70 Rewrite the History That Is Blocking Your Heart

B. Alan Wallace, 09 May 2016

“I’m in the mood for weaving” - with these words Alan begins the morning session. And he does weave together - loving kindness, Harry Potter, Stephen Hawking, Shakespeare, Shantideva and much more… Loving kindness stems from the primal drive of caring. Insofar as the mind rests in its natural state, this flow of caring is unimpeded - says Alan. If we rest in this state and someone is in pain or experiences great joy - our heart is moved. We care even for beings that are not real - movie and book characters for example (here Harry Potter fans may be interested to learn that Alan was truly saddened by the death of professor Remus Lupin…). It would therefore seem that the prospects for immeasurable loving kindness, great loving kindness and bodhicitta are good. However, barriers come up that impede this natural impulse of caring. What creates those barriers? Of course: grasping. Attachment and aversion. Conflating the person or a group of people with what they are not - behaviour, attitude, appearance. Alan quotes Paul Ekman saying that one of the fundamental errors is to equate a person with the behaviour. But we do not need to develop loving kindness for behaviour or attitude. They are not sentient beings. Words, bodies, institutions, political parties etc. are not sentient beings. Loving kindness and caring is for sentient beings. There is always a story behind a blocked flow of caring - continues Alan. And we tend to have the sense that our version of the story, our take on a person is right. Alan quotes William James who pointed out that we are prone to see our conclusions as the only logical ones. Alan instructs us to see who comes up during meditation and what barriers arise. He draws our attention to the fact that these appearances are always painted by our mind, with our colours, they have no existence outside our mind. The same is true for the sublime beings, like HH the Dalai Lama or the Buddha, and for the people we have difficulties with. They all are painted with our colours, by our mind. So when we find resistance to the flow of caring, it is because we are reifying appearances that do not exist outside our minds. We grasp to our version of the story as the only true story. Here Alan weaves together our personal histories with cosmology and quotes Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog’s paper on the “top-down” approach. According to Hawking and Hertog, bottom-up cosmology is possible only if we know all the initial conditions. But we don’t. Instead, our approach is top-down, meaning that our assessment of the past is based on the present. The resulting histories (plural) of the universe depend on the questions asked and the methods of measurement. They depend on what is being observed. Every possible version of the past exists in a quantum superposition state. The same is true about our personal histories - claims Alan. We think we are reconstructing history while in fact we are constructing it, making it up. We should therefore throw out the idea that there is one single true story. Our past with any person is a construction, a story that grew over time. If this story blocks our heart we should rewrite it, come up with a new one - advises Alan. And to conclude he reads two famous quotations - one from Shakespeare (“All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts…”) the other from Shantideva (“My enemies will not remain, nor will my friends remain. I shall not remain. Nothing will remain…”).

The meditation is on loving kindness.

The meditation starts at 29:30


Please contribute to make these, and future podcasts freely available.

Download (MP3 / 28 MB)

Transcript

Olaso. I’m in the mood for weaving, let’s weave. We’re returning to the topic of loving-kindness we should never leave it and our very capacity for loving-kindness for ourselves or anyone else of course stems from this most primal drive we have, caring. I’ve never heard anybody besides His Holiness say that, but when he said it, it just struck me as so true that there it is primal, right built right into our Buddha nature, right into our very being from the ground all the way to the surface. And as, I wasn’t really reflecting on it but as thoughts came to mind this morning it really struck me that insofar as it’s a gradient, insofar as our minds are resting in their natural state, not constrained not cramped, not warped, or whooped or distorted or obscured just resting in their natural state uncontrived, unmodified, unfixed, unimproved. The flow of, the flow of caring just flows unimpededly that’s my sense, unimpededly. It starts where it is of course but it just flows out unimpededly and I think that’s not just a nice thought like a happy thought, but I think there’s evidence for that at least from our perspective as human beings and it’s the only one we can really have for the time being you know. But if we witness someone in great pain we hear them wailing as long as your mind is in its natural state just at rest, your heart moves right, you can’t help it.

