ACI 1 «Основные учения буддизма», занятие 9

Class 9: What is the Correct View of Emptiness?
Transcribed by Angie Overy
Proofread – Su Lan Foo



[cut]
Kiley, What’s it mean?
[student: the realization, laughter, realizing, unclear]
One other thing.
Last thing. Realiing the [unclear] [laughter]
Yeah, okay.
So {yang dak pa} means pure or correct. {tawa} means view; so correct view.
[student:[unclear]]
Excuse me? Yeah, that’s what we’re gonna talk about today. We reached path
number three. Since you guys have already realized renunciation and you’ve
already gained bodhicitta [laughter] we’re gonna go straight on to path number
three. [laughter]
By the way, I mean we’re doing the whole of Buddhism in six weeks right. The
idea is that for the next five years you will learn the details of what you learn in
this subject, you know. You’re gonna spend the next five years filling in this
picture. We’ll just sketch the picture and now you have to paint it, okay. {yang
dak pa tawa}
Number three is understanding emptiness. If you don’t understand emptiness
you cannot reach nirvana, you cannot become a Buddha, okay.
Nirvana is what roughly? We should’ve had [student] roughly, in ten words or
less.
[student: a state of pleasure with no suffering] [laughs] that’s not too bad.
Removing all your mental afflictions; you know all your anger, your jealousy,
desire. Removing them permanently. That’s nirvana. If you did it tonight, you
would, might not change. [student: sleep pretty well] {laughs] Yeah, yeah, you’d
sleep very well. You might not sleep at all. But that’s nirvana. You can’t reach
that without {yang dak pay tawa}, okay. Impossible. And there’s two ways of
seeing {yang dak pay tawa}. One way is with reasoning and using mental
images. We can do that pretty early. And then seeing it directly, that’s the
second way.
The second way, to see it directly, you must be in a deep state of meditation,
okay. You have to be in a very deep state of meditation. In fact, your mind is on
a different realm. It’s on the form realm. It’s in the first level of the form realm.
Your body is still here in the desire realm but your mind has to be out of this
world. It’s on a different level.
[student: when you say you can see with your mind, you mean you can
understand the concept?]
Yeah, meaning that you perceive directly. And it doesn’t mean, at that moment
you’re not thinking [student] you’re just perceiving it. Raw, pure awareness of
emptiness [student: through intellect?] No. I’m talking about number two.
[student: Yeah I was talking about number one]
Number one, yeah. You can perceive it, you are perceiving it right now, in a
very rough way [student: two different ways] Yeah, all right.
[student: unclear]] Yeah, the first one is to perceive, you could perceive any
object two ways, actually. You can perceive it with logic, reasoning, thinking, or
you can perceive it directly. Every object can be perceived both ways. There are
certain objects that you and I, if you are who you seem to be, can’t be perceived,
we can’t perceive directly. For example, you and I can’t perceive emptiness
directly if we’re in a room like this and talking to each other. It’s impossible.
And then there’s other kind of objects, that we can see colors and shapes, that we
can see directly. And then, there’s objects that we have to use reasoning. Like
you heard the phone ring. It only rang twice; it probably means that somebody
picked it up. And in your mind if you saw somebody pick it up, you just used
reasoning to perceive someone picking it up. You actually saw someone picking
it up in your mind with reasoning. It could’ve been wrong, right. It could be
that the person just hung up after two rings. Now you hear someone talking, so
with all your reasoning, with logic, you assume that someone picked up the
phone. You can’t see it so you see it with logic, with reasoning. That’s one way.
Right now, we can only see emptiness that way, but it’s valid. It’s real seeing it.
But seeing it directly is what gets you out of this kind of {korwa}, this kind of life,
suffering.
[student: what is the relationship with the form realm, formless realm and the six
realms?]
We’ll study it in the Abhidharma [student: yeah all right.] Abhidharma, third
chapter, we’ll study it. Very interesting. And it’s too long to… there’s three
realms. We live in the desire realm. It’s the lowest realm. And the first Dalai
Lama says it’s because our desire for food and sex keeps us here, and that’s why
they call it the desire realm. Mainly, our interests are centered around that kind
of objects. And then, in the form realm, they have, they still have a physical
body, but it’s a very different kind of body. And they have very pure mental,
they have a very pleasant mental state there. And that’s because they meditated
in this life, on the life before, they meditated on pleasant ideas that didn’t have,
they weren’t religious necessarily [student: the pure lands?] No. There are two
kinds of Pure Lands: one is a worldly pure land and one is an ultimate Pure Land.
Yeah, there are worldly pure lands, okay. But that’s not what we’re talking
about, okay.
So, {den-pa nyi} means, you’ve heard maybe the two truths, okay. {den-pa}
means truth, {nyi} means two. {den pa} means truth, {nyi} means two. These are
what you have to perceive to see emptiness. The first one is a preliminary to
seeing emptiness and the second one is really seeing emptiness. {den-pa, den-pa}
the word means truth. What does it mean, like [unclear] what does the word
truth mean to you?
[student: I know there’s conventional and ultimate] Yeah, but forget that. If I
just said what does truth mean? I’m a foreigner and I say, what does truth
mean?
[student: to me it’s the essence of something, unclear] Yeah, Vilma, what
[student: something that you know to be absolutely so] Yeah. And it’s opposed
to what? Truth is opposed to what? [student: as opposed to incorrect] False.
True and False. They say it all the time. True and false, okay.
The word {den-pa} that does mean truth, it’s translated as truth, but it doesn’t
mean true or false, okay. It doesn’t mean true or false. It’s not the truth in true
or false. And a lot of people when they read a book about Buddhism and hear
about the two truths, if you’re like me, I got very confused, because a truth is a
fact, right? A truth is like, “the sky is blue” and “New York is a big city”, and
those are truths. But New York, itself, is not a truth. A truth is a fact about New
York. New York is not a truth. The idea is here, that you have to understand
that, the word truth is not meant to refer to something true. Truth here is a
division of reality. You should call it the two realities.
[student:[unclear]
No, not like that. No. No. Truth is a misnomer here, okay. And in the
monastery when you get to this subject, and you will, when we debate it, the
first debate is, what are you dividing when you come up with two truths? What
are you dividing? Are you dividing truth or are you dividing existence? And the
second answer is true. You’re not dividing truth into two truths. You’re
dividing everything in the universe into this thing or this thing. So really these
are, the two truths are not the divisions of truth. They are divisions of existence.
And each of the two truths refers to the actual things. This is, this is truth
number one, that lamp is truth number one. Meaning, reality number one,
okay. The table is reality number one, my mind is reality number one, my body,
myself, Michael, is reality number one. So reality means object, okay. Truth
here means object. It doesn’t mean something true. That’s the point. And
people who read Buddhist books will always be confused. I mean, I don’t think
if you talk to a hundred people who have read about the two truths, I don’t
know if any of then understand it. Truth doesn’t mean true thing. It just means
one of the two realities. Two kinds of reality.
Yeah?
[student: Mode of existence?] Yeah [student: true mode of existence] Actually,
existence itself, reality itself. [student: the two modes that existence has, or…]
[unclear] [student: reality itself] Like, you can divide all things in the world into
permanent and impermanent. That’s one way to do it. We do that. Permanent
and impermanent. There’s about a trillion impermanent things and there’s only
three or four permanent ones, okay. [laughs] Or you can divide them into pure
or impure. All changing things are impure, except for Dharma, okay. Like that,
you can divide them that way. And, you can divide them into the two truths;
those things which are number one, and those things which are truth number
two. Meaning, reality number one and reality number two. That’s the only
thing. Be aware of that. It’s very tricky, and most people never get that far.
[student: is there analogy with the dream? I mean, meaning living life is a dream
so?] It’s coming. It’s coming right now. [student: is yang dak pay tawa, is that
correct view of emptiness or just view of emptiness?] It’s correct view and it
doesn’t have to be of emptiness. For example, you can have correct view about
karma. But in this case it refers to emptiness, right. [laughs] But I would say, no
it doesn’t, no it refers to karma also, even in this case. It always has to refer to
emptiness also, to understanding emptiness, the way things exist [student:
including everything in that [unclear]]
Here’s truth number one. Say {kun dzob} [repeat] {denpa} [repeat], {kun dzob}
[repeat] {denpa} [repeat], {kun dzob denpa} [repeat] {kun dzob denpa} [repeat],
okay. {kun dzob denpa} is what is mostly usually translated as conventional
reality, conventional truth, relative truth. I don’t like any of those words.
[laughter] No, just so you know when you read a book, you know. [student:
always comes up in translation] the word {kun dzob} is very clear, and it means
bogus, deceptive. I prefer deceptive. [student: [unclear]] Ah, yeah [laughter]
No, conventional is a synonym for {kun dzob}, but it’s not {kun dzob}. And
when you get to it as a synonym for {kun dzob} you’re in trouble if you use it
for {kun dzob} see. But that’s another story. {kun dzob} means deceptive. {kun
dzob} means bogus. I didn’t invent the bogus word; someone in the last class
came up with it, which is actually very good. We’ll call it deceptive. Deceptive
truth, deceptive truth. [student:] I’m gonna debate you about it. We’ll go
through [student: unclear, would-be truth?] You can say that too. So, Kylie, let’s
do a debate, alright. I wanna debate in the next class. I’ll start debating with you
guys in the next class. We couldn’t do it now because we’re running late all the
time. Okay {kun dzob denpa ….} How about this one? Let’s debate this.
[student: unclear] [laughter] {….} which means, you can’t tell me what you are
dividing when you divide something into the two truths. {denpa nyi… chir}
What is the, what are you dividing when you get the two truths? {denpa nyi
……chir}
[student: Perception]
Ah, In the monastery we’d say, Oh come on, [laughs] [laughter]                 Yeah,
Perception {chir chin denpa ….} are you telling me perception is, this is a
confirmation: I say, Are you telling me perception is a division of the two truths?
Perception? Is perception what you’re dividing when you get the two truths?
When you get the two realities?
[student: well, there’s two kinds of perceptions about it]
You’re only allowed to say yes or no.
[student: no]
Is perception what you’re dividing when you get two truths? Truths, think {….}
[student: perception’s what you have when you have either of the two]
{….shok} I didn’t ask you what you had, I asked you what you’re dividing.
