ACI 13 «Искусство аргументации», занятие 11

Class Eleven: Class Review

Transcribed by Angie Overy
Proof: SF

All right, tonight is review for the final examination and then, we’ll also do a bit
of debating later on. There’s some nice, little tiny debate that we’ll do, okay,
very powerful one, all right. So, as usual, all the questions on the final come
from the quizzes and I am gonna go over some of the questions that might
appear on the final. And, at the end of this class, you’re gonna get the answer
keys for all of the homeworks. Is that right? Yeah. Because we want you to be
able to see the, you know, the expanded answers. Sometimes I don’t have time
to go through with the whole detailed answer during the class, so you’ll be able
to study the keys even for the last two classes, okay, but you probably won’t get
your homework back on time for that. So this way you have the official ones. I
think they fit on both hands if you make them about six point, okay. But, you
probably don’t even have to bother, you can just write it out and bring it into
class with you, okay.
We’ll start with good old Jay Siller. {[Tibetan} Nobody could ever show me the
{shung} for this class. The {shung } means the classical text on which this class is
based.
{ ….}
[student: tak ma drup]
{…}You telling me there is a {shung} for this class?
[student: dir]
{shok, shok, shok} give me, tell me
[student: tsa]
Don’t tsar me, just show me [laughter] [laughs]. It’s too early to tsa me. You
didn’t beat me yet. {shok, shok, shok, shok, shok}
[student: Pramanavartikka}
Yeah, Pramanavartikka, {po la ….} in Tibetan? Tibetan? [laughs] {sha kyi me
pechir}Yeah, there is no.
No, we’ll go around with it. Pramana is what? Valid perception in Tibetan?
[student: tsema namdrel]
Tsema Namdrel, okay, Tsema Namdrel. You gotta know the name of the book
you’re studying, okay. It’s embarrassing if you don’t know the book you’re
studying, right.
{ …me pey chir} Nobody could ever show me the author of that text.
 She’s smart. She’s not {tak ma drup}ing until she thinks of the answer, okay.
{tak ma drup … yerta}So you can show me the author?
{der} {shok} Who?        Huh?    Dharmakirti {yin pay ta} [laughter] Huh? {der}
{…..yin pay ta} You telling me Dharmakirti is the author of this text?
[student: der}
{ mayin pay ta ….} No such thing as Dharmakirti
[student]
Master Dharmakirti [student]
Oh, Master Dharmakirti [laughter]. You don’t call Rinpoche, Lobsang, okay.
[laughter]      You don’t call Dharmakirti, Dharmakirti; Master Dharmakirti
[laughter], all right, please. All right, all right. You don’t call your Lama, ‘hey
you’, okay, ‘Roach’. [laughs] [laughter]Well, maybe you do. Yeah.
{…..} Can’t tell me the year in which he was born, approximate. {….}
[student: tak ma drup]
Not {tak ma drup,- Tak ma drup, …..} You can’t give me the year that he was
born, roughly, roughly.
650 AD, okay.
Let’s see what the next question might be. Mmmm. Who’s the next victim? He
looks too innocent. How about Pelma? Ready? Don’t pretend you’re reading
that book. [laughs] [laughter]. One reason to study Buddhist logic? {cha kyi me
pey chir}, any reason. Why do they say it’s important to study Buddhist logic?
[student: unclear] She said, once you understand it, you can help many people.
How about a negative reason? By the way, you can help many people because
then you learn mainly, the idea of common ground. That you don’t, that the
definition of good reason is? {tak yang dak kyi tsennyi yin pey chir}, no one can
show mw the definition of a good reason? {tak yang dak kyi tsennyi me pey
chir} Anybody got cue tips? [laughter] [laughs]
S[[unclear]]
{tak yang dak yinpata} Is the definition of a good reason? Anything you give as
a reason? Oh, take sound, it’s a changing thing, because it’s a three-headed
purple elephant. {tak yang dak yinpa ta}, three-headed purple elephant, {tak
yang dak yinpata}, three-headed purple elephant is a good reason, right?