(02:00) If you see someone just joyfully laughing, you smile. It’s not something you try to do. It’s not some when you’re, when you’re good, or you’re in a good mood just when you’re resting in its natural state. What I find interesting here is that I find many things interesting, is that we can care not only for beings that do exist but for even beings who don’t exist. Have you ever watched a movie and cried? Have you ever watched a movie and just felt sheer delight and joy in someone’s success who doesn’t exist at all, the character in the story you know. Or I saw in the news an item just a few days ago for those of us for those of you who are like me Harry Potter fans. If you’re not just don’t raise your hand. (laughter) I want my flow of caring to extend to you and not be impeded but you remember in the, in the finale when this, that lovely professor, that such touching professor Remus Lupin, remember him? Remember he died, wasn’t that a heartbreaker. I mean he was so sweet apart from the moments when he was a werewolf (laughter) and wanted to rip the, rip the guts out of everybody, when he wasn’t in a bad mood. When he was in his natural state and not under the grip of this werewolf mental affliction, he was just an incredibly sweet and endearing character, wasn’t he, very lovable right. And so when he died it was quite quite sad and even JK Rowling commented recently this is a news item that she regretted killing him off. (laughter) Know you’ve, know you regret it. It’s a little bit late JK, you killed him and I liked him so much and he never got to see his children. (continued laughter)

(04:06) So there it is. So the prospect looked really good for immeasurable loving kindness and for great loving kindness and for bodhi and since this is our prime motive, our prime impulse it looks really good until the plot thickens and we see that this impulse of caring which just naturally expands in all directions evenly does get blocked. Barriers come up, barriers come up, right. Barriers of my sight and his sight not too many people felt a great deal of remorse when the one who must not be named (laughter), it’s kind of like whew (continued laughter). Although there was that scene in the wasn’t Victoria Cross, in the, in the railway station where you look at that pathetic little humanoid creature you can appeal whoa, maybe we can even care for him right. Not deviating too much from a central theme here, what impedes, what creates the barriers to the impulse that would otherwise flow unimpededly, make us natural bodhisattvas, effortless bodhisattvas, right? What are the barriers that come up? Well of course for starters were off, we’re off on the wrong track when we reify ourselves, reify others, and reify the the difference between self and other, dualistic grasping. That’s that that doesn’t look like that’s gonna turn out well because then when we add self-centered self-centeredness to that prioritizing our own well-being over the other, this looks like it’s not gonna turn out well. And then among the other, then when we differentiate those who seem to be on my side I care, those who are against me I want you to die, and the ones who are irrelevant I don’t care one way or another, attachment, aversion, and indifference, that’s not going to turn out well right.

(06:16) But we make this specific, because I don’t want to just deal in abstracts as we ourselves, as we’re going into the next meditation, and this will be our last meditation in this sequence of immeasurable loving-kindness. What I’ll invite you to do is settle in your mind it’s natural state and then see who comes knocking on the door but you might actually put an invitation on the door, enemies welcome. Enemies as in those for whom your heart’s not really that open. There’s resentment, there’s anger, there’s contempt, disgust, hatred, aversion, dislike, disgust, and so forth, we have so many words for it. Where if we try to develop loving kindness for that person it’s contrived, it’s not very sincere, not very deep, and as soon as we stop trying it vanishes. Whenever there is such a view and I know it well of course towards another an attitude or perspective of another sentient being there’s always a story, I think in my case. There’s a story, there’s something behind it, there’s something that led to it. It didn’t come out of the blue. And my sense is that it’s no I’m actually my very strong conviction is that when we find that the flow of caring and therefore the flow of loving-kindness is blocked, it’s because we conflated the person and of course it could be whole groups of persons, of individuals and so on. We conflated the one for whom we do not feel loving kindness do not care with something that they are not, which means it’s delusional.

(07:58) We’ve equated let’s say a person, let’s make it singular. We’ve equated a person with something disagreeable, their behavior, their attitudes, how they’ve treated us, how they’ve treated other people, other people that we care about. We may have equated them with their appearance, with what they say, attitudes they’ve expressed, and we just find that we can’t love those attitudes, the behavior, the appearance, the words, and so forth. And feel we somehow should. And the answer is, we shouldn’t, we’ve no need to. There’s no need to develop loving kindness for behavior, behavior is not sentient being. There’s no need to develop loving kindness for anyone who’s not a sentient being. Behavior is not a sentient being, physical appearance is not a sentient being, speech - not sentient being, attitude - not sentient being, bigotry, hatred, crudeness, self-centeredness, all the things that we deplore, none of them are sentient beings. So why should we even bother to even think about cultivating loving-kindness for such? Bodies are not sentient beings. Institutions are not sentient beings. Parties, political parties and so forth are not sentient beings right. And so we shouldn’t try to do what we don’t need to do anyway and which probably is impossible and would be misguided if we succeeded. But rather just love sentient beings and then, this is, this is wisdom from Paul Ekman you know, who is not a religious man but a very fine man, and an extremely astute scientist. He’s speaking straight, that’s just a straight affective psychology and one of the world’s best he said, one of our fundamental errors is to conflate behavior with people and then have emotions towards the person triggered by the behavior conflating the two. Basically what we’re doing is, we’re designating a person on the basis of behavior. This person is a bigot. This person is evil. This person is greedy. This person and so forth and so on okay. If you want that, that’s what you want to do, you can. There are greedy people, there are evil people, malevolent people, that’s true.