{shok}
[student: perception]
Okay, so really the two truths is the two perceptions, {yin ba tar }
[student: yes]
Yeah? So each truth is a perception, {yin ba tar}
[student: yeah]
Truth number two, {chir chen} Let’s take truth number two. Yeah Perception
{yinbatar} Is it a perception? { yinbartar ….} Come on, let’s go. [laughter] They
would be hitting you in the head by now. [laughter]
Is truth number two a perception? Right? According to you
[student: no, I guess not] {…} [laughs] [laughter] [student] Aren’t you ashamed
of yourself? Okay, {shok} Now, can you come up with a better thing to divide
into the two truths please. {shok}
What are you dividing when you get two truths?
[student: I don’t think you can divide truth so all you can talk about is two
different ways of perceiving it]
So you’re saying truth number two is a perception? Are you dividing kinds of
perceptions when you get the two truths?
[student: I think that there’s one truth that’s perceived two ways]
Aya…Oh, good, good, good. So, you’re telling me that what you’re dividing is
the truth and it’s divided into two types depending on how you see them,
{yinbartar}
[student: No, I don’t think you can divide the truth. It’s, it’s] [students] [laughter]
What are you dividing? I mean you got, [unclear] anytime you got two of the
same thing, you’re dividing something. I mean, like cars into Chevrolets and
Fords. We got truth number one is here, truth number two is here, what are
you dividing? {yeshe …..}
[student: I think it’s called the two truths, but to me it means the one truth
perceived two ways]
Good. Okay, so it’s [student: so you’re not dividing, you’re talking about two
different perceptions of the one thing]
What you…then, you’re dividing one thing, right, into two?
[student: no, I think you’re dividing perceptions of one thing into two
perceptions. That’s what I’m saying.]
When you’re dividing, when you’re dividing, when you say there’s two kinds of
people, what are you dividing? [students: people]
People. When you say there’s two kinds of cars what are you dividing?
[students: cars]
Cars. Okay, when you’re dividing two truths what are you dividing?
[students: unclear]
Truth. Right? Truth. Then in the monastery they’ll say, {kun dzob denpa…..} If
you say that what you are dividing when you get two truths, is the truth, okay,
then {kun dzob denp chir chen…} Are you telling me it’s truth? Are you telling
me it’s true? [student: the original thing or division] No, I’m now talking about
division number one. According to you now if you filled in this thing, you said
this is true [student: It’s a kind of truth] Right, that’s all I want. It’s one of the
two divisions of truth {yin ba tar} is it? Okay. So, {kun dzob denpa chir chin …..}
Are you telling me it’s truth, it’s a kind of truth?
[student: Yeah]
Yeah, you have to say, right. Right. Then I say, {tsar kun dzob ma yin ba tar}
[laughter] This is a real debate [laughter] It’s a set-up. It’s always a set-up. I
mean in front of a thousand monks they set you up. [laughter] And then they
sneer at you, you know. Okay. {kun dzob} means fake. {kun dzob} means fake.
Fake truth { ya tar} Are you telling me that fake is true? That fakes are true?
[student: It couldn’t have come from truth if it wasn’t true} [laughs] Right, right.
So, this can’t be true, because this is fake. This is deceptive reality. [students:
[unclear]]
No, that’s what the word means. It is that. [students] [laughter] No, this is
correct.
No, it’s not true. Fake things are not true. That’s the definition of false. Is a
movie real? I mean it is a real movie, but is it, I mean when you kill some one in
a movie, does the guy really die, except for [unclear] [laughs] [laughter]
No, it’s fake. It’s made up, right? [student: then you deny, you deny your
conventional reality and then you’re in trouble] We’ll get there, we’ll get there.
What I’m saying, I’m trying to say why the translation, relative truth or
conventional truth is wrong, it’s not correct. Because otherwise that debate,
which is the first debate in the two truths and you’ll get there, that’s the first
debate. They say of course these are not divisions of truth, they are divisions of?
[student: existence] Existence. Of all things. [student: aren’t you presupposing
that self [unclear] one is completely accurate and not…truth] Oh, they are
accurate. I mean, Chandrakirti says it in the text. There’s only two kinds of stuff,
{kun dzob denpa} or the other {denpa}
So, these are divisions of existing things. And half the existing things in the
world are deceptive. [student: So really you have to prove that they’re the only
possible divisions] They are. They are, but they’re not divisions of truth they’re
divisions of reality. Half of the objects in your world are deceptive. What does
deceptive mean? What does it mean to be fake? Yeah, it looks one way but it’s
really something different. And that’s exactly the definition of {kun dzob denpa}
[student: are you saying that technically some are fake and some real or are you
saying that sentient beings perceive them in certain way and Buddhas see them
other way]
We’re getting there ,we’re getting there. {kun dzob denpa} means {kun dzob
denpa} means those objects in the world, which to us, okay that’s what [unclear]
Mr. Kylie, right, and it’s true, you have to say that, which to normal people look
different than the way they really are. They fake you out. They deceive you,
okay. They seem to be one way but they are really a different way. And that’s
what {kun dzob denpa} means.
[student: incorrect perception]
No. That object, which to a certain state of mind, appears different to what it
really is.
[student: Is perceived differently to the way it really is]
Yeah, to certain people. But it is not the perception. Perception is a mental
event. This could be a chair, this could be a city, it could be an elephant, yeah,
okay, all right.
[student: But it can’t – a chair, an elephant a city is a perception] [student] Sure,
sure, what makes it that way is a good question. But its nature is that, to the
mind of a normal person, it seems different than it is.
[student: Are you saying its nature is not dependent on the quality of our
perception?] Oh, it is. That’s what I just said. To, to a normal person, it looks
one way, but it’s really a different way. The way it looks and the way it is, is,
doesn’t fit. In Tibetan you say {Tibetan} The way it is and the way it seems to be
are different.      And that’s {kun dzob denpa} and that’s why I prefer the
translation deceptive truth, because you gotta get that debate. That debate is in
the monastery, it’s the first debate we ever do. You have to say, ‘truth which
lies’, the truth which lies. [student: then there are things which to sentient beings
are look a certain way and in fact that way. So there’s another category of
things?]
I’m glad you asked. [student:[unclear] I want you to understand that. [student:
but in that case isn’t deceptive truth is misuse of the word truth then? Why are
you’re calling it deceptive truth?] No, I want you to ask that question. [student: I
mean it’s a deceptive description] No, I want you to ask that question. [student:
it’s not truth then] The word is a misnomer; military intelligence. I mean, what
was the other one? What do you call those things? [student: jumbo shrimp]
Yeah, jumbo shirmp [laughter] Yeah, really. It’s a misnomer. It’s an oxymoron.
I want you to reach this idea, what you just had. Fake reality. Lying truth.
Truth which lies. That’s what it is. That’s why {denpa} here doesn’t refer to
truth, it refers to reality.
[student: so why don’t you call it would-be truth? I think that’s an honest way of
putting it…]
{kun dzob} by the way [student] {kun dzob} means completely, {dzok} means
fake, okay. It’s the word that’s used, for example, for the worst lying you can
do. The worst sin of lying you can do is to claim that you have certain spiritual
realizations that you don’t have. When you take your five vows for your
lifetime, which you, which you all should all think about doing, and they say you
can’t lie anymore, this is the main lying that you have achieved some kind of
level that you haven’t. That’s {tsok dzum} it’s the same root. So it means to lie,
to be fake. So, obviously truth can’t lie, so this doesn’t mean truth. It means
reality. That kind of reality, that division of reality, [student: deceptive reality] I
love that [student: that’s much better than deceptive truth] [student: deceptive
perception] but you have to say deceptive truth to catch the oxymoron, see. It is
an oxymoron even in Tibetan, even in Sanskrit. It’s a contradiction of terms, and
it we supposed to, we want you to come, they want you to fight about it and
worry about it and then you come up and say, well it can’t be truth.
Well, you’re right, it’s not truth, it’s reality, okay.
[student: is perception also accurate there? Deceptive perception?] No, it’s the
object, not the perceiver [student: but you say that there’s something that’s
….which is apparently able to be perceived differently by Buddhas and non
Buddhas. And there’s another class of objects which have some kind of inherent
quality which ….] I didn’t say that. Who said inherent? [student: well when you
say…] I never said it [unclear] Maybe you heard that. [student: is there some, is
there some self existent object that…] [student: but if it’s not something that’s
dependant of perception then it has to have an inherent quality of its own]
We’ll get there. We’ll get there. It’s a very interesting sub… I mean don’t worry,
we’re gonna debate it all tonight. We only have two classes to cover thirty
thousand pages of scripture [laughs] [student: is that number two] Yeah, this is
number two. [student: so then what you say is deceptive object there or is not
accurate either?] You could say that, but also your mind of the subject is [unclear]
is considered as an object. Object is a synonym in Buddhism for reality. [student:
say that again] Object is a synonym for reality. But you don’t have to worry
about that. You’ll get that in course number three.
Say, {dun-dam} [repeat] {denpa} [repeat], okay. Ultimate truth. {dun-dam}
means ultimate, {denpa} means truth. It is not, it is not, Oh life is suffering. That
is the ultimate truth, that’s not what it means. What does it mean? [student: a
reality as Buddha perceives it] Yeah, ultimate reality. Oh, reality as a Buddha
perceived it {yin ba tar} Are you telling me this is reality as a Buddha sees it?
{yin ba tar?} {sanghe….chir chen} How about deceptive reality which a Buddha
perceives? {dun-dam yin ba tar} Are you telling me it’s ultimate reality?
Lets talk about the deceptive reality which a Buddha perceives. Are you telling
me it’s ultimate reality? Because it’s reality as a Buddha sees it? {Tibetan yin ba
char?}
[student: He sees it as deceptive] Huh? [repeats] He sees it as deceptive {yin ba
tar} [student: Yes] As deceptive? {sangye………} Does he perceive ultimate
reality when he perceives deceptive reality? [student: yes he understands it’s
deceptive] {….. ma yin} Is the way it appears and the way it really is, match or
not? Does the way it appears and the way it really is, match or not? {….. ma yin}
[student: no]
{tsak …..} So you’re telling me what he perceives is deceptive reality and not
ultimate reality?
[student: he perceives both simultaneously]
{Tibetan} So are the way they appear and the way they really are, do they match
or not?