{tak si kupa mayin pata}I didn’t give it as a good reason, I didn’t give it as a
reason? You telling me I didn’t give it as a reason? [student: unclear] { ngoooo
tsa}[laughs] [laughter]. Hey, you thought you’re getting out of it [laughs] {tak
yang dak kyi …., shok, shok, shok} {uhn} {tak yang dak kyi tsennyi shok}
[student: unclear] {tso tso yinpa}, {tak yang tak kyi yinpata}[student: unclear]
{uhn}[student: unclear] Are you telling me that’s the definition, where the three
relationships hold, is the definition of a good reason? {mayin pata yerpa tak
yang tak kyi tsennyi yin pey chir…} By the way, you can review everything this
way. This is the way to really do it in the monastery. And you just truck
through it in like twenty minutes and you know it much better. {yinpa ta … yin
pey chir} The definition of a good reason is, anything that exists. [student: tak ma
drup] Yeah, { yinpa ta … mayin pata}, you’re in trouble, but keep going.
[laughter] So, you’re telling me anything that exists is not the definition of a
good reason? I don’t, {der}, okay, {shok}, now you’re in trouble. Now you’re
stuck. {shok, shok, shok}, give me something that doesn’t fit {sung ja mayinpa de
shok}, show me something that contradicts my definition, right. If it’s a bad
definition there must be something that doesn’t fit my definition, okay. I said
{yerpa} by the way. I said, those things which exist. I’m not talking two two-
headed purple elephants, okay. I said, anything which exists, is the definition of
a good reason.
[student: inaudible]
I, sh [laughter] [laughs] {shok, shok, shok}. He’s gonna give me an example of, a
counter example, right. When I say {shok}, {shok} means give me your counter
example, come on. Show me the thing that doesn’t fit my definition, okay.
Show me the thing that wipes out my definition, okay. So {shok}, you’re in
trouble man. { ….. shi drup na, tak yang dak.
Say, {shi drup na} [repeat], {shi drup na} [repeat], {shi drup na} [repeat], oh boy,
bad; {tak yang dak} [repeat] {yinpe} [repeat], {kyup} [repeat]: Anything that
exists is a good reason, period. It is. {shi drup na tak yang dak yinpe kyup}
Everything in the universe is a good reason, for something, okay. There is no
definition of {tak yang tak}, okay, please. There is no definition of {tak yang tak},
{duk gi tak yang tak}, right?
[student: unclear]
I don’t mind. Go ahead. There is no definition of a good reason. You have to
say a good reason in a particular context, see what I mean. [student: inaudible]
A good reason in a particular logical statement. But, everything in the universe
can be a good reason for something, you see what I mean? [student] I don’t
mind. You wanna take that? [student] Huh? Okay, so I’ll say, take everything
that can be perceived by a valid perception as a totality; it exists because it exists
as a totality. { tak yang tak mayin pata}. You telling me that’s not a good
reason? [student] I didn’t repeat it. I said, that which is perceived by a valid
perception to exist. And then I said, it exists, and then I said, because the totality
exists. That’s okay. Those are three separate things. [student] Sure. The
Buddha does. That’s the definition of the Buddha, okay. Okay. All right
[unclear] my weapon, all right.
Okay, anyway, better say in the, can’t define a good reason. It has to be a good
reason for a particular proof, okay. Then you can say, the definition of a good
reason in a particular proof is, {te drup kyi tsul sum yinpa, {yinpa}. Say, {te drup
kyi} [repeat], {tsul sum yinpa} [repeat]. A reason where the three relationships
hold, okay. A reason where the three relationships hold. {mayin par ta} By the
way, when you wanna bridge on to a new subject you say, ‘no it’s not’. And
then you can say anything you want, you see what I mean. Then you can move
on to any subject in the world, okay.
{mayin par tel, …. cha kyi me pey chir} Helen Mchale. I forgot your pen, by the
way. I had it in a bag and I forgot to bring it. Anyway, [unclear], empty. Give
me any one of the three relationships. The definition of a good reason in a
particular proof is that where the three relationships hold in that particular proof.
