanent interconnectedness is somehow living and that we are all connected to as practitioners of the way. Kind of like a universal organism, a great big universal organism.

[18:30]

Two weeks ago, King spoke about the temporal characteristic that we need to understand in order to get closer to knowing what Buddha-nature is. This has to be a part of our understanding of Buddha-nature or we see things as static. There's movement in time and movement in the impermanence. I am air, water, carbon, calcium. As time passes, the water in me will become part of the atmosphere and the carbon will become soil. So in order to understand body nature, we need to understand this time element. As time passes, all things change. It's then we can understand the impermanence the interconnectedness of all phenomena, of all things. Because it is in this transitory impermanence that Buddha-nature acts as an essence to our interconnectedness.

[19:35]

And that's enough for right now. Who would like a copy? Does anyone... Does anyone else want a copy? Anybody else? Hand goes out. I'm sure. Oh, yes. For the online books, the prompt is, is good in nature permanent? Yes, there's something that you said that when you said that your carbon and water and calcium, one of these things that water is sentient.

[20:41]

This is what we've made of. It just proves Ogun's point. I mean, it proves you the point. It's this beautiful book. And I was also really struck with the difference between the hearts and mind. And it does read so differently, because for me, hearts is like about feeling, and mind isn't so much. And it just, again, talking about the sentence, but in sentence, I remember one of our Elvis, sorry, changing my glasses. One of our eldest statesman of San Francisco's instance of Blanche Hartman, who passed a few years ago, was very particular, I don't know if you've ever come to the university, but not scraping chairs across the floor. And I remember thinking, like, ah, but this is an incentive being, I'm making a noise, and it's creating this reverberation and annoyance for everyone.

[21:43]

So when Where do I end? My effect on the world. What does that end? And if we are time and effect and activity, why are we calling this extinction? It doesn't make sense. So I really appreciate that I get just called it that, you know. So does a chair have pavilion nature? Am is the wrong word. Is a chair pavilion nature? Of course. I'm picture. Wow. She's not going to talk, sure. I think there's something about this, the sort of example that you used of the body being made up of air and water, calcium, that sort of example for me really resonates kind of looking at the big picture of the whole universe. connected to this body in some way this body is in this room so Buddha nature is also connected to this room and this room is part of this planet so the planet is not excluded from Buddha nature so there is kind of a I don't know in some sense it kind of feels like well if Buddha nature is everywhere is anywhere then it's everywhere wow I don't know

[23:08]

there's something about that that sort of feels right, but when I try to sort of think into it, it doesn't really make sense. You get to someone else. Yeah. And I think that's where there's this sort of heart-mind distinction in the translation that gets really interesting. Because when I first read, I read the Waddell and Abe and the Shijima and Cross, I was thinking of my mind, and I was thinking of, you know, there's this this koan story, flag waving in the wind, is the flag waving, is the wind waving? And the teacher who responded to that said, your mind is waving. And so when I think about what is a sentient being or what is not a sentient being, from this kind of mind translation perspective, it's almost as if something about the way that mind includes and touches everything, or potentially can, kind of brings along Buddha nature with it.

[24:15]

But from the heart translation, it's more like the feeling or the experience of living feels what's connected to Buddha. It's a radical thing to do. It's usually, Shinnas usually translate this. And in fact, our whole school is referred to sometimes as the mind-only school, because Bodhidharma said that you only need to read the Lankavatara Sutra, which is sometimes referred to as the mind-only sutra. But if you change it to heart, with a heart-only tradition, That radically changes everything. It actually brings to mind talking about these translation issues. We were speaking earlier about when we're reading different translations, how do we know which one is correct?