[student: they don’t match, they] {Tibetan} Are you telling me then, that
ultimate reality the way it seems, and the way it really is are completely the
same? Not the same, sorry. Are you telling me they’re not the same?
[student: ah] [laughs] [laughter] [student: not the same] {Tibetan} Not the
same? [student: not the same] {…} Let’s talk about ultimate reality, {Tibetan} are
you telling me the way they appear and the way they are, they don’t match?
[student: it doesn’t match]
{Tibetan} Then it’s not ultimate reality, because that’s the definition of ultimate
reality.
[student: what’s the definition of ultimate reality?]
It’s the way it appears, and the way it really is, are the same. [student: [unclear
samsara and nirvana are the same] [student: that’s the definition]
Well, that’s the description, it’s not the technical definition. [student] Sure. It’s
the reality which is the way it seems. And the other one is reality which is not
the way it seems. [student: so is number one part of number two then?]
{Tibetan} [student: two is ultimate reality and includes deceptive reality?] No it
doesn’t. Ultimate reality, the way it appears to you and the way it really is,
match. And deceptive reality, the way it seems to be and the way it really is,
don’t match. [student: it sounded like what you were saying was, does deceptive
reality and ultimate reality match? That’s what it sounded like what you were
saying] No, not at all, that’s not what I meant. No, no, I didn’t mean that.
[student: so what you’re saying then is that ultimate reality is the perception of
reality that is correct with the way it really is.] No, no, reality is not a perception.
The perception of reality is one tiny little object in that giant bag. Perceptions are
mental events [student: so in the first place is reality that doesn’t…perceived the
way it’s really is?] The reality which, to a normal person’s mind, seems one way
but is really a different way [student: but can that be anything other than the
second? That same reality that you talked about] Sure, everything in this room
is reality number one, that you can see right now. [students: it’s not reality
number two being perceived at a certain way? ] No, not at all. Not at all.
[student: it has no reality number two? Has no relationship to…]
All objects have both realities. All objects posses both realities. But all objects are
not both realities. There’s a difference between having a book and being a book,
right? In Tibetan it’s two different verbs, {yin} and {yer}. You can say, ‘I have a
book’, it doesn’t mean ‘I am a book’. All objects in the world have their nature,
their deceptive nature, and all, even emptiness has a deceptive nature. And all
objects in the world have their own emptiness, which is truth number two,
which is really reality. Every object in the world has its own emptiness, okay.
How many kinds of emptiness are there? [student: is only one] As many as
there are things in the universe, there’s that many emptinesses. Each object has
its own emptiness. [student: when we were talking about, when we were talking
about the five heaps [unclear] samsara because we don’t perceive correctly. It
seems [unclear] misconception is on us, on the perceivers. [unclear]] No, the
objects themselves, have a quality, yeah, it’s, it’s interdependent, right? They
have a quality of appearing one way to our state of mind. You want to say is the
object’s fault or our fault? [student: so samsara is both in the five heaps that are
contaminated and they’re outside reality?] We’ll get there. We’ll get there.
[laughter] This is the key to the door of liberation, come on. [laughter] [student:
so Michael if there’s that many ultimate realities, when you finally do perceive
ultimate reality I assume that the one you’re perceiving is the ultimate reality of
yourself, rather than the ultimate reality of the lamp over there?] We’ll get
there. We’ll get there. [students : can you repeat….] [laughter]
I was gonna go onto the next subject. [laughter] I thought you already realized,
you guys have got to get bodhicitta in one week [laughter] [students] All objects
also have an emptiness. Each object in the universe has two truths. [student: all
objects have both reality but, and all objects have emptiness.] No, not but. To
posses the second reality is to possess emptiness, because the second reality,
ultimate truth, ultimate reality, is another word for emptiness. The only kind of
ultimate reality is emptiness. They are synonyms. [laughter] [student: so what
about…] No the word ultimate, {don-dam denpa} and emptiness, are the same.
[student: so all objects have both, both truths, so all objects have their own
emptiness] No, I didn’t say that. That isn’t how I said it. What I said was
[student: say the whole thing again] I’ll say it again [students] though every
object in the universe posses both truths, every object in the universe has both
modes of reality. [student: so when you’re…][laughter] No but [students]
Okay, right, right, right, right, I’ll just say [unclear] [students] [laughter] You’re
right, you’re right.
Every object in the universe has both realities but they are not, they are not both
realities. What I mean to say is, Laura possesses emptiness but she is not
emptiness. Emptiness is a negative, eternal thing. We wish she was an eternal,
positive thing [laughs] actually, she is a positive, uneternal thing [laughs]. She’s
gonna die, probably, unless she does some good practice. So, that’s not, what I
mean to say is, you can have emptiness and not be emptiness.
John Stillwell has emptiness, but that doesn’t mean to say he is emptiness. If you
were emptiness you would be, well for one thing we couldn’t see you. [laughs]
[laughter] [student: what’s the distiinction? Why, why…] We’ll talk about that.
[student: to say that the chair [unclear]] Just what I said. I [student] I have a pen,
that doesn’t mean, Michael has a pen but Michael is not the pen. You have
emptiness but you are not the emptiness. Emptiness is sitting on you. [students]
Every object shares the quality of being empty. Every object in the universe is
empty, but it’s not true to say that every object in the universe is emptiness.
[student: what there is th]n? What are you] I mean you’re here, you’re [unclear]
[student: So you don’t mean…[unclear] two different things. [unclear] are you
talking about two different things or are you talking about two different side of
a same thing or two different facets of the same thing?] [laughter] [student] No,
two different things. [student: can we say object has to…] Truths [student: two
truths mean number one and number] Yeah. [student: okay] Why, why do I
have the first truth? Why does Michael have the first truth? Why do I have
deceptive truth? Because to you it seems that I exist outside of your mind.
When you look at Michael you think I’m out here and you’re over there, and I’m
not just something in your mind, to put it easily. That’s the first truth. I’m
deceiving you. I’m tricking you. I look like I’m out here, but really, I’m just an
object in your mind. That’s an easy way [student: that’s not you. That’s the
mind], that’s an easy way to explain the first way, okay. An easy way to explain
the second one is, Michael is empty because he’s not, not something in your
mind. [students: he’s what?] I’ll put it easier [laughter] Michael is a double-
negative. Emptiness is a double-negative, but I’ll put it a little bit easier. Michael
is empty because he’s not what you thought, okay. He’s not what you thought.
Why is, why is Michael deceptive truth? Why does Michael have deceptive
truth? Michael seems to be outside of your mind, but Michael is not outside of
your mind. That is my deceptive truth. I have that deceptive truth. In fact, I am
deceptive reality. [student: and emptiness what?] My emptiness is I’m not the
way you thought I was. I’m not what you thought.[students] That’s my
emptiness. [students] The first thing is positive, the second thing is negative.
[students] because, you don’t even understand either truth about me. Right
now, you don’t even understand either one, okay. You don’t even see my
deceptive reality much less my emptiness. When you perceive my ultimate
reality, you’ll become an Arya, you’ll perceive directly.
But right now, you don’t even understand how I exist in a deceptive way, you
don’t understand that. When you perceive that, you’re already on step number
two, you’re already on a very high state. You don’t even know that I’m
deceptive. You’re, you’re in this limbo where you don’t perceive either truth.
[laughter] And there’s a big debate in the monastery, okay {kun dzob denpa ma
….} So is it true that you’ve, let’s say you are who you seem to be okay, {kun
dzob denpa ma ..} I don’t know that you’re not a Buddha so that’s why I have to
say that. Let’s assume you are just a plain old student in this class, {kun dzob
denpa ma ..} Is it true that you do not perceive deceptive reality? [unclear] We’re
not even, forget emptiness which is perceiving truth number two, we can’t even
see truth number one, {yin ba tar} Huh? {Tibetan}
  You don’t perceive yellow?
 [student: I perceive it but it’s deceptive]
 {Tibetan} Then you have perceived truth number one? Are you on a very high
stage like stage number two bhumi?
[student: No…]
[t Yes or no? Have you perceived the first reality?
 [student: No, no]
 {Tibetan} Are you telling me you have not perceived the first reality?
 [student: yes]
{Tibetan} We don’t see the yellow? What’s the matter with you? [laughter]
{Tibetan} Do you see yellow or not?
[student: Yes]
Yes. {Tibetan} Then you perceive deceptive reality. It seems to be yellow out
here and it’s really just yellow in your mind. {Tibetan} So you do perceive
deceptive reality.
[student: I perceive the yellow]
I didn’t ask that. [laughter] Do you perceive [unclear] [student: how do I know
it’s deceptive? I don’t know it is deceptive unless I know what the ultimate truth
is of it]
Oh, I’ll just tell you. It exists in your mind and not out here. {Tibetan} [laughter]
[unclear]
No, the point is this [laughter] I mean think about, listen okay, carefully. This is
{kun dzob denpa}. This yellow color is deceptive reality. It is a deceptive reality,
one example of deceptive reality. And she does see the yellow but she answered
correctly that doesn’t mean I have perceived deceptive reality as deceptive
reality. See in the monastery you have to say that { kun dzob denpa …..} I did
perceive deceptive reality but I didn’t perceive deceptive reality as deceptive
reality. [students]
Very high state. [students] No, no, sometimes before that.[student: at least
intellectually] Intellectually, for sure. [student: so you’re making two divisions of
deceptive reality, two kinds of separate reality, is that what you’re saying?] Of
deceptive reality? Yeah, in a way. You are seeing deceptive reality all the time,
but you don’t know it’s deceptive reality. All you eyes, in fact, that’s the only
reality you’ve ever seen, if you are whom you seem to be. [student: [unclear]
you’re in that illusion if you attribute to yourself a reality because that
perceiving….] [unclear] [students] If I hit you on the head is that reality?
[laughter] You have to be careful, you have to be careful. We’ll get there. We’ll
get there.
