Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Ven Jampa Gendun opens this 44-minute session by interrogating the popular phrase “just let it go,” unpacking it as a genuine meditation instruction: observe thoughts like a passing parade, neither feeding nor suppressing them, and they will subside on their own. The talk then turns to the seven cause-and-effect instruction for cultivating an awakened heart, with equanimity as its foundation. Gendun examines how labeling others as friend, enemy, or stranger locks us into relating with projections rather than real people, drawing on the Good Samaritan parable alongside a Buddhist verse comparing a Buddha to a cloud that rains without distinction. He closes by distinguishing karmic affinity from attachment — using chocolate and romantic love as examples — and reassuring practitioners that non-attachment deepens rather than diminishes love.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 05 HMA 1997 05 07.mp3
UUID: e381e9b9-1a69-4ab9-8c21-df3c448f1d93
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: The Heart and Mind of Awakening 1996-1997 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1997-05-07
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.5 minutes
Words: ~5,974
Hear about this term, letting go. Let go. Let just drop it. Let’s let it go. And if you’re feeling angry, just let it go.
Now if that means anything, well, what does it mean? And it it it can have some meaning, in fact. I don’t think it’s simply a kind of a new age jargon. If if we can if we can take a a position of observership to what is going on, you know, not get hooked in, not get sucked in to the scenario, you know, whatever is passing parade is. And we we neither want to repress nor indulge.
How how can we take that kind of a neutral position toward what is occurring to ourselves? The way you know, if if we if we indulge, you know, with some kind of stories, some kind of fantasies unfolding, you know, and we’re lost, you know. We we might as well not be meditating because we aren’t. And we might as well admit that. But on the other hand, we don’t want to repress.
You know, to repress is simply to have to we use other thoughts to to shift the mind, to block out, you know, less powerful ways of thinking. We use stronger thinking to block out weaker thoughts, which requires more thinking. And it it becomes the very energy that we have to expend in in the blocking out will will bounce back at us as it were. We’ll agitate our mind even more. Our mind becomes more more and more upset.
Thoughts occur more and more. Emotions more become begin to arise. You know, we’re we’re going in a very much different direction than we want our meditation to proceed. If if but if we can simply take a neutral position, an observership with regard to this inner content of our mind. We’re watching the mind.
All of these thoughts are arising. These emotions are arising. It’s like this parade is going by, you know, with all these costumes and figures and all these clowns and whatever. Whatever. And we simply can simply observe thinking.
It’s only a thought. It’s nothing whether it’s a good thought, a bad thought, you know, whatever it is, it’s only a thought. And thoughts, like all compounded phenomena, are impermanent. They arise, they will abide, and they will cease of themselves if we neither try to indulge nor repress them. If we if we do not feed them any energy, it’s like a we it’s like a wave rising in the ocean.
It will go back. It will return to to its source from where from once it came. These waves of thought, of feelings, emotions are continually rising in the ocean of the mind. If we if we don’t if we neither if we can take if we become skilled with regard to them, where we don’t where we neither indulge nor repress. They will cease themselves.
They will return to their own source from whence they came. We don’t have to do anything about them. We don’t have to take any position toward them. We can we can we can rest within our own mind. The mind will come to rest.
The thoughts will begin to cease, diminish. The force of the emotion will weaken. The feelings will begin to fade. We can we can begin to experience the actual nature of the mind, peace. So try to think that’s worthwhile.
So take a comfortable firm position. The second of the three principal aspects of the path on the awakened heart. The two meditative traditions for development of an awakened heart. The equalizing exchange in self with others and the seven cause and effect instruction. So we’ve we’ve finished.
We’ve we’ve looked at the first, now we’re looking at the second, the seven cause and effect instruction. We’re going to on the basis of equanimity, like the uneven minded ground, we’re going to create this edifice of the awakened heart, and we’re going to build it making use of developing five causes with bringing about two results. That’s seven causes and effects to develop an awakened heart to essentially, we’re we’re trying to develop a a really powerful aspiration to to make ourselves better people, to develop our minds and our abilities, skills so we can be of greater and greater use to others, essentially. So the the the foundation for the the meditative tradition for the seven cause and effect instruction is equanimity, an even minded attitude, an open fluid attitude toward others. It’s basically, it is an attitude which is free of aversion, holding some people at a distance, and free of attachment, holding some people close to oneself.