(10:09) If that’s what you want to do right. But to actually equate to equate the two and then reify, that’s where problems will be. That’s where the the lead walls come down and impede the flow of caring. But again in our own, keep it coming, coming back personal and personally. The caring is for sentient beings and we can, for the time being we can speak of of human beings but certainly don’t want to be constrained there. But as we look at our own personal history and people who may may have treated us badly in the past, and very hard to let go because of what has been done in the past. It’s very easy then and I’m going to invite in some guest speakers this morning. It’s very easy when we view a person with whom we have some history and we have certainly history with a lot of people. It’s very easy to have the sense that our view, our appraisal, our our take, on that person is the one and only right take, that it’s objectively true. Especially if you can find somebody else who agrees with us. We look for that, don’t we? When we make an evaluation that the person’s something negative, we say don’t you agree Claudio? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah and that’s true. Let’s make it third person, Lin don’t you agree? Yeah, okay, third person, we’re done. Third person perspective you know it’s a scientific conclusion I got three people on my side I you know. I’m a (?) you know. There we are, that’s what we do. And William James comments here, and I’m quoting him again, Everyone he says, quote, *is prone to claim that his conclusions are the only logical ones and that they are necessities of universal reason. As I see everybody sees. As I evaluate everybody sees. That there are necessities of universal reasons they being all the while at bottom accidents more or less of personal vision which had far better be avowed as such. * Not bad, not bad.

(12:14) So, as we attend to others we bring them to mind as we’ll do shortly, but we may go, we will definitely go on a bit longer this morning. As we settle the mind, just see who comes knocking at the door. People may come to mind that we know a fair amount of, by way of the media. We’re inundated with media so you have a lot of information there right. And then of course we may recall people with with our personal history our engagement with them from the past and we see what those barriers come up. But a very simple point, it’s crucial though, is that whoever comes to mind really struck me this morning more deeply perhaps than before, whoever comes to mind the the worst villains of history, the most sublime people of history or of the present, personal people that we know in person over the years, whoever comes to mind, of course the appearances coming to mind are arising in the space of our own minds. We’re not plucking them from objective reality. They’re being freshly created of course because they weren’t waiting to drop into our mind space right, into our mind space. They’re actually emerging from our mind space. Whoever we’re thinking of at anytime Jesus, Buddha, Ghengis Kahn, whoever it may be.

(13:38) The appearances come up and all of those appearances are emerging from the space of our own mind. And they’re all painted, they’re all painted by our own minds. They’re all painted. We have no hues, no colors, that we can draw from outside of our own minds. We can never jump outside and say I’ll now I’ll pick, I’ll paint a picture of you using your colors. No can do. I can paint a picture of me painted in my colors, that’s easy, do it all the time. But whenever I paint a picture of you, I’m always painting you with my colours. What makes sense to me.

(14:18) And so if you have virtues that I cannot even conceive of and some of the individuals well all of the individuals behind me are like that, represented on the altar. They all have riches beyond my conception. And so when I think of them, I cut them down to size, my little you know, paint by the dot. Like that, what do you call it? Paint by paint by the what’s that? Numbers, paint by numbers. My little numbers, my little crude caricatures of His Holiness Dalai Lama, Tara, but I cut them down, I don’t want to. I like to see them as they are, just not up to it. So I see them as I am. But what this means oh let’s just go there for a moment, that the Padmasambhava, the Dalai Lama, Gyatrul Rinpoche, the Buddha himself who come to mind. Who come to my mind, have no existence outside of my mind. They don’t exist in Mary Kay’s mind or Lin’s mind or Andre’s mind you know. You don’t have to borrow you can make your own, but they’re just but they’re not simply you know Tara, Avaloketeshvara, Manjushri and so forth, of course, they’re my take. Which means these sublime beings as I, as they come to my mind have no existence whatsoever, outside of my mind. They don’t exist in Claudio’s mind and they don’t exist in the you know, in some objective reality or in the mind streams of these sublime beings, they’re only mine, right.

