48 Acquiring the Sign of the Mind: I see you

Spring 2016-48 Acquiring the Sign of the Mind: I see you

Olaso! Good morning! So I’d like to share with you something I had never encountered before. It’s a Sutra from the Pali Canon, which is I think very very relevant to what we’re doing here. It’s the Suda, Suda Sutta: The Cook. The Cook Sutta, the cook discourse. It’s very short and I won’t read the whole thing. But it’s a very, to my mind, it’s a very nice parable or metaphor and I will paraphrase a good deal of it and then I’ll I will read verbatim the part is most directly relevant to our practice here. So it’s The Cook, the cook discourse. And in this discourse, the Buddha gives a very simple parable and that is of a cook who’s preparing a major, a main meal for a king or a king’s minister. But the foolish, inexperienced cook doesn’t take into account what the king or the king’s minister really likes, in terms of, you know, the kind of flavors and so forth. So not taking that into account, then the cook cooks up a meal, but it’s not what the king wanted. And therefore the cook does not get food, clothing, he does not get a good payment because he did not satisfy the king. And why? Because he did not acquire the sign of the king. I think as… I’m not even gonna ask but I assume everybody has seen or at least knows about the film “Avatar”. You remember one of those very touching moments when he says “I see you”? May be the most touching of the movie. It was very very nice, it was really Dharma. “I see you”. Well, I’m just drawing from that. And that is the cook did not see the king. He did not see what would the king really like, what would satisfy him, what would truly please him. And as a result then he was not rewarded, right? And so, but he used that term, he didn’t see the sign of the king, he didn’t see him, he didn’t get him, he didn’t see what he truly wanted, right?

[ 02:01] So then the Buddha says – and this is an analogy, obviously, and so then the Buddha says and here I quote, it’s my translation, but I think it’s very faithful: “In the same way there are cases were a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk remains focused on the body as the body, feelings as feelings, the mind as the mind, phenomena as phenomena – four applications of mindfulness – ardent, introspective and mindful, putting aside attachment and disappointment regarding the world” – this is a very classic kind of a sequence there, you find it also in the prajnaparamita sutras, the same. As remains thus focused on the body as the body, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements are not abandoned, he does not take note of that fact, as a result he does not abide in happiness here and now nor with mindfulness and introspection. Why is that? Because the unwise, inexperienced, unskillful monk has not acquired the sign of his own mind. Interesting, hum?

[03:01] And then he gives [03:01?] and then he just turns this right around. I think once again I need to do a little typo so don’t post this just yet, like Claudio, just a typo. And then he just flips it round in a very straightforward way and then there’s a skillful cook who does really attend to what the king wants. He prepares the meal and then he’s well rewarded and so just exactly the opposite. In the same way there are cases where a wised, experienced, skillful monk remains focused on the body as the body, in other words vipashyana practice, right? The body as the body, feelings as feelings, the mind as the mind, phenomena as phenomena, ardent, introspective and mindful, putting aside attachment and disappointment regarding the world. As he thus remains mindful of phenomena as phenomena, his mind becomes concentrated, his defilements are abandoned. He takes note of that fact. As a result he abides in happiness here and now and he’s mindful and introspective as well. Why is that? Because the wise, experienced, skillful monk has acquired the sign of his own mind. So clearly it’s open to interpretation but I’m gonna take a shot at it. I would suggest that the sign of the mind, like the counterpart sign for earth element and so forth, is that from which the mind, as we experience it, emerges. So I’ve suggested this hypothesis before. In the Pali terminology, it would be the bhavanga. That brightly shiny mind, which is by nature luminous and pure but adventitiously becomes obscured, and that is not obscured. But the crucial point here – and we’ll remember it from an earlier citation – it is this brightly shining mind that is a source of our motivation to seek a path, to find liberation and so forth. Remember that? I think very significant. And so one may of course practice vipashyana, that is four applications of mindfulness, or anything else, without having acquired the sign of one’s own mind, without tapping into – the use of tapping at the depths of one’s soul – tapping into one’s heart’s desire, tapping into the deepest motivation that is already there – not something you learn from Buddhism or Christianity or modern psychology –, tapping into the bhavanga, that stem consciousness which is not yet differentiated as human, animal, preta, deva and so forth.