[25:24]

It's really valuable to come back to your own practice. That's what I was thinking, you know, you come back to your own practice, your own understanding, and have this open curiosity and really try to investigate which it is. For me, mind resonates more, but that's a lot of it requires a lot of personality, you know. But I also want to go on to something else that's in the section I think it's a read, which is where they have that, where it says, living beings all have good in nature, drop off that have of have good in nature. You're very clear about that, you know? And I think we often get stuck in that. And some of those early translations with Buddha in nature, they're completely stuck in the head, often having Buddha in nature. They're completely stuck in it. And so there's a grasp in it, there's an objectification of it that is very limiting. Very limiting. And also, because it implies something is there to be had. And that's just not how it is. He does say, dropping off a hand of hand coordination, dropping off is one solid rail of iron, one solid rail of iron is the bird's path.

[26:29]

I have no idea what that means. Solid rail is something, I'm just going to try right here. A solid rail is something graspable and the bird's path disappears. That's great. And also, he goes on later to say, this is in your translation, but It is not that his expression is not valuable teaching, but he may not have understood the meaning of his own words. So he's actually calling this guy out here. Yeah, and he talks about that in others. And Dan's, I think, he spoke about how it is that there are some monsters who've never even mentioned Buddha nature. Yeah. But that's something to say in my translation, which I really like. We do not always understand ourselves the truth which we are equipped. So it gives us some sort of like, you're equipped with the script already, you have it, just open your eyes to it, you know. It's offering us some grace, I think. But I really appreciate that, you know, he has strong opinions and he seems to have clarity of vision.

[27:32]

How would it be on time? Is it time to go, yes, three more minutes? All right. It was interesting, sorry, go on. Oh, I'm just, you know, for me, sometimes there's sort of debate or question of what does or doesn't have Brutonature or where is Brutonature. Sometimes it feels like there's something helpful in asking myself what doesn't have Brutonature or what is excluded. And I think just the having the perspective of having and keeping identifying somehow seems, I don't know, a little exclusionary or human-centric in some way. It's objectifying.

[28:35]

Yeah, yeah. And I don't think Dougan wants to do that at all. He doesn't want to be anywhere near it. But also, you see, the truth of things, they honor the same objects, so it's just Wrong. There's no distinction. Not in any kind of solid way, because we're all temporal. So you can't have a little nature. I must say that your translation, Wadala and Aga, really threw me. When you sit there, we should examine why it is not said all sensory beings are of such good in nature, why instead it is said all sensory beings are being good in nature. The being of being good in nature must without fail fall away. And I'm like... What? That's completely contradicting everything that Leanne is saying. And it contradicts the other two translations. Well, you know, we were talking, as you said, with Leanne about how do you know what is the best translation. We need to have logical translations. We need to have new generations of translators because the way it is that we see things in areas that we understand things changes.

[29:36]

Yes, yes, yes. So I just love this, having these three translations. What do you think of this? Which one was it to you? It was a cupcake. Yeah, I got it. Thank you. No, I don't want to say that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yeah. Hopefully with permission. We only did a chapter, a single chapter. Okay. So now we're going to break up into groups in these small groups. There's a lot of fewer people here, so I'd like to get into groups of, is it possible to get into groups of five? Yeah. Maybe you'd like to be a group and... You look at the green. And then one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Ooh, that's a big group. That's a big group. Are you usually in a group?

[30:39]

Hey, Beck, you come and join us. Yeah, yeah, okay. You look at the nice girl. Did you hear that? So we'll ring a bell after 17 minutes. So when you hear the bell, there'll be three minutes left. The prompt is, is wouldn't nature permanent? And you don't have to talk about that. You don't have to talk about anything else. Don't worry about it, I'll just hear you.

[31:42]

Thank you. We're so far apart. No, no, I just need to switch. Next question. This is a debate. There was a really... Which is all about... Yes, that's true.

[32:44]

She was saying it. Is this correct? [...] You're going to want this to be part of what you're saying. You're going to want this to be part of what you're saying. You're going to want this to be part of what you're saying. You're going to want this to be part of what you're saying.

[33:45]

Thank you. What are the questions? So, as such, as such, the old and the dark, they don't miss the dark nature.

[35:03]

So then are you saying that same part, you know, because it should be interesting? Well, I think I'm in the yellow that I saw probably everybody. [...] I'm in the yellow that I saw probably everybody. I'm in the yellow that I saw probably everybody. I'm [...] in the yellow that I saw probably everybody. It exists. [...] But I can't do his work.

