Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 44-minute session, Ven Jampa Gendun builds a logical case for rebirth using two analytical tools: substantial cause versus cooperative condition, and similarity of type. Working through homely examples — wet clay shaped by a potter, a seed brought to flower by soil and sunlight — he establishes that mind must arise from a cause of its own kind: a previous moment of mind, not from matter. He then deploys a television-set analogy to answer neuroscience directly: the brain, like a TV set, is the cooperative condition for mind’s expression, not its originating source. The session closes by grounding this logic in a Lamrim meditation: because mind has taken rebirth since beginningless time, every being has once been our mother. Atisha’s startled cry — “My mother!” on seeing an injured horse — brings the point home.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 09 HMA 1997 05 21.mp3
UUID: bc2f90bf-0c28-4670-9fe0-877479bb14a4
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: The Heart and Mind of Awakening 1996-1997 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1997-05-21
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.1 minutes
Words: ~6,298
It can be approached by some people have recollections of their of their past lives, either by spontaneous recall or through processes of training. There are said to be methods of training or hypnotic regression or we can rely on credible testimonies by other people or we can we can try to work with some of the logical reasoning. And there are many books on case histories of of spontaneous recollection of people remembering past lives and seemingly to establish that to by various means that they did that these memories are valid in various ways. There are people who have had memories in the course of hypnotic regressions and these have been checked out in various ways. But so, you know, you can make use of those those materials as resources.
But just to look at some of the of the of of the logic, some of the reasoning. You know, if if nothing else than to to to eliminate some of the grosser misconceptions that people have as far as the presentation of rebirth, presentation of Buddhist the Buddhist presentation of rebirth, and that there is a sort of a rational foundation for the notion of rebirth. So, know, we have to introduce and I’m going just going to do this very briefly. Two concepts in in talking about rebirth. Two tools that we’re going to use that we’re gonna make use of.
The first is these of these is to distinguish between substantial cause and cooperative condition. Substantial cause and cooperative condition. And the second concept, the second tool that we’re going to use is the notion of similarity of type. So we’ve gone through this before. So this is very brief, just touching upon these points because obviously it’s very much connected to our present topic of recognizing all living beings as our mother.
So the first of these two concepts or tools that we that we’re going to work with in establishing rebirth is the notion of the difference between substantial cause and cooperative condition. And we can use, you know, it’s most easily understood by way of example that, like a clay pot. The substantial cause of the clay pot is a wet lump of clay. It’s good, isn’t it? You can you if you went you went down to the river.
I don’t know if there I don’t know if you anyway, you go to the the pottery shop and you buy a couple kilo you go to buy a couple of kilos of of clay and it comes in a plastic bag probably. And it’s just a wet lump of clay. That’s the substantial cause of this clay pot. It it the substance of the pot, that that wet lump of clay, is itself is itself shaped into the pot. The substantial cause of the pot becomes you know, it is a cause because anything which assists in the production of something is a cause.
So the clay assists in the production of the pot. And moreover, it it determines the type of pot, the substantial type, what the substantial type of the pot is. You know, it it the final product is a clay pot. It’s not an iron pot. It’s not a plastic pot.
It’s not a wooden pot. It’s a clay pot. So this wet lump of clay is a cause. It assisted in the production of the pot. And moreover, it determined the substantial type, the identity of of what kind of pot.
Now on the other hand, there is a cooperative condition in in the making of the pot. And this is the cooperative condition is the potter and and the various tools that he or she used in forming the pot, you know, the the wheel, the various shaping instruments that the that the potter uses in turn in turning the pot. The cooperative cause, the cooperative condition, contributes to the production of the pot in the shaping of the pot. The cooperative condition is the cause of the pot because it assists in the production of the pot. But it does not determine the substantial type of the pot.
You know, the potter could have made a plate, could have made a cup, but it would have been a clay cup. It would have been a clay plate. The the substantial type is determined by the substantial cause, the clay. What the shape it takes is determined by the cooperative conditions. The potter and what what the potter decides to make of this wet clay, the cooperative condition.
Or, you know, using another example to get to gain some kind of feeling for the difference with because this is an important distinction that needs to be made is, for example, a flower. You know, the substantial cause of a flower is the seed. The seed is the carrier of the genetic material which is going to determine the type of product. But it also requires cooperative conditions: the soil, the water, sunlight, warmth. These assist in the production of the final product, the flower.