When we consider the range of sentient beings across the whole bandwidth within the Buddhist’s worldview, but also the range of just human beings, you know, it’s a tremendous variety of, what you know? If you did a poll, just ask this in Italy: “What do you want? What would really make you happy”, you definitely get a lot of different answers. And then go to different countries, ask children, ask old people, ask men, ask women and so forth, you can get a lot of answers. Let alone if you could interview dogs and earthworms and pretas and, you know, devas and so forth, and people in the form realm and the formless realm, you can get a lot of different, you know, answers to “What do you want?”.

[06:04] But all of those sentient beings, when they come out of their configured state, from hell realm up to deva’s realm, when they melt from the configured state, come back like the yo-yo coming back to the palm, after going out to all these different rebirths, when it comes back to the palm and they’re back to their “the kind of primal ground within samsara”, if you could ask that being, who’s not yet differentiated, this man, woman, human, deva and so forth, if you could ask that being “What do you want?”, “What do you want?”, then you get a more primal answer, right? It won’t be a human [answer] like “I would like a farm”, you know. It’s gonna be something very primal, that will be common then. Kind of a stem desire, a common desire that would be equally for those in the formless realm as a whole realm is there anything, everything in between, it’s gonna be a stem desire. I’m just following the logic here, right? So “What is it you really want?” And then you find that out by tapping into your depths. And you discover the sign of your mind, and you discover what really makes you happy. And you can at least, at least here in the Pali Canon, you can go as far as your substrate consciousness. Of course, if you go beyond that, beyond the bandwidth of the Pali Canon, into the Mahayana, into the Dzogchen, then of course keep on cutting, keep on going deeper, beyond the substrate consciousness, beyond the bhavanga, go right down to Rigpa. And ask Rigpa “What do you want? What’s your desire?”

[07:36] So this is not the only reference to the sign of the mind, that chitta nimitta. There are more references to this in the Samyutta Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, there’s just one here that I’ve translated from the Therigatha, Therigatha Sayings of the Elders. And this is very pithy. Having acquired the sign of the mind, sensing the savor of solitude ***– and this would be… Remember these two types of solitude? There’s outer solitude, where you simply withdraw yourself from activity, society, the busyness of the world into solitude, very simple. But remember also the inner solitude. These two types of solitude, remember? The inner solitude is withdrawing your mind from all mundane concerns, and between the two that’s more important. So you could, in principle, have a very successful shamatha retreat, for example, in downtown Manhattan. If you had, you know, a quiet place, a quiet apartment, you could. All around is incredible busyness but if your mind is in solitude, then even if just the next-door neighbors are completely immersed in hedonic pursuits, you’re not. And so ***having acquired the sign of the mind sensing the savor of solitude, taking delight in that, practicing dhyana, masterful mindful, you attain a pleasure that is not hedonic. That’s the benefit of it, of acquiring the sign of the mind. That just strikes me as having achieved shamatha, nothing beyond that. Because, on that basis, then you practice viewing the body as the body and so forth and so on, and vipashyana, but then, you are really ready to launch into vipashyana. But he’s saying – and that was with respect to vipashyana and the four applications of mindfulness – if you’ve not acquired the sign of the mind, it’s not gonna work. That’s what he said, right? These were Buddha’s words. You will miss the target.

[09:31] So people can practice vipashyana for all kinds of motivations, you know. But if you haven’t tapped into the innermost depths of what you truly want, it can easily be reduced to the same practice, the same techniques, can be easily reduced to simply a very beneficial form of psychotherapy, what’s good, it helps. But it’s also missing the whole point because you don’t need vipashyana. There are a lot of there, 250 schools of psychotherapy, so I understand. And vipashyana devoid of context, with no shamatha, with very little reference to ethics or motivation, becomes number 251. Got a lot of competition, you know. And how significant is that really, you know, to have just one more? And what on earth does that have to do with Gautama leaving home at the age of 29 and giving up everything? So I think this sign of the mind is something very very interesting. I think it’s substrate consciousness. He’s suggesting strongly here this is the preliminary, this is the really most crucial proximate preliminary practice for venturing fully into vipashyana, that then ensures that your vipashyana will be motivated by a truly authentic motivation, which is right intention, authentic intention, one of the eighth noble path. Because, bear in mind, the same techniques can be done for all kinds of reasons. But this ensures at least it will be authentic, it will be renunciation and, of course, if you shift over to expand the bandwidth, then it becomes bodhichitta, sign of the mind.