Okay. {ten-drel} [student: Michael going back to the two truths and the meaning
of [unclear] the word truth, if you’re saying that this is the way that ultimate
reality exist, the two ways in which reality exist, isn’t that essentially saying
there’s the truth about the way in which reality [unclear] ] It is in a sense. It is in
a sense. But what I’m trying to say is this is {kun dzob denpa}the shirt is {kun
dzob denpa} and, and it’s hard. I mean in the monastery if some one doesn’t
explain it to you clearly you can go six months and not catch it. This is {kun dzob
denpa}. It’s not truth, what I mean is it’s not a fact, it’s not a truth, it’s not a
statement ‘this is this’. It’s an object. And you’re seeing {kun dzob denpa} all the
time. [students] [unclear/ stop?] to think, the object is {kun dzob} [student: but
isn’t it also ultimate truth? If I were a Buddha then wouldn’t it be ultimate truth
when I look?] No, it’s not. No it’s not true. It has, the Buddha will see its
ultimate truth directly and the Buddha can see it at the same time. [student: oh I
see, it has ultimate truth but it’s not ultimate truth] This ain’t, ultimate truth is
not being the way you thought it was. That’s what ultimate truth is. Ultimate
truth is, I say again, not being the way you thought it was. That’s a negative.
Can you see a negative? Can you see the absence of an elephant in this room?
[student: sure] Not with your eyeballs. No you cannot see an elephant [student]
I mean it’s a concept. It’s, it’s [student: it’s an abstract] yeah, it’s an abstract.
What I’m saying is that emptiness is an abstract. You cannot perceive it the way
you perceive a [unclear]. It’s a negative. It’s an absence of something. And
there’s a school, in Tibetan Buddhism, which is pretty strong, which does not
state that, and it’s wrong, and it’s very bad.
[student: doesn’t state what?]
It’s called { janumba} and it’s pretty prevalent sometimes. They say somehow
emptiness, I mean even the word emptiness is listed in the Tibetan grammar
books as a negative particle, along with not, un, in, and that’s a different story.
{student: what is it, what is it that they do, [unclear]] It’s a long story. We’ll get
there in year number three. Very interesting.
{ten drel} this is the word they translate as ‘dependent origination’, that which
occurs through dependence and relations, but I don’t want to get into that
[student: so is {ten} dependant? {drel} origination? ] No not like that and I don’t
want to [unclear] literally, but meaning [unclear]
{ten-drel} is a way of explaining the deceptive reality of things. This is a way of
explaining the deceptive reality of things, the positive nature of all things around
you. {ten-drel} dependent origination, is a way to explain the deceptive reality
that all things have. [student: are you, I’m sort of getting an implication that this
is positive aspect of …negative…] This is the positive stated negatively what?. It
is deceptive; stated negatively what? I just stated it positively: it is deceptive.
You state it negatively. It’s not what you thought, okay. [laughs] That’s it.
That’s all. The first thing is dependent origination, the second thing is emptiness.
It’s not what you thought, it’s emptiness. Positively stated it’s deceptive, it’s
dependent, and they’re the same thing. You’ll see why. [student: are you saying
the first and second truths [unclear] ] No, no. This refers to truth number one,
this is how truth number one works. Truth number one and dependent
origination are the same thing. That’s why it’s not so bad to call it conventional
truth or relative truth, dependent truth. Dependent origination is very famous
in Buddhism, okay. It’s one of the most famous ideas in Buddhism. There are
sutras called ‘dependent origination’. There are sutras where all the Buddha says
is, there’s a long introduction, the Buddha came and sat down, he folded his
arms, put his leg here, he arranged his robe, every one bowed down, every one
sat down, and they asked him a question: what is dependent origination? And
he said, if this comes, that one occurs. If that comes, this occurs. Thank you.
Goodbye. [laughter] And that’s just a sutra that doesn’t consist of anything
more than that. He says, if this happens, that’ll happen. If this occurs, it will
trigger that. Dependant origination, bye that’s all. Now we explain it, okay.
Now, we explain it. [student: explain what?] dependent origination. What does it
mean when he says, if this happens, that happens? It’s the lowest way to explain
it, is cause and effect, okay. [laughter] The lowest schools explain it as meaning
cause and effect, okay. The lowest three schools, okay. How many schools are
there? When we say school, by the way, don’t think that I’m talking about the
four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. You know, Nyingma, Sakya, Gelugpa,
kagyupa. Those are not, when I’m talking about schools, I’m not talking about
the four traditions that have existed in Tibet for a mere twelve hundred years or
so. I’m talking about the four schools that started in India with Nargajuna back
in two hundred AD, okay. We’re talking seventeen hundred years ago. We’re
talking about the four great schools of India. They are roughly, the lowest
school, I’ll use this word, Abhidharmists.
 [Student: I would assume those four schools corresponded to the four lineages]
 Not at all, No. No, no, no. No connection at all. It’s just people get confused.
[student: how does this correspond…other words for them [unclear] ]
Vaibashika. Vaibashika, Citta[unclear]
[student: cittamatra?]
 No, no that’s a different one Vaibashika means those that talk about different
things and it comes from a book that they used to study called, ‘The Different
Things’. That’s what the ‘vaibash’ means; ‘bash’ means, well, long story, okay.
Basically, you can think of them as Abhidharmists. They follow the Abhidharma.
We follow the Abhidharma too, but that’s their main school.
Second school is, I’ll call it the Logic school, okay. I’ll call it the Logic school just
for simplicity, okay. The real word is Sautrantika. Now, to understand the name
of the second school is Sanskrit but you don’t have to worry about it I’m just
doing it for her. They believe in sutra, as we all do. I call them sutrists [student],
but in Sanskrit, when you make an adjective, the ‘u’ changes to ‘au’, so it’s
Sautrantika. [student: oh okay.] And that’s a good way to remember it because
a lot of people mix it up with Svatantrika which comes later. Sautrantika. It’s
called [unclear] in Sanskrit when you strengthen a vowel. Sautrantika. You
don’t have to worry about it. I’ll call it Logic school. These two schools are, any
body can guess? Kylie? Hinayana.
School number three. [student:Cittamatra] Yeah, Mind-Only. Cittamatra. Also
called Yogachara. [student: oh there’s [unclear] ] Two words for the same
school, although that same word can be used to apply to certain lower
Sautantrikas, and I won’t get into it [laughs] okay. School number three.
School number four. [students] Madhyamika. Madhyamika. [student: and you
have the two divisions of the Middle Ways] Yeah, we’ll get there. Madhyamika.
This is an ‘h’ okay, sorry. Madhya, means middle. It came into Latin and it came
into English as medium. And middle, itself, comes from ‘madhya’. Most English
comes ultimately from Sanskrit and it’s fun to study it. It’s a lot of fun to study
all the Sanskrit roots in English. We could do that some day if you want. I’d like
to revive debating in Sanskrit. [laughter] [student: you will be a very popular
guy] We know, we know. In fact, I’ll tell you something, Tibetan’s are closer to
the correct pronunciation than modern scholars are. [student: Of Sanskrit?]
Yeah. People make fun of it, I mean, my Sanskrit professors, you know, was the
most brilliant…..he was taught by [unclear] who wrote all the books, and he
said, it’s not ‘raja’, it’s ‘raza’. And he showed us why in poetry it had to be that
way, how he had figured it out. And he didn’t even know that the Tibetans
pronounced it ‘raza’, you know. The Tibetans have a ‘j’, why did they choose ‘z’?
Why didn’t they choose the ‘j’, they have a ‘j’. Why didn’t they say ‘raja’.
Because, it’s not ‘raja’. And even in Indian now, they don’t say ‘raja,’ they say
‘raza’. [student: [unclear]] They’re correct. We don’t know how Sanskrit was
pronounced twelve hundred years ago in Bengal. Could be the Tibetan’s are
pronouncing it perfectly according to what, you know, I mean, hundred years
from know, some scholar could say {ten-drel} is all wrong, it’s read [unclear] and
then he would be wrong [unclear] but that’s another subject, okay. [laughter]
[student] [laughter]
Svatantrika, okay. Svatantrika. A lot of people mix this up with Sautrantika.
And our teacher pronounces them both pretty much the same [laughs], okay.
Svatantrika. And the tantra here doesn’t have anything to do with the secret
teachings of the Buddha. It has nothing to do with tantra, it’s a separate meaning
of the word. It refers to a special kind of reasoning that they believe in and you
don’t need to get into it. You’ll study it. It refers to a kind of logical statement
that they use. By the way, this is not, well it’s on your homework in a way.
[laughs] I almost said it wasn’t on your homework.
[student: What does Abhidharmist refer to?]
They study a category of literature called Abhidharma. And Abhidharma means
knowledge. It means knowledge. Vaibashika. But Abhidharma, if you want to
know what it means, it means knowledge.            {Tibetan} Do they other schools
believe in knowledge? Of course. Do the other schools believe in logic too? Of
course. That’s just the name of the school, okay.
Prasangika is the highest, yeah it’s called Consequence or I like to call it
Implication. When I said to Kylie, ’Oh then I guess fake reality is true? If he had
said, he didn’t say clearly, if he had said, truth is what you divide into the two
truths. And I say, Oh so I guess deceptive truth is true right? Just that sarcasm is
a prasangika. That’s what a prasangika is. It’s a form of logic. It’s a sarcastic
rejoinder. If he says the sky, if he says everything in the world is blue and I say,
oh I guess oranges are blue? That’s a prasangika. That’s a {tengyur}. Why are
they called that? Because, they believe that if he says to me, Oh things aren’t
empty. All I have to say to him is, Oh well I guess they don’t depend on
anything. I’ll repeat it. If he says to me, things aren’t empty and I say, oh I guess
they’re not dependent on anything, it’s supposed, according to the Prasangika,
he can perceive emptiness on just that statement. I don’t have to sit there and
say, no, no, things are empty, look they have to be dependent you know
[laughter] [unclear] sarcasm, [student]
Yeah, according to the Prasangikas, it’s possible to generate in the opponents
mind, the perception of emptiness through a prasangika statement, through a
sarcastic rejoinder.
[student: so, are you saying that tone and attitude is part of the logic in a
debate?]
Oh sure. There’s a {Tibetan}, eight forms of logical statements, and not so much a
sarcasm but a ridiculous implication of your position, which if you thought about
it for twenty seconds you’d realize. When I say, Oh, then I guess nothing
depends on anything else, they’re not empty right. And they say, oh yeah, if it
depends on something it’s empty. [students] I just explained it. It doesn’t mean
sarcasm per se; it means a ridiculous implication of your position. And once I
point out to you the ridiculousness of it, you will change. And it’s just a form of
logic. It’s just a form [student: you’re taking it to its logical extreme when it
becomes absurd], right, it’s, logical, absurd conclusion, right exactly. That’s what
prasangika means. It’s not a very important point. I mean it’s not that the
whole schools hinge on this, it’s just why they’re named what they’re named.