With without them, well, there there could be no no flower. But it is the it is the genetic information, the genetic material, which is going to determine the the type of product, whether it’s a whether it’s a carrot or a flower, and with being a flower, whether it’s a a sunflower, a morning glory, or whatever. The type of product is going to be is determined by the substantial cause. So, you know, the the the soil and the water, the earth, they help to actualize this potential. They cooperate in bringing about the result.
If if if if you had poor soil or you had or you had a lack of moisture or just a little bit of sunlight, then the flower, the the result would be stunted, it would be shriveled, it would be defective in some way. But but the soil and the water, the sunlight don’t determine the substantial type. They determine the final identity of the product. They cooperate. They are necessary conditions.
So kind of developing distinguishing these different two these two types of contributors to any product. Everything in the universe, no matter what it is, tables, people, universes, if you like, all necessarily are come about through a combination of these two types of causes, substantial cause and cooperative condition. Everything in the universe is exactly the same way. So the second concept, the second tool we’re going to make use of is similarity of type. This is the notion that within that there’s a consistent there is a consistent similar ity of type between a substantial cause and its result.
For example, an apple tree grows from an apple seed. An orange tree grows from an orange seed. You know, that ice arises from water. Ice doesn’t arise from wood. That material things arise from other material things.
Throughout nature, there’s a consistency of similarity of between cause and effect, between cause and its product. That that all of, for example, all of the material things that make up the universe are simply, in very simple terms, transformation of previous material things. There’s a there’s a similarity of type between the cause and the effect no matter what it might be. So, you know, all of the the various there’s simply a recycling process of material things creating new material things. So physical the notion that we’re trying to get at here, which is the crux of the matter, is that physical entities are produced from previous physical entities.
They neither physical entities neither arise from nothing nor do they arise from a substantial cause which is dissimilar in type to themselves. The same holds true for mind. The mind is the primary quality of mind, characteristic of mind is clear in knowing. Now clear can be interpreted in various fashions. One one way in which it’s interpreted is to mean non physical, non material.
Consciousness, knowing consciousness is non material, non physical. It is clear and knowing. So the notion that we’re trying to get at here is that if if we can carry over this same notion of similarity of type, if it applies to all phenomena, if it’s consistent throughout nature, then we should be able to apply it to this very unique case of mind. The problem is in talking about mind is it is extremely unique even though there’s a lot of minds around. It there are very it’s difficult to that we can make you know, usually, we think of things in terms of metaphors, in terms of what what they’re like.
I can understand this because it’s like that. But there are very few. In fact, there’s almost nothing like mine. It’s very unique in the world. That that’s why it’s so very difficult to understand what its nature is.
We can talk about the mind as being like space, for example. It is like space in the sense that it’s nonmaterial, but it but space is not knowing. So it’s it’s a little bit like mine, but in the sense that it’s nonmaterial. So we can begin to approach it from that fashion, but it’s not completely. It’s not a very comprehensive metaphor to use.
So there there are very few metaphors that we can make use of in trying to understand the nature of mind. All of the various elements, you know, within, you know, in I don’t know how many there are in Western chemistry now. When I studied chemistry, I think they were they had gotten to a hundred and eight or something like that in the periodical chart of elements. And within Buddhist chemistry, I guess, don’t know what you call it, There are six fundamental building blocks in the way of thinking, way of that the combination of which makes up the entire universe and everything within it. Earth, water, wind energy, fire, space, and consciousness.
So it is the combination of these various it’s, you know, I call them we call them elements just for a better word, but that’s useful for now. That these these these primary characteristics, like, you know, earth is the the the characteristic of solidity and hardness. It’s extension in space, for example. Just water is the water element is like fluidity, a co cohesive quality about things. Fire is is, you know, the the vibratory level on a gross level, which causes heat, friction.
When the energy is motility, the vibration at a very subtle level, the the ability to for movement. Space is like the absence of obstructive contact. The fact that we can we can I can move my hand without without any resistance? So it is for our extent and purposes is due to the presence of space and that quality. And then as I as I mentioned in terms of mind, mind is the element of clarity or clear in knowing, non material knowing.
So what the whole notion of rebirth comes down to the question, from where does mind come from? Now this this is this is like the crux of the matter. The crux of of the of the proof of rebirth comes down to the question, from where does the mind arise? Are physical phenomena the substantial cause of mind? In other words, is mass and energy the stuff out of which mind is made?