Also, I mean, I’m just musing here, but I was very moved by this, I hadn’t seen it before. But I kind of picked up the fragrance of the sign of the mind and so it led me, led me to the Suda Sutta. But also it’s just one other point and that is as we, you know, for those of us poor souls in America following this electoral process, and see how many different types of desires people have, the American electorate has, clearly they want different things. And then we look at ISIS [Slamic State of Iraq and Syria - Terrorist Organization], they want different things, and people around the world want different things. It’s very easy as we look at what people are doing and who they’re voting for and what they’re striving to, what they’re giving effort to. It’s very easy, frankly, to feel very little empathy. I think many people, seventy percent of Americans are very very dissatisfied with Trump, with Donald Trump. I think they don’t empathize with the way he speaks, the way he behaves, what he seems to want, they find it perhaps repugnant, his behavior. They probably find very little to empathize, like he’s like “Oh boy, thank goodness I’m not like him.” I think maybe 70% of the population are thinking like that: “Thank goodness, I’m not like him.” No empathy. And then, very easy in the next breath they’re looking down, you know, looking down: “He’s an inferior person”. I’m not saying he is, I’m saying this would naturally follow if you feel “Well, thank goodness I’m not like him.” That means “I’m superior to him”, right? So then we have contempt.

[12:30] And likewise that, how many people really empathize with people who are cutting people’s heads off and so forth and so on, on ISIS. Racism all over the place. And there’s nothing to empathize with that, I don’t want to empathize with racism or terrorism or, you know, egotism and being bombastic, megalomaniac and so forth, I don’t want to empathize with that. But can we empathize with the person, not with the motivation? “I don’t feel with you”, “I don’t want to cut off women’s heads”, “I’m not gonna feel with you on that one, sorry, that’s evil.” But there’s a person there, who is right now so delusional, that thinks that’s justified and it’s a good thing, that this is actually, you know, according to the will of God. So delusional, actually believes that. But when we cut through, so I’m speaking of different desires, right? For the sake of world peace, some people are engaging in acts of terrorism. For the sake of world peace some people are working for Greenpeace, trying to preserve the natural environment. The same motivation – for the sake of world peace, that we all could be happy, you know.

[13:33] And so we find a lot not to empathize with, as we look at the expressions of people’s desires, their behavior, the way they speak and so forth. A lot of that we find repugnant, repellent, evil, appalling. But if we can get down there, get down beneath the surface of the acculturation, the configurations, the kind of upbringing the doctrines, the belief systems and values the people learn to the course of life, and if “we can see you”, if you could actually, if any of us could look into the eyes of a member of ISIS, who’s absolutely committed to that cause, look into their eyes and say “I see you”. That would be something, wouldn’t it? Not that I see a terrible Republican person who should be spending the rest of his life in prison, but “I see you” on a level where I can empathize. That would be quite something, wouldn’t it? And not airy-fairy, nothing. We agree about this, this would be kind of deep. And likewise Trump, to be able to look into Trump’s eyes. I’m not saying he’s evil man, I’m just saying this is a lot of opinion in Americans, my opinion is kind of irrelevant. But to be able to look in this man’s eyes and “I see you”, “I see someone who’s fundamentally like myself”, “I see where I’m wearing the same bandwidth and I completely empathize with you, not your opinions, not what you say, not your behavior, a lot of it, but I see you, I empathize with you.” That would be quite remarkable.

[15:00] But then how can we tap into that, depth of another person, if we’ve not tapped into the depth of ourselves, you know. I think if we have, then, would we see the differences? I like this person, don’t like this person. And as I mentioned before, Geshe Rabten, first one to sit down with me, one-on-one, give me meditation instruction. This is one of the first two meditations he taught me: equanimity. He just said that all the problems of your life are coming from habits of this “I like you, I don’t like you”, you know. That’s it on that. I told you before, years later when I was a monk in Switzerland with him and I mentioned: “Oh, I like this person.” He said: Ah, that’s not for you. [laughter] “I like this person”, “I don’t like this person”, that’s not for you. Really something isn’t it? So to tap into the side of the mind means to come consciously – here’s my interpretation. It’s open to interpretation. I’m sure some of the people disagree with me and are welcome to, but for the time being, I’m in a hold of this because it seems very meaningful to me. To come to that state where you’re resting in your own nucleus, your relative nucleus, your ground state within samsara, the substrate consciousness explicitly experiencing its bliss, its luminosity, its non-conceptuality and finding that bliss that is not hedonic– just as described there in the Therigatha.