[36:20]

I think there's quite a lot to expect. Is there something... Is there something you can expect to do in this circle section? Or to be able to see the rest? I'm thinking about this moment. It's an alternate reason for the effect. It was getting the wrong to me. But as you're screwing up, that's just this. I think that Logan was talking about a big time.

[37:27]

Because Lincoln's expression can't show. He can't show. He needs a scene. that there's a change of confrontation on the world. It's nature. You've been able to think that show of our soul a little bit with nature. You've been able to think that show of our soul a little bit with nature. You've been able to think about it because you have a sense of it. You've been able to think about [...] it. When does the show like we always have access, it's always the time I say, it's hard to say.

[38:32]

It's hard to say. I have a great work class. I think it's necessary. It's what we're talking about. Yeah, but it's quite a bit small stuff. The question is, is it through the name of Jesus Christ or our way? And in that part, let's be like, what is that? For this point, when you have presented and changing, it's sort of what I need to do, why, [...] why Yeah, well, we're trying.

[39:33]

I love that. How does that phrase? How can I make it all? She makes sense of my feelings. Sounds like it's me. I don't know. She's done. that is better to seek to be sinners, you know. It's just fine to be flipping our ship. I've seen art make this more happy peace and flight. Wow, that's because everything was bad in concept. That's the ship team, I would be doing it. Yes, it's a ship team. It's [...] a I don't know. You know. There's a consistency. That's what's on this. I understand. It makes more sense to me of it being unchanging because it's not something that's based on necessarily this individual form.

[40:42]

And it was also not just . There's no . It's only like a good tradition. [...] the sink was in fact. There's some tank that has no each other on the left. Yeah, the soul has no each other. Well, yeah. It's like all that energy force of the big band. It feels like it.

[41:44]

It feels like that. Interconnectedness. This is also this week. This is the best. I mean, I feel like if we need it to fail, it's already. I think it may be a mistake if you shut it as well. I'm sorry about that. But in my mind, I think as a picture of what the future has to be. It's not my same mistake, you're a snake, [...] you're a snake Right, right, and that's why I was wanting to reverse it, and that is how many they drive us on, like, other things. You know, it's not the end of the story, [...] it's not the end of the story.

[43:00]

That's like a time out there, right? As Dan said, as if there's something else we're going to add on, right? But I obviously do this, so it's just because of the stars and she's in my body. are all in existence. You're being so existent. They at least get to us, but that's a few of them. That's a few of them. That's a few of them. That's a few of them. Well, we're going to have a few of those of the students. I think we're going to have a few of those of the students. We're going to have a few of those of the students. We're going to have a few of them. [...]

[44:01]

We're going to have a few of them. We're going to have a few of them. We're going to have a few of them. You know, you're so dramatic that the unit lost in the heart of [...] the heart We're right here. Thank you.

[45:03]

Thank you. Thank you. What was some of them? Exactly, it's the other. I tried it at the house. [...] You know, because they're not. There's this. Well, sure. But then the assault company is rising in this moment. And the convention is a picture. Yeah, right. So this ideal world. And that, I mean, if I feel like some, sorry, the same fact. Some part of it is acceptable.

[46:05]

Maybe not. I have this thing. But then you're just comfortable with the lawful. Also, I want to do that, isn't it? Yes. And then they share it as a change in your mind. Yeah. [...] Well, there's no, there's no, there's no, there's no way to, and I know what I get to say. Thank you.

[47:07]

Thank you. Is that right? Is this what you're saying? Like how far it goes back? You know, I don't really believe in anything. Whatever I can believe. I've never been in that show. [...] I've never been in that We can use this first. There's something in the different species.

[48:07]

We're trying to do a way. Throughout the Bible, what I know is happening. It falls to everything. Yes, everything deserves to be there. Is it fair? Because it's fair. And he said, yes. Yeah. I mean, it's like something we did. You know, the first thing was that, you know, when it first comes with a good start, it's going to get them up. You know what I mean? It's pretty cool. That's what. That's not a question.