(15:50) But then when I think of people that have with whom I’ve had discourse, discord, discord, conflict maybe I feel have treated me poorly over the years, whoever comes to mind I painted them with my mind as well. Which means as I bring them to mind there is nothing outside of my mind that corresponds to those because it’s my painting. Inspired as they say you know by like movies that are inspired by true events but you have no idea when you’re just watching the movie where did the true start? Where did the fiction begin? You have no idea. In other words, it’s just a movie. So, when we find that resistance, the flow of caring is impeded, it’s impeded because we’re reifying the people who come to mind who in fact don’t have any existence outside of our minds and that blocks, that blocks. And so much of this is based on history.

(16:53) That is when we’ve, we’ve known people, maybe it’s just one encounter or maybe it’s people who we’ve known for years and just time and time again they brought us grief and misery and they’ve treated us badly, been dishonest, exploitative, and so forth and so on. There are people like that, yeah? And it’s very easy on such occasions to look at our histories with other people and think this is the one true story. It’s my story. I got it right. This is what happened. Would you like me to tell you what happened? Would you like me to tell you, tell you how this person has interacted with me? I’ll tell you. I’ll tell you the truth. I’ll tell you THE truth. I’ll tell you my story. I’ll tell you the history that I have with such-and-such a person. And so it’s quite obvious then at that point that we should really invoke I’m going to invite in two guest speakers, Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog.

(17:50) I mean quite obvious to bring in quantum cosmology. (laughter) So and this time I’m going to quote them directly because I get tired of paraphrasing I like okay in their own words. So in their paper, it was a very technical paper but I scan through until I could find a sentence or two that I can understand. And then I quote for it verbatim okay. So it’s what they really said and not me (laughing). So here’s what they say, The bottom-up approach to cosmology and that is where you just take your history from reality itself bottom-up you go back and you have asked what happened at the time of the Big Bang and you reach back 13.8 billion years and bottom-up you pull that out and then you’ll tell your story based upon how it all began okay. Or similarly because I’m going to relate quantum cosmology with loving kindness. You go to your relationship with a person who it where the relationship maybe just fraught with discord and animosity and resentment and so forth and we’d like to go back and just take the beginning and then tell the story from the beginning. That would be cool. That’s bottom-up cosmology that’s called bottom-up personal history right. The bottom-up approach to cosmology would be appropriate if one knew that the universe was set going in a particular way in either the infinite in either the finite or infinite infinite past. That is you could do that if you knew that the universe was going in a particular way. That is if you knew the original con, initial conditions. If you knew T equals zero this is where it started, you’ve got a lock on that, then you could play the story forward right. We don’t. We don’t know what triggered the Big Bang. Not a clue. That first moment when you encounter someone, anyone, that first moment hello you’re meeting from the very first moment. That person is not a tabula rasa and you’re not a tabula rasa. You’re not blank sheets you’re not empty sheets. You’re coming in with history. In that first moment you don’t know what brought that about right? That Big Bang at that relationship you don’t know what triggered it. You don’t know what that person brought to it. You don’t know what you brought to it. It’s like the Big Bang, it happened, but you don’t know what brought it about. However in the absence of such knowledge of what were the initial conditions that started the universe or a personal relationship in the absence of such knowledge one is required to work from the top down and that is you’re making your measurement your evaluations from the present moment and from that perspective that cognitive frame of reference you’re looking to the back but all the measurements of you’re making all the assessments all the observations all your awareness up the past is based upon appearance in the present and that interesting and that’s true cosmologically and is true in an interpersonal relationship so this is top-down and top-down cosmology the histories of the universe uh-oh, history is not one, the histories of the universe thus depend on the precise question asked that is on the set of constraints that one imposes. So you’re poised here in the moment in the present moment and you’re not prepared just to ask what actually happened you have to ask a question and it’s your question it’s not God’s question or nature’s question it’s your question and then to answer the question you need to view in a particular way not a generic way but in a particular way right.