So this equanimity, for those of you who are familiar with it, is one of the four immeasurable. Immeasurable love, compassion, joy, and immeasurable equanimity. An even minded attitude which is divorced of attachment holding some close and aversion holding others that are distant. Now if we’re going to develop an attitude wishing that all living beings be free of suffering, that they find happiness, we have to develop just such an attitude of mind, an even mindedness, an unbiased attitude toward others. So it is this equanimity is the the psychological ground.
It’s like it’s it’s like into a field or like the site where we can we sow the seeds of love and compassion. You know, first, we have to even we have to cultivate the field, even out the field such that the seeds of love and compassion which we’re going to plant within that field can flourish. So without this preliminary of preparing a a level ground of cultivating this even minded attitude. It it’s more you know, in a sense, it’s simply a nonjudgmental attitude toward others in regards to especially in regards to the three categories that we’ve been talking about, friend, enemy, and stranger. You know, we have this deeply ingrained habit of putting people in boxes, of labeling them.
And these are the three overall boxes that we put people in in one way or another. Whether they’re my friends, if they are, I’m going to hold them close to me, hold them dear. If they’re enemy, we put them in another box and let them push them away. And then, you know, the vast majority of other people in the world, we could care less about. We put them in a box and we simply indifference toward them.
So developing a nonjudgmental attitude where we don’t put people in these boxes, where we that we don’t fixate upon these categories so strongly, so tightly. We we develop a more open and fluid way of relating with others, allowing for other possible ways of relating. So when we begin this process, the development of equanimity, normally, you know, we we react with attachment and cling closely to those who we like. You know, that is to say, why do we like them? Because they help us, because they make us feel good, they they they do things for us, or they do things for people who we feel close to already.
We have aversion and we have hatred, reject those people who we don’t like. Why don’t we like them? Because somehow we see that they’re not helping us. They’re harming us. They’re hurting us in some fashion or or they’re unattractive or they’re, you know, in some way harming someone who’s close to us.
So those are our enemies. You know, you you that these labels that we use and we’re continually using them, and there’s nothing wrong with labels such as friend and an enemy, stranger. Words have power. We may not be aware to the extent of how what influence they impact have over our mind and our experience. But they do.
So we want to be able to use words, use labels, and not let allow them to use us, not to become captivated and at the mercy of the labels that we use. And so all those other people that, you know, we who we call stranger, who we have a sense of indifference toward, you know, as if they don’t matter, as if they don’t exist. They neither help us nor harm us. They we can’t figure out whether they’re attractive or unattractive. We’re confused about them in some way or another.
So we simply react with a sense of indifference. You know, as long as our our minds are dominated by these judgments, these judgmental attitudes and the and the reactive patterns of aversion, hatred, indifference, attachment, that we will never be able to cultivate an awakened heart. You know, the the I don’t, you know, sometimes I’m I’d like to make use of the Christian bible. I don’t know that much about it. But I think it’s it has a lot to teach us.
You know, there’s a parable in the in the bible about the good Samaritan. And and Christ asked the good Samaritan is a is a lawyer. And then Christ asked the lawyer, what is the first commandment? And the lawyer replies to the first commandment is to love God and to love our neighbor. And Christ comments to him, you know, if if if you keep this one commitment, then you will achieve eternal life.
But the but the lawyer isn’t quite satisfied. He he’s not sure about how is he is to implement that commandment about loving god and loving his neighbor. So he he goes on to ask Christ, well, who who just is my neighbor? You know, who should I consider my neighbor? Who am I supposed to love, in other words?
We can assume that he meant by this that he had no problem about loving god since god is good, but that he was perplexed about loving his neighbor since some men are better than others. Who is the neighbor to be loved? Who is the alien not to be loved? The question is a matter of classification. Therefore, it is a matter of judgment also.
For to classify is to judge. How then does one classify people and judge them accurately as worthy of love or of hatred or of indifference? This is a pretty question. But to the lord, it was a question that had no meaning. For he said, judge not that ye not be judged.
Do not classify and do not be classified. Christ does not tell the scribe how to judge and classify, but teaches him that classifications are without significance in this matter of love. For we do not and cannot love according to classifications. If a man has to be pleasing to me, comforting, reassuring before I can love him, then I cannot truly love him. Not that love cannot be consoled or reassured, but if I demand first to be reassured, I will never dare to love.