[16:27] Then how do we get there? What’s the most direct route? Because there are many routes. Well, I would suggest within this context right now there are two, there are two. And one is the one that Panchen Rinpoche discusses first and Tsongkhapa refers to explicitly, and that is: Turn your awareness right in upon the sheer luminosity and sheer cognizance of your own awareness, just follow right in upon your own awareness by way of its distinctive characteristics. Do not add anything to it, keep it simple and that’s it. Right that. And following that fragrance, following that fragrance of luminosity and cognizance, which you can experience today, that’s not an attainment later on, your mind is already luminous and clear, so there’s no reason why you can’t identify that. Then that’s the fragrance, just follow that. Keep it simple, keep it real simple. Just withdraw from all appearances, and invert your awareness right in upon the sheer clarity, the luminous, the luminosity, the brightness of your awareness, that which illuminates, and the experience of knowing, and just rest there until you’re home. That’s one method, very straightforward. So Tsongkhapa said only needed, he’d gave like just the pith instruction, the bullet point, without elaborating on the practice at all. Focus on the sheer luminosity, the sheer cognizance of awareness. And that’s what he had to say, and that’s actually, that’s a vision, right?

[17:54] Now the other one, of course, is we are attending as if from afar to the thoughts, images, very things that appear in the space of the mind, where there’s a directionality, we are “attending to” the space and whatever arises within it. We follow that practice you’re pretty familiar with already. Over time the plane, the plane of the mind becomes less and less populated until eventually it’s just a sheer vacuity, all of your senses has imploded, your mind is gone silent, your mind is disappeared, you invert your awareness away from the substrate into the substrate consciousness. Welcome home! How was that? That’s the second method.

[18:32] Now a final point that occurred to me, because I’d like to give you a handle when I said I don’t have a technique for the very legitimate question that has come up from the number of you. And that is when you’re resting in this utter simplicity of Awareness of Awareness. How do you know whether you’re just sitting there with a blank mind, which means you could be cultivating stupor, which leads to becoming stupid as you well know. You could be doing that or you could be practicing authentically, which would lead you to the substrate consciousness which would be this, you know, the on-ramp to vipashyana and the freeway to enlightenment. So that’s a big difference. Tweak it one way goes to stupor and stupidity and tweak it another way goes to awakening. So that’s kind of a, an important distinction to be able to make, and it is subtle. So it occurred to me, I could give you a handle, I’ll give you two handles. And that is when you’re attending the space of the mind, okay? You’re doing Settling the Mind in its Natural State, got it? You’re attending into the space of the mind whatever arises. But on occasion, you can’t see whether anything’s arising, right? These intervals, “No, I’m not getting, no signal”, just space of the mind. So when you’re resting there during intervals and sometimes as you go more deeply into the practice, those intervals will get longer, right? You just don’t pick up anything, you are attending. How do you know whether you’re actually ascertaining the space of the mind, whether you’re on target ascertaining the target, the space of the mind and its contents. How do you know whether you’re doing that or just sitting there like a deer, staring into the headlights, spacing out, cultivating, once again, stupor? Big difference, I can tell you how. You’re ready?

[20:13] So you might want to remember, because I think that’s actually useful. Here’s how. How can you test yourself? And here is how. It’s a test, like an exam at the end of a course. As you’re attending there, and to the time being you’re not seeing any events arising in the space of the mind. If an event arises – whatever it is, thought, image, whatever, something appearing to you – as soon as that event arises, if you spot on, you’re already there. We say “Johnny-on-the-spot” okay, in American English. You’re already there where it’s coming up, like the cat staring at the mouse hole. As soon as the mouse little whiskers come out, the cat sees it. Not later, okay? If that’s the case, if you’re so spot on, that as soon as the thought or an image comes, some appearance comes, you’re right there already, you don’t have to pull your attention back, then you were there before it happened. You were cognizant, you were sustaining cognizance and that’s the indicator of it. When something did come up, you immediately cognize it. If you cognize just at only seconds later, that means you’re spacing out, you’re dull or you’re wandering, okay? So we have a criterion then.