It’s nice to know why they’re called prasangika. It’s not a big thing that people
spend years about. [student: does that mean that you just have a particular
attitude of you [unclear]] [laughter] No, it’s been accepted since the beginnings
of Buddhism. This is the way we learn. And if I could get you out of books and
into debating, you would learn ten times faster, and we’ll get there. You’ll never
forget what you hear in a debate. You’ll never forget what you screwed up in
front of a thousand monks. [laughter] I can tell you all the ones I’ve done. I can
tell you all the debates where the guy made a fool of me. It works.
Okay, now these three schools. Oh by the way, these two are, all these are
Mahayana. I remember Jeffery Hopkins explaining this to us in 1973 or
something. Jeffery Hopkins came to the library when I was a beginning student
and he went through this in about ten minutes [unclear] [laughter]
All right, those two schools are, I mean, these two halves of the fourth school
and the third school are both Mahayana. [student: [unclear]] Excuse me?
[student]
No, these two are hinayana, and these two, and this is to, these are gonna be
position number one. Think of these as group number one. These are schools,
now I’m talking groups.
Group number one has three schools in it. Those three schools are all in one big
group. [student: but no name] She asked for it; I wasn’t gonna give it to you.
[laughter] No, you have to know this by the way. I ask you a question: how
many things in the world have a function? Everything. Everything does
something. It’s a synonym for ‘thing’, almost, except for certain objects like
space. Space don’t do nothing. Space just sits there; place. It’s just there.
There’s a debate in the Arbhidharma, okay. It’s in the first, you hit it right on the
head. Somebody says that in the Abhidharma Kosha; it’s one of the bitterest
debates in the Abhidharma. Of course it’s based on something; where do you
think this thing is sitting? This space is giving it a place to be. [laughter]
[cut]

Side B
[student: Michael if what you say is true about deceptive reality then would it
mean that everything a function, everything appears to have a function?] Well,
we’ll get there. Lots of [unclear] all right.
So, Functionalists are these three schools, and what they believe, they’re called
Functionalists for a certain reason, and I’m not going to go into it. I’m not gonna
go into it. It’s too much to digest for now. It’s not the point tonight. Anyway,
those three schools believe, okay, why are they called Functionalists? They
believe that anything in the world that performs a function, truly exists.
Anything in the world that does something, truly exists. And they’re wrong, but
that’s why they’re called Functionalists, okay. [laughs] [student: what the
meaning of…]
They mean, function means something that does something. Like, this pen
functions to write, and nurses function to help people who are physically
[student] handicapped. [unclear]
These people believe that if something does something, if something works to
do something, it really exists. It truly exists. [student: so what according to them
is empty] ‘Cos they have a different idea.
No, no, it’s different. The word ‘truly’ by definition, inherently, they all have
different, grossly different meanings in different schools. And that’s a big study,
you have to learn that.[student: what do you mean truly exists?]
Ah, later. [laughs] What does it mean truly exists? Does this truly exist?
[student: truly exist? No.] Of course it truly exists. Yeah, truly, it’s truly here isn’t
it? [student: so you mean how it looks and …] That’s a different story, yeah,
yeah. But, according to them, these things truly exist. If it works, it truly exists.
But that’s not what I, it’s not what I want to talk about. I didn’t want to talk
about it. [student:[unclear]] We’ll get there. We’re getting there, hang on.
They’re Functionalists. Those three schools. Why did I talk about these schools?
Why do I even bring up this first group? Group number one says, that
dependent origination means things depend on their causes. Things depend on
their causes. Group number one all say things depend on their causes and that’s
what dependent origination means. [student: Can you give an example?]
Yeah, I mean, talk about the pen. Is it dependently originated? Is it dependent?
[student: Yeah] Why? Now, suppose you’re a functionalist, suppose I say, okay
I come up and ask you, {pen chir chen} is a pen dependent? Does the pen
depend on something? Yah, {shok} On what? [student: on materials that it’s
made out of] Yeah, fine. Or more, more…according to them, on the factory that
made it, on the person who designed it, the things that came before. Be careful
about parts, okay. They’re not causes. On the things that came before it that
brought the factory, the water, the coloring, the plastic, the people who designed
it, the people who sold it. It depends on it’s causes. According to them, that is
the dependence of this pen. According to them, then, what would its emptiness
be? What’s a negative way of saying it depends on its causes? [students] Yeah,
it don’t just happen by itself. It doesn’t just happen by itself. According to them,
that’s a kind of emptiness, that’s its emptiness. [student: But not the parts
though] We’re getting there, okay. But if I said, look this pen didn’t just come
here by itself. It didn’t just happen by itself, it had causes. When I say it didn’t
come here by itself that’s emptiness. It’s emptiness, according to them. And
when I say, look it had causes, that’s its dependence. That’s its dependence. It’s
an expression of its deceptive reality, okay. That’s its positive nature. It came
from something. Positive; dependent origination. [student:[unclear]] It didn’t
come from nothing. Well, when you get into causes, there’s five kinds, and it’s a
long story. Chapter two, Abhidharma,okay. [laughs] Fourth year, right,
actually, fifth. I am, in a sense, according to the Abhidharmists, because I’m not
[unclear] its continued existence. They have a cute thing in the Abhidharma; it
says the goddam [unclear] is helping me if it just leaves me alone. [laughs]
[student:[unclear]]
It didn’t come from, it is a position of Buddhism. It is a position of a Buddhist
school, of actually, three Buddhist schools. Is it correct? Partially. [student:
you’re talking about different definition of dependant origination.]
Yeah, and the way Pabongka describes them, in the Tibetan, he says, here’s the
position of the first three schools, here’s the position of the first Madhyamika
school which is a little better than the first one [laughs] That implies that the first
one is not too hot. And then, when he gets to Prasangika, he says, and this one
is even more subtle, which implies that the first two are not wrong, just less
subtle. So, in the Tibetan, he’s very subtle about it, okay.
Anyway, in general, don’t ever think of yourself as denying the lower schools.
They are hinayana for example, is a building block on which we grow, you
know. If you could reach hinayana motivation, god bless, you know. It’s like a
million light years from [unclear] true renunciation, if we have that…you know
thanks I will be an Abhidarmist, I will be quite happy. Okay group number two
and then we’ll take a break. Group number two is has how many schools in it?
It’s a trick question. Half. Who said half? Good. I asked that in the last class and
it took them ten minutes to figure it out. [laughs] okay. It’s half a school. Half of
the Middle way school is group number two. In the book, I call them the
Independents. [student: Are you saying that the Sautantrikas are part of group
one?] No, they’re not. That’s where the line it stops. Here’s group one. First
three schools are group one. And group two only consist of half a school. Yeah,
the lower half of the last school. The lower half of the fourth school is group
number two, for purposes of what? Explaining how people explain dependent
origination. They say, group number two, which is who? Independent part of
the Middle Way school. The independent section of the Middle Way school.
They say, you lower three schools, you got it wrong, okay. If you say
something is dependent because it comes from its causes, then how do you
establish the dependence of emptiness? How do you establish the dependence
of space? Things which have no causes? Do you say they don’t exist? Do you
say they don’t depend? Do you say they don’t have their own deceptive reality,
which we all say they have to have, right? [student: so then they say, well what
about things with no causes? And what are things which has no causes?] Right,
right, right. I just gave you the only two I can really think of [laughs] They’re
very, in the Arbhidharma in the first chapter, it says, look if you want the things
with causes look around you: everything. If you want the things without causes,
you’re gonna have to sit down and meditate for a long time to find the only two
or three or four that there are, okay.          I’ll give you a clue. I mean, things
without causes exist, they exist. They are negatives. They’re all negatives. The
fact that New York is not Chicago, is permanent. The fact that New York is not
Chicago is an uncaused thing. [student: what about the fact that New York is not
New York?] [laughs]
[student: is it the same category as things that bare changing and unchanging?]
Yes, you can say that too. The fact that New York is not Chicago will never
change, it will never vary.
Will it end?
Yes.
Is permanent and impermanent a very good English word?
I don’t think so. It’s too late to change it. [laughs] [student: is that what’s
usually…?] Yeah, usually translated that [unclear] [student: unchanging and
unchanging] I used to have the bitterest debates with people about that. I gave
it up because it’s all, you’re not gonna change the books [student: so it’s group
number two…?] When Chicago and New York end, the fact that Chicago and
New York will [unclear] [student:[unclear]] is what you translate.            It is
unchanging. It never varies up to the moment it stops existing.
All right. So, group number two says, we have a better way to explain
dependence. [student: So, things without causes are permanent?] Right. Same
thing. Same thing.
So, group number two says to group number one, the way to explain
dependence is, John now you get your chance, what you guessed. [John: it’s
dependent on its parts] Yeah, dependence means, everything depends on its
parts.. Dependence means things exist because they depend on their parts.
[student: so what are they saying? They saying that things that are permanent
and unchanging don’t have any parts?] Oh, no, they say they do have parts.
According to them, now I have people, people have trouble when they get to
this point, but space has parts, emptiness has parts. All things have parts. Space,
according to the Buddhist scriptures, has parts because it consists of the four
directions. You can divide space into the four directions. [student: now is it
something that all the schools believe or is just the Svantantrika school?] All
schools believe that space has parts. [student: and emptiness has parts?] Sure. I
don’t think so. In fact, the lower schools don’t even use the word emptiness,
they use ‘no self’, and you’ll get into it. The big difference between all these
things and you don’t know them yet, take a long time. okay.
So, they say that something, things exist because they depend, Kylie? [student:
the second school says, things exist…] Group number two [student: because they
depend on their parts] And what does the first group say? Things exist because
they? [student: have a function] No. Because they depend on their causes.
Things exist because they depend on their causes, according to the first group.
Second group, things exist because they depend on their parts, [student: on their
parts] {student: are you saying they exist because they depend on their parts
or…] yes, through depending on their parts, by way of depending on their
parts. You could say because. And, group number three, we’ll do after the
break because you need [student: a break] [laughter] a fresh mind for that one.
[laughter] That’s the highest one and that’s a little hard. [laughter]
[student: Michael is there any correlation between the hinayana and Mahayana,
[unclear] philosophical schools and hinayana and Mahayana, is there a
corresponding correlation between like motivation of a hinayanist and
motivation of mahayanist is dependant of that philosophy?] Partly, partly. Like,
according to them, the distinctions between hinayana and Mahayana, depend on
how you perceive emptiness [unclear] According to them that’s all wrong,
[laughs] but that’s another story.