(21:37) The top-down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different view of cosmology and the relation between cause and effect. We think of cause being absolutely prior and effect being absolutely subsequent in a very deterministic worldview than the present is actually predetermined absolutely you know, frozen and concrete by the past. Many people still believe that. Everything now it’s, this is a paradigm shift. This is really fundamental what they’re proposing and this is quantum cosmology and some of the brightest thinkers in physics are embracing this, Stephen Hawking being one. Top-down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards from a space-like surface at the present time. So we’re not reconstructing. We think when you write a history or we tell a story we think we’re reconstructing what actually happened right. As if we can actually go in a time machine and pluck it you know go back into the past and pluck that first moment and tell the story forwards. That’s bottom-up, but that never happens. The top-down is, you’re not reconstructing a story, you’re constructing a story based on your perspective in the present moment and then making it up going backwards. And making it up from your perspective, your cognitive frame of reference of the questions you’re posing and the way you’re looking. The no boundaries history of the universe, no boundaries means not locked into one absolutely true story. The no boundaries history of the universe thus depend on what is being observed. What are you attending to? For the moment what you attend to is reality right, William James. William James meets Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking meets William James. This, these histories of the universe depend on what is being observed contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique observer independent history.

(23:30) He’s throwing that out entirely. And similarly in our relationship with other people, we should throw out entirely, as absolutely baseless, having no grounding in reality whatsoever that there is a unique observer independent history of your relationship with another person. That person doesn’t have it, you don’t have it, nobody else has it. Know what you can be sure of is your different histories are different. That person’s perspective on history is definitely absolutely different and has no existence outside of that person’s mind. And your version of history has no existence outside of your mind. This is in sharp contrast with the bottom-up approach where one assumes there is a single history with a well-defined starting point and evolution. The repercussions of this are just absolutely awesome and I think it true. This is summed, this is summed up by a person by a science science writer but that was in his own words I thought you should have his words. And here’s a very astute summary of this. How you understand the past depends entirely on the questions you ask and the methods of inquiry you adopt in the present. Every possible version of the past exists simultaneously in a, in a state of quantum superposition. We tend to think spilt milk, water under the bridge, and so forth, it’s already happened, nothing you can do about it. And here from the both the perspective of Madhyamaka where time has no inherent reality. Past present future have no inherent reality they arise only relative to conceptual designation. And here quantum cosmology the cutting edge of 400 years of physics. All possible histories exist simultaneously in a state of superposition, potential. When you choose to make a measurement and again the issue of choice is enormous here. When you choose to make a measurement you select from this range of possibilities a subset of histories that share the specific features measured. That is the history arises relative to your questions, your systems of measurement, and the way you can conceptually designate whatever comes up. The history of the universe as you conceive of it is derived from that subset of histories. In other words you choose your past.

(25:49) You’re not recreating your past, you’re creating your past, but you can create multiple pasts depending on the questions you pose now. So your past with the person who injured you, treated you badly, anyone for whom you find barrier coming up, it’s based on the pit, it wasn’t intrinsic. It wasn’t from the very first moment I hate you when I first see you. It grew up over a history but that’s only one history that gave rise to this negative result right. The negative result is like I don’t care for you but that’s one that blocks, that blocks our own hearts. So that wasn’t a good story, rewrite the story. There was no beginning anyway that you could trace forward so from the present ask different questions, make different observations and come up with another story better story that’s equally valid. One that is conducive to your honor and another’s well-being rather than destroying it. So it suggests that what is happening in the present is your choice, as you like it, but even the past itself doesn’t really exist does not have one absolute history to it. The past itself is as you like it, you choose. Which then of course it’s an obvious thing to go from Stephen Hawking to William Shakespeare (light laughter), to his play, As You Like It. All the world’s a stage and all the men and women are merely players. They have their exits and their entrances and one man in his time plays many parts. His acts being seven ages. And he lists the faces we go through and the end of this soliloquy, the last scene, Of all that ends this strange eventful history is second childishness and mere oblivion; sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything The movie’s over, the show’s over, that illusory display, is over.