[49:09]

I don't think we have a question. [...] They are costumes, right? They are costumes, right? They are costumes, right? They [...] are We didn't call ourselves.

[50:25]

That's good. Yes. Sorry about that. Yeah. It depends on my side, obviously. Can we finish this? He says, yes. No, I just don't. I don't think we've done. No, we haven't. We [...] haven't. All right. OK, so, how did it go? What's the good sense that's going to be making?

[51:29]

Got a minute? Yeah. What did you decide? We found no incentives. Okay, so can we hear what the different sides of the discussion were? We had a strong consensus on that. So as far as consensus goes, we had... No consensus on the question of related to permanent because there's so much up there. But we had a consensus on if we could really come with consensus. All right. So did you talk about consensus the whole time? Well, actually, we were actually getting that consensus because in any given moment, it's a common sense. and what we actually experienced by the nature of our senses in contributed moments together, that's what we were kind of getting at, wasn't it?

[52:39]

I'm not even sure what I was saying. But it does make a point close to my heart, which is the reaction of the moment that that whatever is happening is there. And it's happening in every moment. That's kind of permanent, but it's never the same. Thank you. It's kind of permanent, but we have the same thing. We have a connection to time. Our discussion came back to our connection to time a couple of times as well. OK. Anyone else? I would just like to bring a question that I had in my discussion to the three of you.

[53:41]

You mentioned in your introductory remarks this question of whether or not anything can be outside of the nature. And what came up to me in my head when you said that was a greed, hate, delusion. Because I didn't know what I was thinking. I was like, OK, they're constructs. They're ancient constructs. Before the dawn event, constructs. So I guess it's that question. Are greed and hatred and delusion How are they part of this? And I heard some wonderful responses from my group. And I still feel like I'm just sort of grappling. So I would just be interested to hear any thoughts that you might have to continue to eliminate that question for me.

[54:44]

So you're wondering if only the good stuff is part of body nature? Maybe that's part. Or maybe there's a wish to believe that... The dinosaur is outside. The poisons are outside. Something you're asking. Well, actually, she asked... She was asking if he wasn't talking about... He was talking more about karmic influence than good and bad. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. We had a question online. So this must be an answer to this. Go ahead. Okay, so I think we should address, because I think it's interesting, you say a karmic influence. Influence and karma, both by their nature, are temporal.

[55:47]

They are arising in the moment. As anything that arises in the moment, it's an expression of time, it's an expression of good nature. That's the way I would understand it. And it doesn't exclude anything. The same way the lotus grows up mud to go back to your good and bad, all of these things are what feed any given moments. That would be my very simplistic understanding. I would agree with that. I guess what occurs to me, I don't want to say anything about it, but I love it right. But these sort of concepts are not, they're not beings in themselves. They're sort of events or understandings that are arising in the moment. It's not beings. They are. Yes. And so I would, my sort of instinct on this, is that greed, hate, and delusion, for instance, would not themselves be, like, made of Buddha nature, but they are arising with the influence of Buddha nature.

[57:02]

And that they're arising and... arising and receiving are still interwoven with Buddha nature. But I feel like they are... there does seem to be, I'm experiencing some distinction between that sort of concept that is a creation of a sentient being's experience and something that is maybe more fundamental about what is arising in the present moment. Well, as I talk about, the distinction is slippery and slippery. Yeah. Let's see what Burke said. Burke? Hello. Yeah, we got it. Okay. Every time I hear you, why don't you say something at all, champions? Can you hear us? Burke, I can hear you. Kyle, we talk a lot about, in a sense, foreign activists.

[58:07]

Nicholas is one of our people, was that we talked about Lunaris emptiness. So does a chair have good in nature? Obviously not. A chair is good in nature. Of course it is. But then we go on the usual style of karma, like, is Donald Trump good in nature? And we all thought, I think, that basic Lewis' teacher he is. And from our chronically influenced point of view, we don't want to say that. And, I mean, so, we have the identity of relative and absolute. So, it is maybe, is the nature both permanent and impermanent? That kind of stuff.