This is the third group’s position. Who is the third group? The higher part of the
last school. The higher part of the Middle Way school, okay. This group here.
We call them Implication in your homework, oops, I let it out. [laughter]
Implication school. Implication means, ‘oh are you telling me oranges are blue?’
That’s the implication of him saying, ‘everything is blue’. Consequence is a
good, is a good, it’s a good translation. I like it also. Not bad. Yeah, all right, you
can use this one. [student: Svantantrika, is that called the independent school? Is
the name it is?]
Okay, {ming-de tak-tsam} {tsam} means ‘just’, just; {tak} means ‘labeled’; {ming}
means ‘with a name and a thought’. [student: what does {de} mean?] That’s
what the {ming} means?
According to the highest school, things exist because they depend on you calling
them what they are. They depend on you thinking of them as what they are.
Let’s put it into one sentence. They exist because they depend on you calling
them and thinking of them as you do. They don’t exist, what’s their negative
nature [unclear]? They don’t exist, what’s their emptiness really? [student: their
emptiness is their lack of name or label] Good, good.             The lack of existing
without a name and a label. [student:[unclear]] Yeah. They do not exist outside
of your mind, your calling them what you do, your thinking of them as you do.
That’s their emptiness. [student: you’re saying that things do not exist outside of
your mind?] Outside of the way you think of them. {student: but outside of the
mind will be more [unclear]]Right, well [unclear] that’s another story. [student:
so your thought is the thing as opposed to some [unclear]entity out there?]
We’ll talk about it. [student: thinking [unclear]]
What it means is this: when you perceive a pen, okay, you are perceiving a long,
red, roundish thing, okay. You are perceiving a red, long, roundish thing, al
right. When you are concentrating on the length of it, the longness of it, you
cannot be perceiving the pen. You’re focussed on something long. You’re
focussed on longness. When you perceive the redness, you can’t perceive the
pen, it’s impossible. When you perceive the pen, you cannot perceive its length.
You cannot be concentrating on a single unit, a single part of it. It’s impossible
that you are seeing this pen. [student:[unclear]]
You are seeing some red, you are seeing some long, you are seeing some round,
in fact, you’re not even seeing all of it. You can’t see behind here. You can’t see
the back. If I told you the back was green [student: is the inference based on
your …perceptions as that something]
You’re seeing a few parts, you’re seeing a few clues, and you make a mental
perfect pen and you call that ‘pen’. In your whole life, you think there’s this
perfect pen out there and there’s not. You’re seeing parts and mentally you are
unifying them and calling them ‘pen’. But, they can’t exist that way. There can’t
be a pen like that. [student: [unclear]] It’s very similar and Jung and all that
okay, I mean, very similar. You are perceiving, not a pen, you are perceiving
your mental image of a pen. You can’t be perceiving a pen. And that argument
is difficult, okay. If you’re looking at the length, you can’t be perceiving the pen.
If you don’t look at the length you can’t see the pen. If you’re looking at the pen
you can’t be seeing the length. It’s impossible what you’re doing. Why? What’s
really going on, you’re seeing a mental image. You don’t know there’s a back
there. You don’t know that this dot doesn’t go on for infinity. And you don’t
know that this is not the rounded front of a thin wall that goes, you make
assumptions. [student: so is there an argument that takes place it says, you can’t
perceive its length and it’s pen-ness at the same time. So therefore since you
must perceive its length, in order to perceive it being then you can’t be
perceiving its pen-ness] No, you cannot, right. [student] yeah, yeah, when you
see its length. What you’re doing is an impossibility. That’s one of the proofs for
emptiness. We’ll get on, yeah. [student: aren’t you doing something else at the
same time? Aren’t you segrating parts because we also see a hand that’s holding
up the round-ness and so forth] Yeah, right. [student: so we’re taking all the
parts that we consider not to be pen putting them one side; taking all the parts
that we consider to be the pen put them on the other and then making
assumptions based on that]         This is a thing called {shing tsel} it’s called the
[unclear] and it’s one of the greatest teachings in Buddhism and western
philosophers are crazy about it. And you study that in the Pramanavartika.
What you just described, it’s a long story. It comes in the fourth year, okay. No,
no. It’s a long story. It’s not appropriate here. The way in which you make a
mental image is very closely tied to what you just said, and it’s a beautiful subject
and it’s deep. You know, you debate it for fourteen, fifteen hours a day, one
month out of a year and we have never reached the second chapter yet. It’s an
incredible book. [student: and [unclear] jumping around because the same object
then becomes part of a desk then, as well if…] Yeah, long story. The whole
thing is very deep and very interesting and we’ll spend a lot of time on it if you
get that far. Fifth year probably.
So you can’t see the pen, the pen can’t be as you think it is. The pen is really,
{ming-de tak tsam} [student: so this position is more refined than the other two?]
Yeah, in fact, that’s exactly the way [unclear] Pabongka refers to it. He says, this
idea of what dependent origination means, is the most subtle.. And it is the
correct one. I mean, this is the one that Nagarjuna had. This is the position of
Shakyamuni Buddha, okay [laughs] that’s good enough. Shakyamuni Buddha is
what, which of the four schools? He taught all four, but what is he? He’s a
Prasangika, please.       Anybody who perceives emptiness is automatically a
Prasangika [student: according to the…?] according to the Prasangikas [laughs].
It’s also true. It has to be true. [student: it has to be true, spoken by a true…. I
thought it was just label [unclear]]
[John: so Michael this idea that [unclear] mentioned when you see the pen-ness
of that you’re not seeing its parts, what you’re seeing parts you’re not seeing it
pen-ness?]
By the way, I want to talk one more thing, I’m sorry to interrupt there, but there
will come a day in your Dharma practice, if you study well and if you meditate
daily, that you’ll be standing at a stove, for example, and you’ll be looking at the
pot, and you just got through studying some Buddhist perception theory, and
you’re staring at the pot, and you will see directly, you will see with absolute
clearness, that you’re not looking at a pot. That you are looking at your mental
image of a pot. That there is no pot out there; that you are looking at a mental
image. Your mind is focussed on itself in a sense and not on a pot out there. On
that day you have, for the first time, understood deceptive reality, directly. You
live in deceptive reality. Everything you see is deceptive reality. On that day, for
the first time, you understood its nature. That comes a few hours before you
perceive emptiness directly [student: it’s like the world…] and things start
popping. Things start booming. [student: [unclear]] You perceive that there is
no conventional [student:[unclear]] for the first time, you see, no, the first time
you see directly that it is only your name and your mental image of a few parts,
put on a few parts, and at that moment you have achieved the highest levels of
the second path of the five paths –{jor lam chu chok}. And then you go, you go
to your room or you go to the temple, you sit down, you enter deep meditation
and you see emptiness directly. That’s what happens. And that whole process is
called ‘heat’. You know, levels are called {…chu chok} the four levels are, you
know, you start to get hot. Your mind starts to ‘pop’ because it’s the first time
you’ve seen what deceptive reality is. And then suddenly, in maybe half an hour
later, you perceive emptiness directly. That has to be done sitting down in deep
meditation. And then you are, when you come out, you see Buddha; you see
how many future lives you have to go, seven for example; you see your past
lives directly; you see all these objects. And from that moment on you can’t
doubt anything anymore. In fact, the thing that you give up permanently when
you see emptiness directly, is doubt about Buddhism. You will never doubt it
again. And it doesn’t matter what anybody tells you in your whole life after
that, ‘cos you saw Buddha directly. You also have one side realization, that
you’re not crazy and you’re not hallucinating and that this is reality. And it’s
unbelievable. Then you have nothing, you have no normal fears or, or worries
after that. And you can’t do certain bad deeds after that. For example, you can’t
commit sexual misconduct after that, adultery. There’s certain things you cannot
do after that, that’s the [student: you’re not able or you’re not allowed?] no, you
can’t, you will never, because of your realizations. You see the Buddha. So
people come and debate with you, Christianity, Judaism, blah, blah, blah. I have
seen a Buddha directly, don’t tell me about that. Future lives? I saw my future
lives. I know I have seven lives to live and I know I will be a Buddha, and they
won’t call him Michael [laughs] so don’t tell me, I don’t care, you know. You can
tell me anything. I don’t have this doubt anymore. I don’t have this, okay.
Next. [John: back to my question] One more point, okay [laughter] What was
your question? [John: you said, that when you perceive the pen-ness, you cannot
perceive the parts. When you perceive the parts you can’t perceive the pen-ness]
the pen [John: so is that saying that you have to be a Buddha to see both
simultaneously?] No, not that. It’s a different thing. What I’m trying to say is if
you analyze how you think you see something, it’s impossible. [john: what’s
impossible?] What you think you’re doing. It’s impossible. You can’t be doing
what you think you’re doing. You can’t be seeing a pen. [John: because you’re
not seeing its pen-ness] If you saw it’s pen, if you saw ‘pen’, you couldn’t see
pen’s length and if you’re focussing on pen’s length, you can’t see pen. It’s an
impossibility what you’re doing. What you think you are doing is impossible.
{[John: So you’re not perceiving its entirety, is that right?] You’re not seeing a
pen, you’re seeing a few parts. By the way, something very important, the
parts, the roundness, the redness, the longness, the fact that you saw me writing
with it, those data, those clues, they give you clues and you call them ‘pen’. Fine,
it’s correct. It’s a correct perception. It’s a valid perception. It’s reasonable. And
Madhyamika says that. Madhyamika says, when you call a long, red, round,
writing thing a ‘pen’, god bless, that’s fine. You’re right, it’s the right label.
Things are labeled, but things are labeled reasonably. [student: as long as you
know that you’re merely calling it that and it isn’t that] No, but even before you
realize that, obviously you could pick up a pen and use it.                  It works.
Madhyamika says, I told people, remember that classic moment in Woodstock,
everyone’s of that age right, that farmer guy gets up, I’m next, I’m a farmer, and
everybody goes whaaa [laughter]. Nagarjuna has the same line. He says,
whatever Joe Schmoe farmer believes, I believe [laughter] he says that. He says,
I believe you can go take a seed, put it in the ground, cover it, water, the thing
will come up, you know, you can eat it. And Madhyamika believes that.