(28:24) From that of course we must put go from Shantideva, from Shakespeare to Santideva it’s a natural segue, A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life direct quote: My enemies will not remain, nor will my friends remain, I shall not remain, nothing will remain. Whatever is experienced will fade to a memory like like experiences in dreams. Whatever experience is reduced to a memory, and all that is past is seen no more. I must say I really enjoyed that. So let’s meditate.

(29:26) Meditation bell rings three times.

(30:01) Taking refuge in your own pristine awareness, ultimate bodhichitta, and from this spontaneously allowing relative bodhichitta to emerge as your motivation. Settle your body, speech and mind in their natural state.

(31:27) And as you rest you awareness in its own place, holding its own ground, be aware of what is already present, a ceaseless flow of caring which manifests quite effortlessly effortlessly and naturally of course as the yearning to find happiness and its causes, to be free of suffering and its causes, and this yearning is for the sake of someone who does exist, yourself. And the yearning is naturally unbounded, no this side and that side, no friend and foe. So let that yearning take form playfully, drawing on the creative potential of your own mind, visualizing your own pristine awareness once again as an orb of light at your heart with every out breath.

(33:33) Let this yearning take words, become articulate. May I be truly well and happy, hedonically well, eudaimonically happy. May I find the fulfillment that I seek. With every out breath imagine from this inexhaustible source at your heart, rays of light pure primordial pure light at loving-kindness, of joy, flowing out and permeating every cell of your body, every aspect of your mind, your entire being, with every out breath.

(35:23) Then once again simply rest your awareness in its own nature, in its own place and turn the light of your awareness to the space of the mind, and to whatever appearances arise within that domain, or upon that stage. And observe the players who make their entrance and their exits, the players in the story of your life. And as they come to mind, unlike the practice of simply settling the mind in its natural state by way of these appearances, attend to the sentient beings, because they too have their perspective. They too, are in the center of their mandala. They too have their own longings for happiness, wish to be free of suffering. Attend to them make them real as real at least as yourself. You may invite into the space of your mind someone for whom this flow of caring, this flow of loving kindness, flows, flows effortlessly, spontaneously, the mere thought of the person may open up the stream of loving kindness, attend to them. So similar to yourself, so equally worthy of love. And breathe out, breathe out to this individual or individuals, this light of loving kindness as you have for yourself. And imagine this person finding the happiness and well-being that he or she seeks.

(39:15) And welcome into the space of your mind the person whom you may know well maybe not, but for whom there’s no special attachment or aversion, quite neutral feeling, easy to ignore, to overlook, attend closely to this person so much like your dearest friend and so much like yourself attend closely. And breathe out the light of loving-kindness as before.

(41:28) And then allow into your mind a person with whom you’ve had conflict, discord. A person for whom from your side the flow of loving kindness of caring is impeded, there’s a barrier. Distinguishing clearly decisively between the person and the person’s behavior, attitudes, appearance, and so on. Attend to the person whose mind in its natural state is brightly shining naturally pure, of the nature of loving-kindness and moved by caring just like your own, in the same way, just like your own. Attend deeply, with the eyes of wisdom, until you see the utterly common ground, with no higher or lower, no better or worse, without making up anything, without contriving or pretending. Attend closely until you see someone who in all the most fundamental ways is just like yourself. And when you can see that, when you can look into this person’s eyes and say, I see you. Then breathe out as you’ve done before, breathe out the light and the life and the breath of loving-kindness. And imagine this person finding the fulfillment of his or her own innermost desire, stemming from this pure pool of light, this brightly shining mind.

(45:52) Once again, simply let rest your awareness in its own place, utterly at ease with no object. And once again let the light of your awareness be cast upon the space of the mind but now without preference, to simply see who comes to mind spontaneously. Appearances of people are bound to arise and as soon as they come knocking on your door as soon as the appearance arises, attend to the person or the people or the sentient beings whoever it maybe, by way of those appearances attend closely, attend more closely. And breathe out the light of loving-kindnesses as before. Let your awareness like a bee visiting a garden alighting on one flower after another, let your awareness move freely, from one person to the next, whoever comes to mind, evenly without preference for each one, breathe out the light of loving kindness.

(51:30) Then release all appearances and objects of mind, release all aspirations and simply let your awareness rest in its own nature.

(53:24) Meditation ends. Bell rings three times.

(53:47) Olaso. Nothing more. Enjoy your day.

Transcribed eletronically by Bob Hiller

Revised by Kriss Kringle Sprinkle

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.