[59:11]

So we were talking, and we didn't come to any conclusion about these issues. So anyway, so that was the question, is Buddha nature permanent? And maybe, I don't know, the answer, well, basically, is Buddha nature is both permanent and impermanent, which is fruity. And it's really, it's common, it's permanent, it's common. And so, well, this is floating around. And so... So, there's a book I mentioned in my group. There's a book that's called Pruning the Bonic Truth. And it's a book of this debate about whether or not Buddha nature is permanent. that took place in Japanese scholarship circles in the late 90s and early 20s.

[60:14]

It's a fabulous book, but it's unresolvable, really. It was unresolved mostly in this book, the parts that I read anyway. But Kim has got something very important to say that kind of sums up some of what it is. But there's a lot of echoing. Yeah, it's the room. For the computer, if you could just turn us down a little bit. Brilliant nature abides in emptiness. The rising and falling of the moment, that's the temporal aspect of it, is effectively the recognition of what emptiness is. The constant rising and falling of the moment, and that is where Buddha nature abides. It's Buddha nature permanence and abides in emptiness. That is very challenging. Victoria. We need that microphone. We need that microphone, yes. I wonder if we just read that if we say that X has blue nature, it's a problem.

[61:25]

Blue is blue nature. If we say X has or does not, have what it is, have and does not have, or is and does not is, or has what it is, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, whatever my problems. I believe it's because this conversation is about the language that we use to see if we can sing into and care about our life more. And so I wonder if you can trust with me that there are certain parts of our lives that are kind of post-level, blue-natured discernment opportunities. And there are certain parts of our lives which are easier, blue-natured discernment opportunities, and that we don't exactly discern in the literature, but that discernment occurs.

[62:26]

Like, Adrian Washington was talking about that might be an accident and Zaza making a accident prone, kind of just more like me. And I'm glad that we have this tradition to talk about all these things. And I'm really glad, I'm really, really glad for this more informal opportunity in which there's three different translations of three different people, I just wonder if we could understand it functionally a little bit because that brings us back to practice and that helps. I think that's a great way to end this whole series. That's not a new song. It's in the loop.

[63:27]

They know it. Thank you all very much. This was a wonderful experiment. And in my opinion, it was successful. Please continue to give us feedback. And do you want to say a good thing again? Final words? Oh, I love that. I was sort of getting the opportunity, the first opportunity to study Bouchard. It was great. Yeah, I thank you all for bringing your own craftiness in your own lives and your own questions. Yeah, I think if we don't keep questioning, we lose the threat. Yeah. Okay. Let's bow out. Thank you all once again.

[64:39]

Thank you. [...]

[65:43]

I'm working with a chair of what? Would you like to turn it over? Yeah, I'm working with a chair of what? [...] Yeah, I'm working with a chair of When she was... She saw you. When I was still on the bed and I loved it, that's not. And I was just... This turns off those rune mics.

[67:06]

So the whole time we were getting These room lights were also picking up everything that was happening. Yes, because they're totally separate. They're totally separate systems. No, these lights weren't directly in this. I have no idea. I mean, it's, [...] it's this microphone. Oh, it's the microphone that we would otherwise take out until up here. I thought you controlled options. I mean, that's what I mean. Let's see, you didn't have problem with one of those. I was, yeah. Uh-huh. Victoria was speaking. Right. Um, So I, [...] it's, it's very hard to diagnose all the other issues actually.

[68:10]

I don't know if the words are, when you're, when you're, when you're saying that I'm not using this. So, and I can just use this. This. We need to pick up this tea. Yes, we do need to pick up that tea. Yeah. Yeah. Remember the cold? Yes. It's all there. Yeah, yeah, and we'll need to, we should get together at some point and look at the setup for Wednesday because I am not going to be here the next two months later.

[69:22]

Can you stop the story? I'm not going to have the right version. Is this the right button underneath?

[69:29]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_20.31