If a man has to be a Jew or a Christian before I can love him, then I cannot love him. If if he has to be black or white before I can love him, then I cannot love him. If he has to be belong to my political party or my social group before I can love him, if he has to wear my kind of uniform, then my love is no longer love because it is not free. It is dictated by something outside myself. It is dominated by an appetite other than love.
I love not the person but his classification. And in that event, I love him not as a person but as a thing. I love his label, which confirms me in attachment to my own label. But in that same case, I do not even love myself. I value myself not for what I am, but for my label, my classification.
In this way, I remain at the mercy of forces outside myself. And those who seem to me to be neighbors are indeed strangers for I am, first of all, a stranger to myself. So, you know, so equanimity, first of all, means that we are not to employ our habitual tactics of judging and sorting out others into separate compartments, these boxes that we put people in. You know, the label, the box of friend, the box of enemy, the box of stranger. And then and then having put them in a box fixating upon this as their actual nature, who in fact they are.
Fixating upon this categorization as the basis of our relating to them. You know, words have power. The labels that we apply to people in the world about us influences our way of relating and thinking. Normally, you know, we we once having labeled a friend, we habitually react with attachment. Once having labeled enemy, we habitually react with aversion.
Once having labeled stranger, we habitually react with indifference. So, you know, we looked before when we were looking at in terms of the meditative tradition of equalizing exchange and self for others that these labels are not the person. But sometimes the label becomes more vivid, more real for us than the actual living flesh and blood of person that we’ve applied the label to. We no longer relate with the person, but with the label that we’ve applied to them. We no longer see who they are for themselves, but what we’ve made out of them in some way within our own mind.
You know, the the the map is not the territory. You know, the you know, we can relate we can relate with a with a black, but not as a black without using the label in our mind that this is a black person. We can relate with a Jew without labeling in our mind that this is in fact a Jew. You know, this is it’s interesting because the this power of labels, you know, some I’ve known couples who who are they relatively happily harmonious together for years. And they decide to get married after some time.
And they get married, and then they begin to think of each other as men and wife. And the power of that label begins to complicate their lives, their relationship. You know? All that all of the baggage that we that comes along with those labels gets gets between people and with relationship that they once had. They now are husbands and wives and all that that might mean for them.
And it happens, you know, a woman has a baby. Biologically, she’s a she’s a mother. So it’s way by way of social convention, she’s a mother. But what happens when many women begin to label themselves as mother or fathers or men who have children begin to label themselves as fathers? Oh, I’m not I’m not really a mother.
I just don’t have what it takes to be a mother. You know, what image is she alluding to within her own mind? What emotional element and all the various, you know, composite factors which have gone into made up this label is she not living up to? Is she judging herself by having once labeled herself? The labels have power.
You know, we can We can relate to someone as a friend without ever having to apply the label friend. And we might do it later, you know. This have you seen such and such? He’s a good friend of mine. She’s a good friend of mine.
You know, it’s useful. That’s the way we communicate and think about things and people through these labels. But it’s not, you know, that there but it’s not necessary to have used to to relate with the label. To to that label becomes a reality more than the actual flesh and blood person. You know, if if if, you know, somebody has to first qualify qualify as our friend before I can love them, then I am not directing my feelings of love at them, but to my label, my idea about them.
You know, I am in love with my label of friend, not my friend over there, this real person, you know, with their very their unique qualities about them. And this is simply attachment, attachment to our own ideas about another person, not the other person. You know, holding a friend as as label friend, as the ideal friend, and relating to them such that we habitually react with attachment to them. You know, holding an enemy by means of the label enemy and relating to them with our habitual reactions of aversion. And the same with stranger.
Nowhere in all of this is there psychological ground and the space for developing the universality of of an awakened heart. But, you know, we’re talking about equanimity, how we can begin to develop an even mindedness. It’s not to say that these labels are not valid by all means. We do have friends. We do have enemies.
We do have there are strangers to ourselves now. But we have to realize that the the emotional overtones, you know, all of the past history, all of what we’re bringing to these labels, this this complex of feelings, emotions, experiences, meanings that we that we imbue, the significance that we give these labels, these judgments, these ideas within our mind, and then we apply and we see this person through that label. We no longer see them. But all this complex web of ideas and feelings and emotions that but I say unto you, again, quoting from the bible. But I say unto you, love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you, that you may be the sons of your father which is in heaven.