Or does mind arise from something different, a different type of phenomena than material things, than matter? So, you know, the mind doesn’t arise out of nothing. In nowhere in all the whole of nature do we see an example of a product something arising from nothing. Being a product, mind must have a cause. That’s what we mean by a product.
And moreover, it must have a substantial cause. And furthermore, this substantial cause must be of a similar type to itself. So space space, though it is non material, is not knowing. Therefore, space cannot be a substantial cause of mind. It it is a dissimilar type to to mind.
Material phenomena are of a dissimilar type to mind. There is only one phenomena in the universe which is similar type to that of mind and that is mind, a previous moment of mind. Therefore, the substantial cause of mind is nothing other than a previous moment of mind. No other phenomenon can act as a substantial cause of mind. So this holds equally true for for physical entities, for matter.
They too necessarily have substantial cause. And moreover, that this substantial cause must be a similar type to itself. So this applies also to physical matter, that it too arises from a a substantial cause of physical matter. So we cannot logically posit a first moment of mind or a first moment of physical phenomena. Each each has an antecedent cause, a previous cause, a similar in type to itself.
Each necessarily has their respective preceding moment of mind or each has, in terms of matter, has a physical phenomenon acting as its cause. There is no first atom. And similarly, there there is no first moment of mind. These two are not convertible. Like, mind cannot convert into matter, nor mind into, mind into matter, nor matter to mind.
Now there’s there’s like what’s called the conservation of mass and energy. There’s the law of, I think, the law of thermodynamics dynamics where it says there’s there’s neither loss nor gain of the total mass energy within the universe. That there is also another law which I’ve just made up which is called the conservation of mind. There is neither the gain or loss of mind in the universe. If we could quantify mind, it’s constant.
There are no new minds coming into existence, no old minds going out of existence. You know, the the idea of the western idea of the big bang and the big crunch, you know, from Buddhist the point of Buddha from the point of view of Buddhist cosmology. You know, this universe that we inhabit, it had a beginning, it will have an end. The big bang and the big crunch, which is current in Western thinking, is just part of a greater cycle that this process has been going on since the beginning of those times. You know, the the the crux of the proof of rebirth comes down to the question, where does mind come from?
So in answer, Buddhism asserts that the mind present at the moment of conception. Now we’re talking now each of our minds is like a continuum. If we if we can trace it back and we can practice this as a meditation, tracing it back back back from, you know, from our present mind as we have here to the mind we we walked into this room with, to the mind we had this morning when we got out of bed to the mind we went to bed bed with last night, back back back to the moment of conception. Now now the question, the whole of rebirth, the question comes down to the first moment of mind, of this life, the moment which was present the mind which was present at the moment of conception. Where did that mind come from?
Did it come from, you know, as as a did it come from did it is it an emergence product of the of the sperm and ovum from our parents? You know, is it simply arise from matter or did it have another substantial cause? Did it have another cause? Did it come from somewhere else? From the point of view of Buddhism, the first moment of mind at at the moment of conception in this life had a preceding moment of mind as a substantial cause.
That moment of mind was the last moment of mind of our previous life. So it was simply it was simply a continuum of moment of moment of mind. That moment that last moment of mind of our previous life was in a continuum of previous moments of mind, working back, back, back until the first moment of conception of that last life. And that moment of mind had a previous moment of mind, which was the last moment of the mind of the previous life. And if one necessarily can working back and back and back in infinite regression, we can never we can find no first moment of mind.
We can always find it that’s that the mind arising in dependence upon a previous moment of mind back and back and back. You know, the the the you know, we getting the sense or feeling that the the present mind rose in dependence upon today this morning’s mind, this morning’s on yesterday’s, on yesterday’s, on last week’s, last week’s, on last month’s. You know, all our predispositions, our our memories, our idiosyncrasies, our our our emotional inclinations, and all that makes us who we are, all the conditioning factors within our mind, they arose it’s not like our mind newly originates, you know, newly arises like a blank slate from moment to moment. It’s been it it has all this historic evolutionary history encoded upon it, within it. And that’s it rises in dependence upon a previous moment of that mind, the condition, what has what the the previous condition mind.
Back and back and back and back last month, last year, last, you know, ten years ago when you were a child, when you were an infant, when you were just being born, when you were in your mother’s womb, back and back until you were when you were a fetus and only a few days old, back and back an hour old, when you were just a a massive clump of cells, there is a mind which is conditioned. That mind, at the very moment of conception, had a previous moment of mind which which was also conditioned and that was the previous last moment of the previous life. So, you know, getting this sense that of a continuity of minds of which my present mind is but a part of. So we, you know, we can’t posit a first moment of mind. We can posit a the first moment of a particular state, you know, I got angry yesterday.