Everything works. How it works? It looks to be a certain way, you name it a
certain way; fine. Laura exists. The self of Laura exists. Which brings me to the
next subject. [John: just to round up my point, so is your ultimate point then that
prove that we can’t see both of those things? That’s proof that we’re not
perceiving it correctly? Is that the bottom line?] right, right. If you are doing
something, if you think about what you think you’re doing, it’s impossible. And
there’s many other proofs, you know, there’s dozens of proofs. [student: maybe
it seems more refine instead of [unclear] because you can always imply some
naming process in the other two groups but you’re talking about causes of the
parts] Right, yeah, yeah, yeah, not that. Okay
{dak} means ‘self’, {dak} means self. Who can I pick on? Who didn’t talk much?
[unclear] he got yelled at, he’s been very quiet. {dak me pechir} a {dak} doesn’t
exist [repeats]
[student: true]
Huh?
Faith, {myeta} Faith doesn’t exist, right? [laughter] So, I guess, Faith herself,
doesn’t exist? Faith {myeta}
So, Faith exists
[student: Faith exists in one half of the two kinds of existences]
Does Faith, herself, exist or not?
[student: Faith exists in one way]
Does Faith herself exist? [student: deceptive reality, Faith exist]
Does her self exist? [laughs] just say yes or no.
By the way, when you take your pre-Geshe exams and your Geshe exams,
you’re not allowed to say anything but yes or no. [student: you’re not allowed to
say anything but yes or no] but yes or no and you can defeat the other person
by, by an intelligent yes or no. He can be screaming and yelling for two hours
and just by giving the right yeas or no, like computers you know, binary, you
come to the truth.
Faith herself, exists or not?
[student: yes]
Right, she does right. So Buddhism teaches that the self exists, right?
[student: yes] [laughter]
{dak} is a non-existent thing. It is the ultimate non-existent think, okay. {dak}
don’t exist. Self don’t exist. Every Buddhist school believes that. There is no
Buddhist school that believes the {dak} exists. [student: oh you mean the farmers
who say, ‘people don’t exist’] [laughter] Self {..ta} I didn’t say that, I didn’t say
that [laughter] {Tibetan} [unclear] I didn’t say that. Come on, debate. I didn’t
say that {…} [student] I didn’t say that. Nagarjuna didn’t say that. [unclear]
what are you talking about. [student: yes or no] No. Nagarjuna didn’t say that.
[student: Nagarjuna didn’t say …] Nagarjua said farmers exist, yes.Karmas,
themselves, exist. Self of the karma exists. Right. That’s all. But he doesn’t
believe self exists, okay. [laughter] [student: pardon me?] He doesn’t believe
self exists. [laughter]
Okay, {dak} Obviously, there’s a self which exists. Obviously exists. I mean,
Fran exists, Tom exists, Faith exists, okay. The idea of self, meaning a person,
Buddhism has no trouble with this. We are not fighting against that. That’s not
what self means. Atman, it’s not what self means. Never think that. [student:
the ego…] Doesn’t mean ego, has nothing to do with ego, has nothing to do
with person. The {dak} that we deny, by the way, and the word {dak} refers to
all objects, okay. We deny the {dak} of the table; we deny the {dak} of a wall. In
other words, the word that people translate as ‘self’ refers to things too, not just
people. The table itself, the table itself. [student] Yeah, yeah, okay. We are
denying, so self, the self that we’re talking about, and you have to remember
that, is a non-existent thing. It don’t exist. It’s not the Leanna that exists; she
herself exists. [unclear] it’s not what we mean by self. What are we denying? I
think it’s much easier if you think of self as self-nature or just nature.
What we deny is that anything has a nature of its own. I prefer the word
‘blank’[unclear] I like the word blank. I love the word blank. I’ve never seen it
in a book but I like it. Things are blank. They do not have any nature of their
own. Things are there, but they’re blank, you supply the nature. [student: that
makes it sound like they’re identity-less] They are. I’m trying to say that. They
are. They are. A house is not a house, it’s how you make it a house. [student: so
they have…the identities are as many as there’re people perceiving them] Ah,
that’s okay, but it’s not their own.
[cut]
Yeah
When Buddhism says ‘no-self’, this is what we mean. Forget everything you
ever heard before. I mean, it doesn’t have anything to do with ego, nothing to
do with pride, nothing to do with self-identity, nothing to do with person. It’s all
wrong. [Student: exist from its own side]
Each school has a different flavor of what it means. You now tell me. You tell
me now. According to the first group, okay pretend you’re an Abhidharmist,
okay, what’s no-self? This is how they have to say it in a debate ground. What’s,
is a self, existent? Is a self, existent? I can’t say what’s he self like, right ‘cos it
doesn’t even exist. It’s a no-no, it’s a boo-boo in the debate ground to say, Oh
what’s the self like? That’s like saying, you know, what’s a rabbit that’s twenty
thousand feet high and pink like? It just doesn’t exist, okay. So, I have to say it
this way: Eric, is a self, existent? And if you were an Abhidharmist, what would
it be like? [student: I would have a function]
No, no, no, that’s [student] [unclear] it would not have dependent origination,
which would mean what? It would come…. [student: from its own side] it
would occur without any cause. [student: say that again]
According to an Abhidharmist, one, one way of explaining self would be to say,
‘anything that could happen without any causes. Just came by itself. This is what
science took, you know, a couple of centuries to overcome this stupid idea
[laughs] you know. Find the reasons for things, find what causes things.
[student [unclear]] Yeah, I know. Things don’t just happen by themselves, okay.
If you’re an Abhidharmist, and I say, what would the self be like if it existed?
You’d say, well, it would be a tree that grew without a seed, without water,
without earth, without anyone to tend it, without sunlight; that would be a self
tree.
[student: before you said that…in the first group they said [unclear] when they
have causes, not the reverse. Now you’re saying the reverse] Yeah, ‘cos I’m
saying, what are they denying? What do they say doesn’t exist? {dak} is a
synonym for, [unclear] Kylie, [student: [unclear]] No [laughter] And that’s the
last thing you have to know tonight, okay. I’m sorry the class was long, but as
you see it takes a little time to explain.
{gak-ja} say {gak-ja} [repeat] {gak-ja} [repeat]; literally, ‘what we deny’. What we
Buddhists deny. Another way you could say a self-existent thing. {gak} means
‘deny’, {ja} means ‘what we’. [student: Michael according to the third group if we
use…]
Wait, I’ll debate you on the third group, okay. Hang on just a second.
The second group says, I’ll give you a clue okay, the second group says that
things exist because they have parts, because they depend on their parts. Now,
tell me, what’s the self? What’s the self? What does Buddhism say is not true?
[student: self doesn’t exist] Yeah, it doesn’t exist. A thing which exists without
parts, doesn’t exist. Okay, so that’s the {dak} according to these people.
Anything which can exist without its parts, without depending on parts, is it
possible that a thing exists without parts? It’s impossible, it’s impossible. So,
they say {dak} means anything which could exist without parts. It’s impossible.
We say no {dak}; {dak} doesn’t exist. [John: is that {gak-ja} means?]
{gak-ja} means the thing that the Buddhist’s are denying. I can give you another
word for it: self-existent thing, self-existent thing, {gak-ja} Self-existent thing.
Now, this was [unclear] question. Now we got there, okay. If I’m in the third
school, third group, if I belong to the highest school, if you belong, and I’m
asking you a question okay: If the {dak} existed, if atman really did exist, which it
doesn’t right, what would it be like according to you guys? [student: would be
something that has a name, so that it exist.] No, something that exists without
[student: something in the third group was things exist when they have name.
yeah, so if I’m asking you, describe to me something that doesn’t exist. [student:
Oh something that doesn’t have a name.] Right. Anything that could exist
without depending on my thinking about it a certain way, anything that could
exist without me giving it a name, that’s what {dak} is according to the highest
school. Laura Seagal doesn’t depend on my perceptions, that Laura Seagal is
{dak}; that Laura Seagal is {gak-ja}. Any Laura Seagals that could exist without
my perceptions, making her who she is for me, is a {dak}. That’s the {dak}. Does
it exist? No. Does my imagination of it exist? Yes. And I grab onto it and I hold
onto it and it causes all my suffering. Why? [students] No, it’s real, once you
give it a name and a thought it’s real [student:[unclear]] So how is it, and I’ll ask
Kylie how is it, and I used to wonder about this for years until I found it in a
certain Scripture, why is it that if I hold to a Laura Seagal that doesn’t depend on
my perceptions, why should that cause all my suffering? Why is it so important
to see this? Supposedly, if I understand this idea now, I will no longer have
anger, I will no longer have jealousy, I will no longer have desire, I’ll no longer
have any suffering.
[student: because you’re not dependant on fiction; you’re dependant on
phantom objects. Your reality is, is based on, on that what’s real rather than that
which isn’t real.] Partly that, yeah. If she exists outside of my perceptions, then
she’s really nice or she’s really bad. The guy at work is really bad and I should
get angry at him.          If it’s not just my perceptions [student: so you take
responsibility] if it’s just not my perceptions, but if he’s really bad from his own
side, okay I can have anger, I can have jealousy. If that pretty girl is really pretty
from her own side, and not because I kept my morality in the past, I should
desire her. But she’s not, it’s beautiful okay. And I’ll say it the other way
around. Anytime you have one of those emotions it’s focussed on the {gak-ja},
very interesting. It’s very, very interesting. You cannot have a negative
emotion unless you believe the thing is self-existent. You cannot have hatred
towards something, you cannot have desire towards something, you can’t have
jealousy towards something, unless you mistake it and think that it exists from
its own side. [John: is that also be true for positive emotions then?] Positive
harmful emotions, yeah. [student: beneficial emotions, love, joy] Oh, it’s a
beautiful question. It’s a beautiful question. In the opening lines of the greatest
Madhyamika book of all time, explain how compassion must ultimately get rid
of this idea, your compassion must become blind to {gak-ja}. Your compassion
must focus on what’s really there. The John Stillwell who’s really there and not
the one that I thought was there. And, until then it’s not real compassion. That’s
another story, okay.