For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good and sendeth his rain on the just and the unjust. You know, so that’s in the Christian environment. But there’s also a verse very much very similar to that within the Buddhist tradition. It is an epithet, a name for the Buddha:. He creates the whole world like a cloud shedding its waters without distinction.
He has the same mind toward all sentient beings, for the high, for the low, for the wise as for the ignorant, for the narrow-minded as for the broad-minded. So in in this context of the the universality of equanimity, And Christ in this in this verse, he doesn’t say that we are to love our enemies for any particular reason. You know, he says, love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you and that you may be the sons of your father, For he maketh the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and he sendeth his rain on the just and the unjust. So he doesn’t say that in order to be good good boys and girls, we are to love. In order to be moral and upright citizens, Christians, that we are to love our enemies.
He doesn’t use that. There’s no absolute or moral reason. But by doing so, we are following the nature of things. You know, because the sun rises both on the good and the evil. That’s in the nature of things.
And the rain falls on both the just and the unjust equally. And and within the Buddhist context, a Buddha cloud sheds its water without distinction upon all. So equanimity seems to is in the seems to be in the natural order of things once we’ve ceased judging. Now we have we have various karmic relationships with others, with diff with various different people. You know, the we have various karmic tendencies, predispositions within each of our minds.
And these dispositions, these these tendencies with others, they fit together in different ways with others, in a way that we relate different karmic affinities that we have. Out of these, you know, these varying fits with others, varying ways of relating and experiencing in relationship with others occur. You know, for example, suppose that someone has the karma, that is, say, they’ve created the past types of actions whereby they are susceptible or predisposed to have their money stolen. Okay? But that that is in itself, simply having the karma to have your money stolen is not enough for a theft to occur.
You know, though though the common cause might be present in your mind, its actualization requires cooperative conditions for it to actually come about. For example, the person would have to have some money in order that it be stolen. If the person doesn’t have any money, then there can’t be a theft even though they have the karma to have money stolen. So without this indispensable cooperative condition, there’s no way that anyone could steal your money simply because you don’t have anything to steal. So you also have not only the the karmic predisposition to have your money stolen, but you have to have the money to be stolen.
But again, this is still not sufficient circumstances for a theft to occur. You know, for somebody to be able to steal your money, there has to be someone else who has the karma to actually be able to steal your money. But even that’s not enough. There has to be a cooperative condition within your own mind activating that tendency to want to steal your money. They have to then for example, the afflictive emotion of greed would act as a cooperative condition.
The greed for money within their mind would be a necessary condition for them to to activate this karma to steal your money. So, you know, we can out of this, we can begin to get a sense that that a theft actually requires a fit between karmas of these two people and and and a whole constellation of internal and external cooperative conditions. in dependence upon all of these karmas, all of these conditions coming together, a theft occurs. So the point is our actions have you know, we all know that our actions have varying influences on other people. Depending upon the nature of our karmic connections.
We have karmic connections with other people. Just as this person who had their money stolen, they had a fit with this other person like a lock and a key. Something came together and there was a happening. A theft occurred. We have varying karmic connections with other people.
And for some for some, you know, no matter what we might do, our actions have little or or no effect on them. We all know this. We we go into rage and sense of powerlessness when this happens, but that’s the case. You know? There’s nothing we can say or do that affects them in any way even though we might want to very much.
For other people, you know, at other times, you know, just a little smile, little frown can have a can have a little gesture, a word or two can have a profound effect on us. We all know this to some extent. We’ve all experienced this. You know, we can speak with one person for just a few minutes and we feel a greater closeness, a greater affinity with them than somebody we’ve known for years and years and years. You know, we have that kind of connection, that way of the lock and key coming together in that way.
So we have this the notion that’s trying to be gotten across here is that we have these predisposing tendencies, karmic affinities with other people in which we in in which in the connections which bring about our relationships, in the deepness or the or the the superficiality of our relationship, the quality of our relationships. You know, we relate differently with different people. There are different karmic fits, different affinities. This is natural. You know, this this idea that we’re talking was talked about before in terms of the rain falling, you know, equally upon all.