And it it, you know, she said this and I said that. And a particular state of mind or, you know, I really was really happy yesterday. Or we or different gross and subtle levels of consciousness when we talked about the death process, we talked about three different overall gross categories of mind in terms of course and and subtlety. The various course of subtleties, the various states of mind. But through all all of this, there is the quality of mind, a conditioned factor of clear and knowing.
And this is this continues throughout this all this great flux of states of mind, grossness and subtlety throughout the entirety of our of who we are. We talked about the fact that everything arises in dependence upon both of substantial cause and a cooperative condition. The mind does depend upon the body or more more particularly upon the the nervous system, the brain. The brain, the the the the nervous system, the body is the cooperative condition of the mind. And the the mind is dependent upon the body.
Likewise, the body is dependent upon the mind. They’re usually dependent one upon the other. You know, when we talked about the death process, we said that as the as the as the the elements begin to dissolve, that is to say, the the the bodily support basis is no longer able to support consciousness. Like, for example, the the eye sense faculty loses its capacity to act as a support for consciousness. So this, you know, therefore, the eye consciousness becomes inoperative.
That eye consciousness depends upon a physical support. That’s a cooperative condition. It’s not able to function without that cooperative condition. Likewise, the the mind is dependent upon body. You know, there there are you know, when we when we when we’re sick, when we’re ill, we can’t think clearly.
You know, if if the nervous system is damaged, the mind is impaired. The body doesn’t the body affects the mind. The nervous system, the body is a cooperative cause. Likewise, the mind is a cooperative condition of the body. The body depends upon is affected by the mind.
You know, in the case of, for example, various types of psychosomatic illnesses, stress related illnesses, like some types of ulcers and skin diseases and some types of asthma. Allergies, many types of allergies which are have a very significant psychological component. That is to say that that their states of mind are expressed in these manifesting with physical manifestations in various forms. So the mind conditions the body, the body conditions the mind. They act as cooperative conditions for one another, but they aren’t each other’s substantial cause.
So, you know, on this continuum of so there there is a there is a continuity of mind. There is a within the course of this life, there is there is continuity of body. On this combination of body and mind, we label I, self, person, all these various labels that we apply to this combination. Now because we generally, we associate the demise of the body with death and the and the eye is so strongly associated with the body, we go on to to associate death with the demise of the eye, the self. But we are not our body.
We are not our mind. We are merely labeled, designated to this basis of mind body. And just as the body can can can change dramatically over the course of our life, it grows from a small baby to to a grown adult physically. Likewise, the mind can go through various transformations and still we apply this label, continuously applying this label, I. You know, even when we were a baby, we called ourselves I.
And when were infants, we called ourselves I. And then when we were teenagers, we called ourselves I. So this I has been applied to this grossly changing body. And we even when we’re happy, we call ourselves I. We say I’m happy.
When we’re angry, we say I’m angry. So over these grossly changing states of mind, we still apply the same continuity of I. When this combination when the the connection between the relationship between body and mind is maintained by by the force of karma, by the force of our previous action. When this link, this karmic link weakens and finally breaks, then death occurs. The body returns to its elements, but the mind continues on.
It will, by the force of craving and grasping, reassociate itself with a new gross embodiment. That is to say, it will take rebirth. The mind will enter into a combination of a sperm and ovum. This reassociation, this process that we’ve been going through countless times, is what we mean by rebirth. We then go on to label eye upon that new new combination.
This I has been labeled to this combination continually. Now it’s being labeled to a new gross embodiment. If this embodiment is that of a dog, then we say I take rebirth as a dog. The I has taken rebirth as a dog. It will develop out of this because the mind is dependent upon the gross embodiment, it will be conditioned by it.
Might the body will act as a cooperative condition. Various types of appropriate conceptual and sensory consciousness will now begin to arise. We will begin to in dependence upon a dog embodiment, we will begin to develop the mentality of a dog. If it was a if it was a human embodiment, we would begin to develop more or less the types of mentalities of a human being depending upon this cooperative condition of having a human embodiment. But the substantial cause, mind, has simply continued throughout this process.