What are the three relationships?        Give me any one of them. {shok}, {shok,
shok} Anne Lindsay?        Anyone. [student: unclear] Yeah, the subject and the
reason. There has to be a relationship between the subject and the reason. Take
sound; it’s a changing thing; because it’s a made thing, okay. Take sound; it’s a
changing thing; because it’s a made thing. The word, the idea ‘made thing’ must
apply to the subject, which is sound. Does ‘made thing’ apply to sound? Is
sound a made thing? Yeah. So the first relationship holds. It’s called {chok chu}
in Tibetan, okay, {chok chu}. Second one? {shok} Huh? {je kyap}, say, {je kyap}
[repeat] which means, if it’s three it must be two, okay. Basically. That’s the
expression of the {je kyap}, it’s not the {je kyap}, okay. If a thing is made, it must
be changing. Is that true? It holds. Now, we check the third one. {sum …
shok}, what’s number three? [student: inaudible] Yeah. If it’s not two, it can’t be
three. Which is called the {dok kyap, okay, {dok kyap}. Those are the three
relationships. They have to hold, okay. Those three relationships have to hold
and then it’s a good reason, okay. For? [student: inaudible] the particular proof,
okay. You always have to say that.
Which brings us back to the original reason for studying Buddhist logic. Placide
[laughter], negative reason. I mean, what’s the goal of studying Buddhist logic?
I mean, I’ll tell you very honestly. I mean, the ultimate goal of this class is what’s
about to be said by Marie Placide. [laughter] [laughs] You know. And I’ll give
you a clue. The Buddha made a mistake in one of his past lives. And then he
said, we better study logic.
[student: inaudible]
She’s going back to the positive reason, which is, you know, that you learn that
you shouldn’t present a Buddhist argument in a non-Buddhist country to try to
help people and, and be using terms that they don’t accept yet, can’t do that.
Part of the {tsul sum}, part of the three relationships has to be that they already
agree to all three. Never forget that. They must already agree to all three
relationships. They just didn’t tie it together yet. Like, it’s almost a good {shi
gyur} a perfect opponent, is someone who is just temporarily blind to a truth
which he should’ve seen a long time ago. He knows one is three; he knows if it’s
three it must be two; he knows if it can’t be two it can’t be three, but he just
didn’t tie it together yet and your job as a Buddhist is just to tie it together for
them. Oh yeah, I always wondered why I was suffering, you know. Yeah, I
never did quite believe all those other stories. Oh yeah, I guess that would make
sense that’s that why I’m suffering. You know, it has to make sense to them,
okay. But that’s not the answer to my question [laughter]. It’s very inspiring
though. [laughs]
Negative reason to study logic; it was in the first reading, {shok}
[student: inaudible]
Yeah, [student] so you don’t judge other people. You can’t tell, I mean, the
ultimate purpose of Buddhist logic is to establish to yourself, beyond a doubt,
logically, that you don’t know what other people are thinking unless you can
read their minds. {nga am dang drawe…. nyampar gyur tare}which is one of the
ways to say it, okay. I taught you Lord Atisha’s way. The way I just said it is the
way we say it in the monastery, in the debate ground; little bit different but same
meaning. Unless you are me or someone like me don’t try to judge other
people; you will fail. Who said it? Lord Buddha. Why was he speaking from
experience? He was the bad guy in that story, right. He was the guy who
accused this bodhisattva of messing around in town. And then he was the guy
who ended up going to hell for countless aeons, okay. I mean for many, many
aeons.     And losing his monks vows for many aeons because he accused
somebody of something and he didn’t have a valid perception about it, okay.
And that’s all. That’s the main thing, it’s a {ma .. pe tak yang tak}, it’s a { minowa
ma yi pe tak yang dak}. What’s a {minowa ma yin pe tak yang tak}? Anybody
in the mood?       Yeah. Excuse me? Yeah. It’s where the, it’s a proof for the
absence of something, where you’re trying to prove the absence of something,
which cannot, normally, be perceived by that person’s normal perceptions, okay.
It’s like saying, consider the person in front of us, he shouldn’t assert that hell
really exists, because he hasn’t had any valid perception that it exists, you see
what I mean. And then hell, whether or not hell exists is not something that
most people can tell, okay, directly with their perceptions, okay. And that’s…
that’s an example. In this case, what’s the {chir chin}? What are we talking
about? Where did the Buddha make his error? What was the {minowe dun}?
What was the {kel dun}?