I’ll say it again. Any negative emotion you have is focussed on, is based on
believing that that person is bad from his own side or beautiful from her own
side, desirable from her own side, and not because of my past karma. {student:
you mean any emotion that is not neutral?] I mean any emotion which, the
definition of a klesha [student: then you say, any impure feeling and then you
knock out the whole thing]. Let’s start with {nyo mongs}, let’s start with the
kleshas, let’s start with what they call mental afflictions. I love that translation
because klesha means, ‘klish’ means to disturb you, upset you. Any, any
thought, what I can say is this, it’s very interesting, very applicable, very
applicable to getting to nirvana in this life, okay. Any thought you have which is
unpleasant, which upsets you, whether it’s desire, or anger, or jealousy, [student:
stirs you up] any, any thought, anxiety, that disturbs your mind, is focussed at a
thing –fill in the blank- a thing which? [student: doesn’t exist] Doesn’t even exist,
okay, by definition. If you are understanding its blankness and if you’re
understanding who is filling in the blanks, which is your past karma, you cannot
be angry. Why? Because you realize that his ugliness comes from you being
angry before. [laughs] It would be, it would be schizophrenic to get angry now.
It would be insane to get angry now. Why? You just look at this angry man and
you say, oh this is because I was angry. He’s blank. He’s not angry on his own.
His wife loves him even when he’s yelling at me. [John: can you be angry at
yourself though?] Oh, sure. [student: can you both be angry at the same time?]
Yes you can. So, so, for me to be angry bat him, once I understand his blankness
I understand his [unclear], his dependence. He exists because I’m labeling him
that. Where did that labeling come from? Mental tendency. Where did the
tendency come from? It was planted by a past bad deed. It was planted by my
own bad karma. [student: what about, Michael, if you feel that someone attacks
you with anger and you know that you’re blank for him as he’s blank for you,
[unclear] because you see no reason for him to attack you because it’s his own
karma] You didn’t understand, then you’re not following what I just said. He’s
blank, he’s angry and he’s attacking you; he appears to be angry and he appears
to be attacking you. Why? Why, how can you even see it? Why did you fill in
the color that way? It’s a sketch. You’re filling in the color. Why did you choose
that color? Who made you choose that color? It’s your past karma. You’re…
and later we’ll study the Mind Only school. The Mind Only school is wonderful
for this reason. They explain, clearly and precisely, how the perception of me
being angry at somebody in the past, plants a perception of somebody being
angry at me in the future. [students] [laughs] [student: who may, by the way,
also be having the perception of the self of being angry at the same time] Oh,
sure it does, very well [unclear] put. And then I say, I wanna leave you with
that. And I don’t wanna say anything else tonight. I just gave you the key to
nirvana, you know. You have it and that’s why you must see emptiness, okay.
What will happen if everyone in the world knows this thing? [John: everybody
deals with their own stuff ] No, you wouldn’t be angry anymore.
Because why? If you wanna meet this angry man again, what’s the best way?
Plant yourself an angry seed, okay. It’s the best way of meeting him again. If
you want to live in a world which is paradise, stop being angry. That is how
emptiness relates to this whole thing. It’s not that if you see emptiness today,
suddenly, the world is nirvana tomorrow. It’s not true. It won’t happen. It’s
that if you understand emptiness clearly you will be moral. You will keep your
morality. And then, because of keeping your morality, you’ll live in a paradise
[unclear].
[john: is that where the bliss comes in? Is that how everything is bliss?] Sure. It’s
okay, I see emptiness tonight, what I see emptiness and everything’s gonna be
nice tomorrow? I still have to be in New York. [laughs] It’s not like that and it
never will be like that. [John: so the only place the bliss comes from is realizing
everything is blank] {….} quotation from the Buddha: Wealth comes from
giving; bliss comes from morality. If you want to be surrounded by beautiful
girls, don’t commit adultery. [laughs] It’s funny. I mean, they won’t be ugly, the
angels around you be ugly [unclear] [laughter] they will, and you’ll have the
right thought about them too [unclear] better think nice or I won’t be able to see
‘em [John: so you’re saying the inherent nature of things is not…it’s create by
your karmic deeds] Of course.
[student[unclear]] That’s another [student:[unclear]] No, I am too. Yeah I’m
talking about that too. But I don’t wanna go on anymore. Just, just leave it with
you with that. That is the road to nirvana. That’s the ticket. That’s how it
happens. Now, what do you have to do it.
Tomorrow, when you have any negative emotion come up, and I’m talking also
about, to me anger and strong desire are less frequent than small anxieties,
worries about my life, you know, am I good enough, am I doing the right thing,
you know, these small anxieties, they’re also focussed at the {gak-ja}, okay. To
me, they are more sickening and more disturbing to me and they ruin my
happiness more than the rare outbreaks of anger at Tom Kylie [laughs]
[student :rare?] or desire [laughter] okay. These are the things that ruin your
day, right? So, the next time, think – what do you think? Think that the object is
empty. And then everything else comes from there. The object is blank. When
the guy is screaming at you and he’s all red you say, just remember, what did
they say in class, think he’s blank. Just think he’s blank and the rest will come.
The rest meaning what? Oh, he’s blank, but he does really seem to be angry
[laughs] [laughter] Oh, oh, he is angry because I’m, I’m, I’m seeing him as angry.
Because, if he’s blank, he’s not angry by himself. I’m seeing that blank thing,
that blank white screen, looks like an angry guy because of my own past deeds,
my own past anger. Oh, what should I do now,? Okay. Do not get angry.
Why? Now, I ask you the question. If you follow the practice I just described,
will he stop being angry? No, okay and you can see that. [laughs] [laughter]
that’s the first thing I have to say. We’re talking cause and effect and there’s
always a time gap. Life will start to get extremely pleasant but not tomorrow
[laughs] [laughter] I tell you the truth and you know it’s the truth. Let me say
one more thing. I’ll tell you one more thing. The practice of not being angry at
him, immediately starts to make your life more pleasant. It’s not the karmic
result. It’s simply that you stopped your own anger for five minutes, you know.
You prohibited yourself from getting angry through your wisdom. That’s by
the function of wisdom. That is the function of wisdom. Through your wisdom,
you chose not to be angry at this moment, so already, that result comes
immediately. Your life will be quite nice. These bad reactions to bad people are
not only karmically wrong, they louse up your day also [laughs] So, what I’m
saying is, the karmic results take time to purify, but the anger which louses up
your day, you can stop that tomorrow. And it will stop and it’s quite nice.
[student: it’s just like the Dalai Lama said, he said, ‘I don’t, you know, wake up in
the morning and say, oh I feel so good, I got angry at somebody today’] Yeah. It
just won’t happen. And what’s pleasant is, once you use the emptiness method,
you don’t have to struggle with all these bandaid methods which are true
methods, which are Buddhist methods, but they’re not ultimate methods. You
know, like I shouldn’t be angry at him because he can’t help it he’s under the
control of his anger. That’s a good meditation, that’s a Shantideva meditation. It
will not bring you nirvana. [student: so if you’re getting upset with yourself is a
bad thing?] It’s harder. It’s much harder. {student: those are holder to spot} As
Tom said before, it’s much harder to see the emptiness of Ariel to Ariel. You
have to realize that the Ariel that you are worried about, is an Ariel who is very
Ariel-able [laughs] because of your mind. Does it make it less painful? No. Does
it make it less, do you have less anxieties as of tomorrow? No, I’m sorry, you
won’t. But if you don’t get anxiety and you don’t do the bad deeds like anger,
which come from anxiety, you won’t have anxiety in the future. And in fact, it’s
the only way to remove anxiety. [student: that also means that you don’t stop
seeing people who appear to be angry to themselves either, right?]
Well, every Buddhist Scripture and almost any religious book I’ve seen that’s
worth anything, says just concentrate on yourself, you know. God knows who
you are, I don’t know who you are. You could all be Buddhas a million years
ago. I have no idea. I can’t, I can’t read your mind. I don’t know who you are. I
know what you look like, that’s about all I know. You know, worry about your
own [student] concentrate on your own [student: but the point is, the reason
why we’re going through this exercise is to help people who have anger
appearing to themselves] Eventually, but work on, work on [[laughs] Yeah,
really, truly [student: but I mean, you’re not trying to save everything, if you see
somebody who is angry or appears to be angry at you, that’s not valid and that’s
not true. It’s just, yes that’s the way you see them but they also see it in
themselves at the same time. You don’t have to buy what they’re selling but
they’re try to sell and that’s hurting them. [unclear] try to help them to learn not
to sell it any more]. Yeah, eventually, eventually, but as you know, it’s your
own, what you can effect immediately is yourself. We have no idea why he’s
appearing angry. [student: right. I’m not saying that, that you know, see an
angry person coming at you and deceive yourself that they’re not angry with
themselves] That, we don’t know. {student: well, that they don’t appear.]
We don’t even know that. Many bodhisattvas, it’s possible for a person to be a
great bodhisattva, to choose a life, to choose to live on this planet their whole
life, just to meet tom Kylie for five minutes and pretend to be angry with him.
It’s possible. People in our life who are doing that right now. It’s possible, okay.
They know, they come to live in a planet for seventy years, only to meet you for
that time and show you anger. It’s possible. We can’t know. [Students]
[laughter]
[prayer: dedication]
[John: so Michael on all this, we’ve got this infinite [unclear] of seeds to, to fix]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. [laguther]
The cleaning, the cleaning must take extraordinary methods, that’s why we’re
talking about bodhicitta. [John: it seems to un…it seems so difficult to have an
infinite [unclear] of stuff to clean] No, you’re doing pretty good right now. To
be a human in a Dharma class, you must have been cruising pretty well in the
past. [John: we’re talking ten, twenty, thirty years versus eons.]
That’s why you have to use bodhicitta. That’s why your good deeds have to be
so, at least try to imagine, your bodhicitta when you think about it, is for all
living creatures. And also, another big method is rejoicing. They say that if you
just sit down on your bed, before you go to sleep, and say, oh man, I’m so glad
Buddha was around, you know, or the Dalai Lama, being glad the Dalai Lama is
around in the world. By that simple act of being glad you collect ten percent of
His virtue. You collect ten percent of His virtue. They say that. [student: you
what?]       You collect ten percent of His virtue. [student: ten percent of His
virtue?] They say that. [student: so if you do that ten times you’ve got it made.]
[laughter]

[cut]
The Asian Classics Institute

Geshe Michael Roach
Course One: Principal Teachings of Buddhism