And the eye is simply being labeled, designated to this combination of grosser and more subtle types of embodiments throughout this process. The continuity of mind associating within the body, the body, the karmic connection weakens, death occurs, reassociation, karmic embodiment, karmic connection weakens, disassociation from that environment. This eye, this mind has been continuing since beginning of this time. Now just the what is the main you know, we have to be a little bit open minded in the in the sense that in the sense that no one has ever seen the nonexistence of future and past lives. It’s never been, you know, no one has said, listen, here’s here’s the nonexistence of past and future lives.
So we have to at least say say, I don’t know or there’s no there’s substantial proof either way. Now one one of them, you know, the question of rebirth comes down to where does the mind come from? According to mechanistic interpretation of life, in terms of modern neuroscience, they would assert that the substantial cause of mind is the brain, the nervous system. In other words, that that that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, the brain. Okay?
And they would say that they would justify this by saying that according to clinical and experimental evidence, there’s a connection between conscious processes and physiology of the nervous system, processes in the brain. If we have a brain contusion or if we are under anesthetic or if there is some kind of restriction of the blood supply to the brain, then and this is associated with changes of states of consciousness in one way or another. And they are quite specific. If if you you have a if you have a tumor in a particular area of your brain, there are going to be quite quite predictable distortions. You know, when they do brain surgery, you know, sometimes, you know, they’re out there in there, you know, playing around.
Oops. They went to piano lessons, you spent spent hours and hours and days and just go. Anyway, and they well, anyway, generally, they try to do their best. Right? They use drugs and neurosurgery too.
They can actually correct certain defects, predictable fashions. So but therefore, from out of this so this we met this kind of represents the main thrust of the argument of neuroscience that the brain is the substantial cause of mind, that tumors, that they can put probes into the mind and it will have predictable effects on the expressed in states of consciousness. Therefore, the brain itself is the substantial cause of consciousness or mind. So just I’m gonna stop and very soon, very quickly. Just let me I’ll just finish this off.
I say that all the time, don’t I? The logical inconsistency of this argument. If we take a television set Okay. Now the the I’m trying to the main, you know, we have to be open in a way. And the the main thrust of the argument from the point of view of current western scientific thinking, mechanistic thinking is that there are predictable effects by tumors in the brain.
If we put a probe in the brain, we create specific distortions of consciousness. We can cause various types of consciousnesses, feelings to arise, which are quite predictable, different areas of the brain. People here have different sensations of hearing if you probe different parts of the brain. These are quite predictable and therefore they say it is the brain. And given that we can we have this accuracy of prediction, then it is the the the physiology which is bring giving rise to these states, these these states of consciousness.
Okay. So that sounds good. But if we if we carry that that idea and we over into another into an analogy and we take the analogy of a television set, that the quality of the picture and the sound is is determined by is critically dependent upon the structure and of of the of the television and whether it’s functioning properly. You know? That is, you know, depending upon whether all the parts of the television are there and whether all the various parts are functioning properly.
So whether this is going to determine the kind of picture that we get and the quality of the sound that we’re going to get. If one of those parts of the television set is missing or some of the parts aren’t functioning properly, then we’re gonna get various distortions in the picture and in the sound, the quality of the television set. If you were to call a a television repair person, yeah, they could come over and, you know, they they look at they look at the television, you know, they they look at the picture, they listen to the sound. And they could diagnose what the problem is on the basis of the distortion. You know, maybe, I don’t know, maybe there’s no picture or maybe it’s it’s very dark or maybe it keeps sticking up and down or maybe there’s no sound.
There’s all these various possible distortions to the picture and to the sound. And they could they could say, ah, I know what that problem is. You’ve got a faulty thingamabob there, right behind there, and that’ll be two hundred dollars. They they could that’s what they’re trained by. They’re they’re able to diagnose the distortions and be able to tell you what is the problem and how to go about repairing it.
They could on they could they they understand that they would be that they understand that all the parts being present and functioning properly are prerequisite for getting a proper picture, proper sound, for for the television to to operate well. But they would understand that, you know, that the images and the voices that you hear do not originate from the television itself. Though they would Okay. This is the point I’m gonna try to make. Is that they would they would know that there’s to the distortions of the picture and the sound what is wrong with the television set and be able to to to make the necessary repairs, the necessary adjustments.
But they would never they would never say that the television set is the source of the images and the sound, the voices. That the television set is they wouldn’t say this but this is what they would be getting at, is a cooperative condition for the for the transmission of the proper pictures, for the proper images, and the proper voices. But the substantial cause of those images and voices is a television signal originating in some television studio, maybe fifty miles away or fifty kilometers away or wherever it is. But neuroscience would have to say in interpreting, you know, their their neurological findings, they would have to conclude that the television itself is the originating source of the images and voices. In the same way that a computer is able to generate images, you know, emanated images.