[student: unclear]
But what was the object that he couldn’t see that well?           The other monk’s
intentions, or, the other monk’s activities. I guess you could say the other
monk’s true intentions, he couldn’t tell. He couldn’t tell, but, he thought he could
tell. He assumed he could tell because of the outward behaviour, okay. And
that’s where he made his mistake, okay. And, and the Buddha’s, the whole, if
you only come out of this class with understanding that logically, you’ve actually
gone a long way to developing the ultimate goals of bodhicitta training and
tantric training, you know. It’s a profound truth that affects deeply your success
in the practice of the secret teachings. You cannot tell. You don’t know for sure,
okay. And, and that’s actually very important, okay. And if that’s all you ever
get out of this class, then it was worth, like, ten weeks of boring syllogisms and
stuff, okay. [laughs] I mean, if it even prevents you from one judgement of
another person you’re ahead. It’s worth ten classes to, to come out of here, at
least tonight, remembering that you can’t really know what the people around
you are thinking unless you can read their minds. And you can, with practise,
but that’s another story, okay. So, to me, that’s the most important quotation
and you’d better learn it. It will be on the final exam, okay. {nga am dang drawe
….. ] and, and memorize it. It should be like a mantra. It’ll save you all this hell
realm time, right, okay.
Who are we on to? Mister Bill Culler. { yinbe …..}nobody could tell me the
definition of existence in Buddhism.
[student:[unclear]]
You {kyappa ma jung}[laughter] [laughs] There is no definition of existence in
Buddhism. How do you know something exists in Buddhism? What’s the test
to say I know that that exists? [student] Yeah. Anything which is perceived by a
valid perception {tseme}, say {tseme} [repeat], {mikpa}[repeat], {yerpay}[repeat],
{tsennyi}[repeat]. Better get used to it. It’s like a mantra on the debate ground,
okay. {tseme mikpa yerpay tsennyi}, okay. {tseme mikpa yerpay tsennyi};
anything which you can perceive with a valid perception exists. What about,
Miss Laura Seagal, the unknown moons of Pluto? {me pa ta} So, I guess they
don’t exist? No, you can either say, ‘I agree’ or, ‘why the hell did you say that; I
didn’t say anything like that’. [laughs] [laughter] I knew, somehow I knew you’d
say that. [laughs] Because nobody can perceive an invalid perception.
[student: inaudible]
Good, good answer. She said {tak ma drup}I said, the moon, the unknown
moons around Pluto that we haven’t discovered yet don’t exist because no one
has perceived them in a valid perception. And she said {tak ma drup} which
means it’s untrue, it’s incorrect to say that no one’s perceived them with a valid
perception. {tsennyi mepa yarta} Are you telling me somebody has perceived
them with a valid perception?        {shok} Yeah. {nam kyen} Say {kun kyen}
[repeat] {kun kyen kyi sik}, okay. {sik} is what? The honorific of {tong}. You
don’t say ‘Buddha {tong}’, you say ‘Buddha{sik}’, okay. The Buddha has with his
sacred eyeballs, sacredly perceived, yeah, yeah. That’s a good answer, okay.
Okay. Oh, you want me to pick on you [laughter] okay. [student: how do we
know what the Buddha has perceived?]
Only from what he states, you see what I mean. Yeah, I … we don’t really know
that he’s seen, I just proposing moons that did exist, okay. We only what he has
stated, you know, in scripture. He taught for fifty years; he taught thousands
and thousands of teachings [student: he never mentions those moons?] No, he
didn’t mention those moons. We’re, we’re assuming that he did, or something
like that. That’s all. Yeah. Not technically correct. We’re not technically correct.
Anyway, I’m saying they do exist, if they do exist, how, how would they be,
okay, or anything else, okay.        The … the true balance in my checking
account[laughter] something like that, okay [laughs], you know, anything like
that, okay. We know there must be one but no one’s perceived it, okay
[laughter]. I mean, if the Buddha’s omniscient he perceives it, or she, you know.
Okay. While we’re on the subject { yu po la ……}you can’t divide all existing
things into two very convenient categories.
[student] I say, you can’t. [student] Oh, you can’t [laughter] okay, move on to
the next question. [laughter] [laughs] Okay [laughs] Cameron can you? Don’t
think you’re gonna get out of it ‘cos of the camera thing [laughs]. Can you?
Two, very basic, categories of all existing things. [student: unclear] Give me
some very simple, basic ones like maybe the first one I taught you guys.