Now, but how about this one: When you’re not attending the space of the mind, you’re withdrawing from all appearances, you’re just attending to the sheer luminosity, sheer cognizance of your awareness. How do you know now whether you’re spacing out or spacing in or whether you’re sustaining flow cognizance and knowing the experience of knowing? And here’s the handle. But I think if you pause for a moment, you’d figure it out yourself at this point. There you are resting and just being aware of being aware or maybe you’re just spacing out or spacing in – Just sitting in there with blank mind. How do you know? Here’s the test. As soon as the subjective impulse comes up, a thought, a desire, an emotion, any subjective impulse comes up, if as soon as it comes up [Alan snap the fingers] you get it, like that fast [Alan snap the fingers], you’re right there. Then you were on the mark, then you’re on the mark. If you learn about it only, you know, seconds later, “Oh my mind was, sorry”, “Oh I see”, “I want this”, “Oh I’m feeling this.” Later, that means during that interval you’re not on target and then you have to pull yourself back, okay? So those are criteria. Oh yeah. So remember the cook, the cook Sutra. That’s a good point. Olaso!

[22:52] So, let’s have a session. [laughter]

[23:36] The bell rings three times.

[24:02] Bringing forth your most authentic and meaningful motivation, settle your body, speech and mind in their natural states.

[25:19] Just for a couple of minutes, calm the discursive mind with mindfulness of breathing, with counting or without, as you wish.

[30:07] Now let your eyes be at least partially open. Evenly rest your awareness in the space in front of you but without focusing on any object, any shape or color, any visual object, the awareness simply diffused, resting in space without taking even space as its object.

[30:56] And now, for a little while, just rest here, your mind settled in its natural state, not yet put to work, not being directed inwards or outwards, not focusing on this or that, not doing anything, not meditating on anything. Simply at rest, mindfully present, in the present moment, sustaining this flow of mindfulness without distraction, without grasping.

[33:19] Appearances in all of the six domains, of course, continue to arise. But don’t voluntarily give your attention to any of these appearances, do not let your attention be snagged and carried away by the appearances or by the emergence of subjective mental impulses. Let it be loose and free, free of grasping and therefore still.

[35:21] And when we are not deliberately focusing our attention on and therefore ascertaining any appearances to the mind or subjective impulses of the mind, when we’re just resting in simplicity, simply resting in awareness of what are you now aware, we have these two words: luminosity, having a sense of clarity, brightness, vividness, the ability to illuminate. Can you see the referent? Can you identify the luminous aspect of the apprehending awareness?

[36:43] It’s not something mysterious. It’s already evidenced, already there in plain sight. You’re wide awake. The use of the syllable phet is designed exactly to arouse this luminosity, so I will say it not very loud but very staccato. Totally rest and just let the sound arouse the clarity, luminosity, the clear light of your own awareness. There will not be any big startle here, I’m not here to shock you. Just rest. Phet.

[38:15] And in your own experience of being aware, there’s something that’s already happening, it’s also in plain sight: the flow of cognizance of knowing. Can you identify this within your own mind stream and rest in that knowing of knowing, in the cognizance of cognizance, the awareness of being aware?

[39:40] Following the instructions of Padmasambhava, in Natural Liberation, that’s introduced into this utter simplicity a tiny bit of doing, just for a little while, as a temporary measure, to help us not become spaced out, and that is the familiar oscillation: arouse, invert, focus, concentrate your awareness, withdrawing from all appearances and inverting it right in upon the experience of being aware, the sheer luminosity and cognizance of your own awareness. Arouse and then loosen up, relax, releasing your awareness into space. Then when you’re rested, invert, focus, concentrate, withdrawing from all appearances right into that which makes appearances possible, quite intense, going into luminosity itself. And then relax, set your own rhythm, arousing and releasing.

[43:45] You know you’re not just spacing out or sitting there with a blank mind if as soon as some thought, desire, emotion arises, you’re immediately aware of it, free of grasping and the subjective impulses arise of their own accord and, free of grasping, they dissolve of their own accord, they self arise and self release, very quickly.

[46:36] And then simply rest, without doing anything, rest in self-illuminating, self-knowing awareness, uttered at ease, effortless.

[47:40] The bell rings three times.

[47:59] I mentioned earlier, we’re going to take a little quick foray over to the west and we here, in Tuscany, in our minds eye that Galileo as a boy, his family, he was born in Pisa, then they lived in Pisa. But then when he’s eight years old they’ve moved off to Florence, and which is, I think you know, is not very far from here. And then, not long after that, then his father was a musician, wanted his son to get his, get his son to have some education. And this was in their, in the, by the 16th century, the place that a boy or teenager adolescent kid education was pretty much monasteries, like in Tibet until very recently. And so the monastery where his father sent him was the Camaldoli, Camaldoli. Did I pronounce it right?