In the same way that a voice synthesizer is able to replicate human voices. Now because they they understand that by turning certain dials on the television set, you can get predictable distortions of the voice and images. Therefore, they would have to they would have to say, well, it is the television itself television set itself which is producing, which is making these, which is the original source of these images, which is the original source of these voices that I’m hearing. As if, you know, like a computer can’t generate images. You can a a computer, a voice synthesizer can replicate, can actually generate human like sounds.
And they would say that the television set must be producing the voices and images in the same way. So their error is in mistaking the cooperative condition, the television set for the substantial cause. The television signal which is coming from a studio in some distant place. So the the that even if the television set did not exist, the substantial cause, that is the television signal would remain. It would not be able to to find its full expression without that cooperative condition.
But nevertheless, it would still be present. So the notion the the point that we’re trying to get at here is that that the our human embodiment or our our our brain, our nervous system is very much like the television set. It is the cooperative condition necessary for the mind to find expression. The mind is the substantial cause. Just like the television signal coming from a different different studio is the substantial cause of finding what is played out like a program, the images and the voices.
Okay. Having some kind of sense that there is a continuity of mind, that we that our present mind did not originate simply from the our minds, our brain and nervous system, that it had a preceding cause, that we are that we are our mind at present exists in a continuity of previous moment of minds. You know, the notion of, you know, like like a wave moving across the water. Moment by moment, you know, this is changing, changing, changing, changing. You know, there’s never a moment and there’s the same same water elements carried over to the next moment.
It’s it’s constant there’s this constant carried recycling of of the of of the water, the water elements. But upon it, we we label almost a consistent notion of of a wave, like a something solid moving across the water. It’s like the wave the same wave has shifted its position from here to there. But in fact, there’s not there’s probably, you know, over over a short distance, there’s probably not one element which is of the original wave, which was here, which is then over here. There’s some kind of movement, some kind of continuity of a force moving across the surface of the ocean which is continually changing.
So likewise, this is the same notion with the quality of our mind. This continuity of the force of knowing which is which is our conditioned knowing, which has been moving since beginningless time. Moving and and and being finding expression through the our consciousness and it’s reassociating with physical embodiment. Okay. It’s getting very late.
The way so we have to tie this in. Come coming back to the point. That is to say, the mind takes re-embodiment. It reassociates itself with a gross embodiment which we call, you know, which we call rebirth, the human embodiments. This process has been going on incessantly.
Who’s whoever we may look at, whoever it might be, all the people in this room, the people that you met over the course of of of your day today, every person that you’re going to meet tomorrow has had a primary relationship with you over the course of these infinite numbers of rebirths. That they have all been had the same relationship as your mother of this present has had with you. They they, you know, they have all been your your primary caregivers at some course over these infinite number of combination of relationships. In spite of our feelings of unrelatedness to the vast majority of people in the world, each in fact has been our own mother and has raised us with the same kindness and caring as our mother this life. And the our relationships with one another aren’t static.
They aren’t limited to the present single lifetime. Every birth is a rebirth. And, you know, we’ve died to our immediate former life and we were born into this life. And we died in our immediate preceding life. And we were we were born into our immediate former life.
And this process has been going on infinitely, you know, again, from beginninglessness. You know, it’s like it’s like the the image and this is I’m gonna stop. It’s like a, you know, a a pot of stew, you know, this rolling cosmic stew, you know. One one moment, the potato is at the surface, and then the next moment, the carrot’s up there. Next time, a piece of celery’s up there.
You know, one there’s this this rolling cosmic stew that we’re all involved in, different relationships that were that are coming to the floor and then receding and manifesting and going back into time. That, you know, we have this narrow vision of the nature of our relationships but, in fact, there’s not one living being who hasn’t had this primary significance in our life of great caring and great kindness shown to us. One of the the greatest of Buddhist masters, Indian Buddhist masters who who reintroduced Buddhism into Tibet, Atisha said, he saw a horse that was injured and he screamed out, my mother, my mother. And this was the recognition of all living beings as our mothers. I’ll stop there.
Thank you for your tremendous patience. So we’ll dedicate the creative potential that we’ve accumulated. In the land encircled by the snow mountains, you are the source of all happiness and well-being. Powerful, remain until 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.