[laughter] [student: unclear] Yeah, changing things and unchanging things,
okay, {mitakpa} and {takpa}, okay, {mitakpa} and {takpa}, okay. {takpa la sha kyi
me pechir}there’s no such thing as unchanging things because you can’t give me
an example. [student] I’m saying that [laughter] [student: tak ma drup]. Then
you say {tak ma drup}. {sha ki yata}you can show mw an example? [student: dir]
dir; shok [laughter] {shok, shok, shok}Yeah, good, emptiness, right, or space
okay, empty space; two good examples.
You ready [unclear]? {mitakpa sha kyi me pechir}, no one could give me an
example of a changing thing. Just say, I disagree. {shok} can you give me an
example of a changing thing? Yeah. Fine [laughs], okay. So that’s the most
basic division.
Jay Hahn, {mitakpa la ….}but you can’t divide changing things; there’s no basic
division of changing things. [student:        inaudible] right, there’s not, okay.
[student: there are. There are. {dak ma drup}{….} you telling me there are
divisions of changing things? {shok}[student: mental things; physical things]
Mental things, physical things, [student: active things either mental….] good and
changing things which are neither physical or mental, okay. {shepay suk} and
{demin duje}, okay.
Alice [unclear] {….}you couldn’t ever show me an example of a mental thing.
And don’t get angry [laughter], okay {sha kyi me pechir} Huh? If you … if you,
there, you can’t give me any example of a mental thing {sha kyi me pechir}. Say,
{tak ma drup}which means, ‘it’s not true I can’t give you an example’. Then I
say, {shok}give me some example of a mental thing, like an emotion [laughter]
[laughs]. That’s all, or wisdom, or ignorance, or jealousy or anything else, okay.
That’s all. That’s all.
Magda [laughter] [laughs] {…}the mind doesn’t have an existence, a definition,
there’s no definition for, for a mental thing. {….} what’s the definition of a mental
thing? Do you remember? It was … say { sel shing} [repeat] {rikpa} [repeat];
{sel} can mean ‘clear’, in the sense of invisible and it can also mean ‘aware’, okay;
{shing} means ‘and’; {rikpa} means ‘knowing’, okay. And I told you ‘invisible
and knowing’, okay. And then somebody asked me, how do you know it’s not
the {sel} that means aware. And I said, well, it never made sense to me to define
something as ‘aware and knowing’, because they seem to be the same thing to
me, you know what I mean. And I searched through a long, I searched every, I
searched a hundred and twenty thousand pages today in the computer. It took
about twenty minutes or something. And every, every example that in, in the
last two thousand and a half years, right, they never state anywhere absolutely
clearly. There’s one case, in the Bodhisattvacharyavatara, where he seems to
say, the {sel}part doesn’t mean invisible, it means aware, almost in the sense of
self-awareness. Like, you’re aware, like the, something mental should be, should
be a state of awareness, almost like self-awareness. And, in the lower schools,
they say it is a self-awareness; Master Shantideva says it’s not a self-awareness.
And then, {rikpa} means knowing. So it’s a difference between awareness and
knowing. So I guess you could define it as ‘aware and knowing’, okay. I told
you invisible and knowing because to me it’s more useful to think of it that way.
Probably, technically, it should be ‘aware and knowing’, but I think both are
useful definitions. In the highest schools, if awareness means self-awareness it
doesn’t exist and you can’t explain it that way. But you could also have some
kind of awareness that’s not a pure self-awareness, you know. You are aware of
yourself because you are aware of yourself the next moment. So you have some
kind of awareness of yourself even though it’s not technically a self-awareness at
the same moment,okay, that’s all.           Anyway, {sel shing rikpa …tsennyi},
definition of a mental thing is that which is aware and knowing. How’s that?
Okay. Knowing outside objects and aware somehow, a quality of awareness,
okay.
What’ve got for Vilma? {suk kyi ….}no one can give me a definition for a
physical object, physical thing. [student: unclear] {…}you telling me you can
define physical matter? [student] Wait a minute, you just said [laughter]
[laughs] I said, no one can give me a, well, technically, you’re correct. You’re just
saying you can’t do it, right? [laughs] I said, I said, no one can give me a
definition of physical matter and she said, wrong. So I said, well [student:
unclear]- I’m sorry,{suk kyi tsennyi sha kyi me pechir}nobody could give me a
definition of physical matter.
[student: tak ma drup]
{….}you telling me somebody could give me a definition of physical matter?