[Student answers] Camaldoli.

Thank you. It sounds much better when you say it. [laughter] It is the Camaldoli Hermitage and Monastery, which was founded way back in the 11th century. So what’s already like five hundred years old by the time he was there. It’s quite a famous and quite an extraordinary hermitage. It’s still there and it’s still operative and I’ve seen only photos. I tried to get there last year and the person who was driving me lost our way, he never got there. [laughter] So I didn’t get to see it. But Camaldoli, Camaldoli. And so he was there through his, until he was ready for college, and as I mentioned before he wanted to stay. In the Christian tradition as I’ve detailed in my book “Mind in the Balance”, going back to the all the Greek Orthodox contemplatives in the thirteenth century, back to the desert fathers, they had the practice of Awareness of Awareness. They don’t need a foreign import, it was already there. So just imagine, I’m just being playful here now. But imagine if young Galileo – who knows, maybe he was, I don’t know what they taught him. The reports are that he really loved it, very wanted to spend the rest of his life in a contemplative monastery, becoming a contemplatively, right? So, who knows, he may have been taught, he could have been taught Awareness of Awareness there. But just imagine that they did, we’re just being playful here. Imagine that he did and imagine that his father wasn’t so tight. [laughter] I mean world history could have been different. As his father he just said: “Son you want to remain a contemplative, go for it, kid.” And let him stay. And imagine if Galileo had stayed and ascertained the sign of his own mind. I would say one thing from my perspective, one thing is basically certain: if you’ve ascertained, if you’ve achieved shamatha, you’ve ascertained this bliss that comes from the nature of own awareness itself, the last thing you’d be interested in would be rolling balls down a ramp [laughter] or wondering whether Jupiter has moons. You’d say like “Why would anybody care about that?” “Why look out there?” [laughter] But his father wouldn’t pay for it. The father told him to get a job, go to school, become a doctor, and doctor because he paid more than being a mathematician. He had to pay for diaries, he had to pay to get his daughters married, it was a big deal back then.

[51:26] But so Galileo turned his attention outwards and, of course, he did not invent but he made his own telescope, based on models from Holland, which means that before he directed this telescope and started doing his amazing discoveries, he knew a telescope inside and out. There was probably no aspect of a telescope he didn’t understand. He made it himself, he polished the lenses, he mounted them. He went from an 8 power to 20 power to 30 power telescope in his lifespan. So he clearly knew telescopes of that, you know, level of sophistication of his time. So he knew exactly what he’s looking through, which makes really good sense. He would have been a real dumbbell if somebody just given him one who said: “Look through this, you’ll find a lot of cool things.” And he didn’t examine what he’s looking through to know whether it’s a telescope or a kaleidoscope. You’ll see very different things of course. [laughter] So he had good reason to believe that the observations he would make through his telescope would be ones that would actually tell him about the phenomena he was observing, right.

But as far as we know, from the records of Galileo’s life, while he understood the telescope very well, there’s no clear indication that he understood the sign of his own mind. So the rest is history. We have now 400 years of this tremendous growth of knowledge of the outside world and tremendous growth of hedonic well-being, a lot of medicine is tremendously helpful. I wouldn’t be alive without Western medicine, I would have died when I was a kid. Ah, but that 400 years is given us almost nothing for eudaimonia and has left us almost entirely in the dark about the nature of mind. And there are major scientists and I could quote them but I won’t, they say: “Do not count, do not rely upon your first-person experience, do not rely on introspection, do not rely upon your own perception. This is misleading, you’re hallucinating, everything which you experience is illusion, do not rely on your own first-person experience. It’s totally unreliable. And what they’re saying is: “Rely only on us, the scientists, because we’re objective and you’re…, if you’re not a scientist, you’re subjective. Very sad. But we don’t have to follow that, we don’t have to choose. So, by the way, this Camaldoli Monastery is just 35 kilometers southeast of Florence, so it’s kind of, if you had a really big arm just as… don’t throw away from here. So this is where it happened, this is what happened in this incredible environment.

Transcribed by Sueli Martinez

Revised by Rafael Carlos Giusti

Final edition by Rafael Carlos Giusti

Discussion

Ask questions about this lecture on the Buddhism Stack Exchange or the Students of Alan Wallace Facebook Group. Please include this lecture’s URL when you post.