It seems to be in the nature of the thing. By the by the word natural here, it’s meant the natural consequence of previous ways of thinking and behaving, a karma in relationship to this person. It is not merely based upon one present projection or another, one afflictive emotion or another. In a way, we have to be aware and accept our karma. We have to become aware of and accept our karma.
That not in the sense by that, I have to qualify that and say, in the sense of fatalism or predestination, but in the sense of being aware of and accepting that there are predisposing tendencies in our minds. And working with within with them and within the context that they present us with. And in doing so, it’s necessary that we distinguish between the afflictive emotions, our projections, and our actual karma. The predisposing nature of our relationships with others, for example. You know, beginning to become aware of the difference.
For example, you know, the the for for most people, I mean, it is I don’t want to exclude anyone, but the the the majority of people, the majority of men and women have a karmic predisposition to find pleasure in each other physically. Yeah? That’s majority of people do. That’s a product of their past mutual karma that they’ve created. Others haven’t created this type of karma.
So they don’t they don’t find physical pleasure with members of the same sex with the opposite sex. That is to say that this potential for pleasure is a natural consequence of their previous ways of thinking and relating, acting with members of the opposite sex, with one another. So the pleasure that did so the point I’m gonna try to get at is, you know, I’m trying to ease the the the fear, the the the resistance that that you may have surrounding what equanimity is getting at and what it might practically mean. So it’s trying to create some kind of context so we can understand it. This potential to experience pleasure between physical pleasure between men and women is a is a natural consequence of their previous ways of relating with one another, of behaving with one another.
So the pleasure that they derive from one another is a result of their way that their two karmas fit together like a lock and a key. Yeah? So the way one acts as a cooperative condition for the other to experience pleasure. So, you know, on the other hand, so that’s the karma, that that ability to experience pleasure in conjunction with other. On the other, the mental affliction of desire and attachment that normally accompanies pleasure.
Whenever almost always we experience any sort of pleasure, desire and attachment will arise. They not that these afflictive emotions of a desire and attachment not only do not contribute to the pleasure of the experience, but in fact, have nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of the of the other person or the experience itself. Though we experience the afflictive emotions of desire and attachment in the course of having physical pleasure, They have nothing to do with the actual experience of pleasure, the bringing forth, the inducement, nor do they maintain, nor do they prolong the pleasure. They simply are reactive mental patterns which we habitually associate with such types of experience. They don’t induce the pleasure.
They don’t prolong the pleasure. They don’t maintain the pleasure. They have nothing to do with the pleasure that we are experiencing. The basic cause is the previous ways of acting with one another. That is to say our karmic tendencies.
We’ve that is the basic substantial cause of the experience, the feeling of pleasure. The other person is the cooperative condition necessary to actualize. Just like the two the person who had the money and the person who stole the money. There was a fit. The karma tendencies fit together and there was an experience.
Likewise, in terms of physical pleasure with one another. The the the accompanying desire and attachment have nothing whatsoever to do with that experience of pleasure. Though it’s it’s almost automatically associated with it. You know, someone who, you know, for example, someone who unexpectedly might, you know, they give us a piece of chocolate And and we eat we eat it and we experience a feeling of pleasure. That pleasure of a feeling is a natural result of causes.
You know, our previous actions, our karma along with the cooperative conditions, the piece of chocolate. So it has nothing to do with with whether we desire chocolate or didn’t did not desire to have a piece of chocolate, whether we have whether we have attachment to chocolate or don’t have attachment to chocolate. We don’t even have to know what chocolate is, in fact. So, you know, this is I think the simple but difficult to appreciate point is that the enjoyment and fulfillment and meaning that we derive from our relationships does not depend upon desire, does not depend on on our attachment to the other person. Oh, then then because of pleasure.
Yeah. I mean, eat chocolate because you want pleasure. No. No. I don’t.
Attachment? No. So the desire for pleasure. Wanting pleasure. There’s okay.
We then we have to go on to to distinguish between reasonable desire and unreasonable desire, rational desire and irrational desire. Rational desire, the object of our desire is is seen in a realistic way. It is attainable. It’s we can we can desire enlightenment. We can desire pieces of chocolate.
Yeah. But the the afflictive emotion of desire, afflictive emotion of attachment is seeing the object in in an exaggerated fashion. The pleasure that you just experienced wasn’t dependent upon that desire attachment. That’s that’s the point I’m I mean yeah. So that’s that’s not unreasonable.
That’s that’s when you got rejection. Yeah. The the the object of the afflictive emotion does not exist. The object, you know, that that that piece of chocolate as seen by attachment simply does not exist. You know, the there’s a Tibetan expression, a lover’s cup is never dirty.
And when you’re when you’re, you know, at extreme, when you’re in experiencing romantic when you’re in when you fall in love, you know, you’re not really relating with a real flesh and blood person any longer. You’re some image in your mind that is that is that you’re gonna hang on the on this poor slob out there and and whoever they they no one could ever live up to that. For long at least. Some point they’re never they’re not going to be able to support that label you’re hanging on to them. Know, that you’re longer relating with a real person with good points and bad points bad points with with, you know, dysfunctional qualities, but lovable qualities with with wisdom and all that makes up a real person.
You’re no longer relating to them. You’re filtering out all of the possible negative qualities and exaggerating what positive qualities they in fact do have. So, you know, you know, you’re just relating with an idea about them. So this is so we can, you know, we can we can we can distinguish between rational desire, reason desire, and we we do. We and and and the desire reflected emotion or that the one is seeing the object in a realistic balanced way.
The way in which they relate to it is workable. They can derive what they want. The object has capacity to bring them what they actually are seeking from the object. You know, those kinds of realistic healthy ways of relating. There’s no problem with that type of desire.
I mean, I mean, we we are here. I mean, otherwise, we would be in a terrible fix because our very desire for to grow and to, you know, to become enlightened would be self destructive. And, you know, we would then we would be in a double bind which we can never get out of. So distinguishing between you know, we use the same word English language to for both both types of emotions or both types of ways of looking at an object, afflictive desire and non afflictive desire. But the point is that yeah.
You know, the the the the points of clarifying this, why why I’m kind of going into all this is to help us to feel assured that by developing equanimity, that is to say an attitude of non attachment. You know, in in the case of someone that you normally feel attached to, and this would be normally your partner, your parent, your children, friend. In developing an attitude of non attachment to them, you know, we would not would not cause us to feel any less love for them. Not that we could still enjoy them just as much as we have. That that that that our relationship would not diminish or be harmed in any way.
Because, you know, because our love for others is almost always mixed with attachment. And because we don’t distinguish between the two, attachment and love. They were they naturally will be real concern that if we were to lessen our attachment towards our loved one, our love for them would necessarily lessen. And therefore, our our relationship would would be destroyed. So, you know, but actually, the very opposite will probably happen, will probably be true.
You know, if we may be able to love them them for the first time, you know, not not an idea of about them that our attachment our attachment has projected on them. You know, the lack of attachment of equanimity allows us to to value another person for themselves, to see the person in and of themselves, who they actually are devoid of our superimposed projections of attachment. You know? It affords us, you know, between a couple it allows the space for individual growth, for for authenticity, for people to be themselves, which was a which would which is one thing we all want, isn’t it? Even within a relationship.
To to open up to to possibilities for real intimacy and real communication with a real flesh and blood person, you know, allowing that person to be themselves with ourselves, you know, to value the person for themselves. Romantic love can’t do that. And that’s why it never lasts. Not for long. It can’t.
But anyway, even in but even in the in the aftermath of the diminishment of romantic love, there’s still attachment. And therefore, projection in some way or another upon the other person and relating with that projection with our image of them as opposed to loving the other person in of themselves. So, you know oh, it’s very late, isn’t it? Sorry. Don’t get angry at me.
Practice equanimity. Don’t make me don’t label me enemy. Now let’s let’s stop there. Okay? So we’ll dedicate the positive energy that we’ve created.
In the land encircled by snow mountains, you are the source of all happiness and well-being. Powerful Chenrezig Tenzin Gyatso, please remain till the end of cyclic existence. May I quickly become an awakened spiritual master and lead each and every living being to that awakened realm through these skillful actions. May the supreme jewel of the awakened heart that has not arisen arise and grow, and may that which has arisen never diminish but increase more and more. Thank you for your patience.
If you’d like to get a of tea or join the discussion group, you’re welcome. Have a good week. Thank you.