[student: dir]
{shok}I hope it’s you [laughter] [laughs] She said, anything you can know in
your five senses, okay. {…. chir chen}, let’s take, for example, the physical
matter that exists in the dharmadhatu, okay. If you ever wondered what
dharmadhatu really means it is in Abhidharma and it’s the subject of the
consciousness of the mind, okay. It’s what, it’s what, it’s what your mental sense
looks at. It’s the bunch of stuff in your mind like the thoughts that are, that, the
thoughts that you hear, belong in a category called the dharmadhatu, okay. And
pictures that you make in your mind belong in a category called dharmadhatu;
that you make in your mind, I already got her, you see. She said, anything you
could see, you could point to with your five physical senses or something like
that. But see, there is a mental, there is a, in Abhidharma, okay. I’m cheating.
There’s a, when you visualise something, that’s also a kind of color, and that
counts as physical matter, counts as physical form, okay. So, in Abhidharma it
says, if somebody wanted to defeat your definition they’d say, hey, what about
the purple that you see in your mind when I mention purple elephants? Okay.
Is it a color? Yes. Can you see it with your five senses? No. Okay. So I,
remember, I asked him for a counter example, and I didn’t get one, but I’m
giving you a counter example. Is that perceivable with your five senses?
[student: unclear] Huh? [student] Oh, yah, I’m assuming, we’re talking about a
person who does know. That’s all. There isn’t a counter example, so that’s not
the definition of physical matter. Anybody else got one? You’re close. You’re
really close. Yeah, anything you can point to as being physical matter, okay.
And, normally, it has to be one of the five. I mean, it’s hard to point to
somebody’s mind and say, you see that purple in Vilma’s mind, you know.
Yeah. Okay. But normally, it’s anything you can point to as being physical
matter, because it’s so hard to define ‘red’, you see. How do you define red?
You have to say, look this is red. That’s how you define physical matter, you
know. Physical matter is made up of colors and shapes, mostly; visual physical
matter. So you’re, like, defining it by showing it. That’s how you define physical
matter; something you can point to as being physical matter. Yeah. [student:
inaudible] You could say that. I think you could say that. I’m not sure all the
schools will accept that the purple that you visualise is physical matter. By the
way, if you really want to get into it, there’s a distinction between particular,
particulate matter – matter which is made up of tiny atoms of stuff and matter in
general. There’s a distinction made. The Buddha’s samboghakaya, the body you
will have in your heaven, is not made up of atoms, but it has colors and shapes.
You can see it, but, but it’s not like other kinds of matter. So, that’s very touchy.
It gets very touchy when you get to a Buddha realm. It’s physical matter but not
particulate matter. And there’s a huge debate about it, okay. But it’s not the
same as the matter that makes up your bones and stuff like that, okay. Yeah.
[student] No, that’s why I gave her as a counter example. She restricted the
definition to the five senses and in Abhidharma you have to count, yeah, the one
which is in the dharmadhatu, okay.
Ooh, let’s see here [unclear] I think we just need an example of something that’s
changing, but not mental or physical, okay. Ready? How about {kyappa ma
jung}? {demin duje} okay {demin duje}, changing thing that is not matter or
mental. {kangsak}yeah, okay {kangsak}’Andy’, okay. Andy’s not Andy’s nose
and Andy’s not Andy’s mind; Andy is something that we ascribe to the
combination of those two, and it’s a changing thing, okay. All right. Excuse me?
Yeah. [student] Instead of mind, why not say,? [student] Oh, that’s very cool.
He said, I understand why you can’t say that Andy’s mind is Andy and I
understand why you can’t say that Andy’s nose is not Andy, but what about all
of Andy’s physical parts and all of Andy’s mental parts together?           Isn’t that
Andy?        Okay. And that famous question in madhyamika, very famous
question. And the answer is, {kyappa ma jung} [student] Yeah, very beautiful
answer. And it takes months and months in madhyamika class to get to that,
you know. He said, you have to draw a distinction between the inert or the
simple combination of Andy’s mind and Andy’s body; there’s a difference
between that and Andy’s mind and Andy’s body thought of as Andy by all of us.
And that’s two different things. And until you think of him as Andy, just the
simple combination of his mind and his body, is not Andy, okay. There’s an
additional requirement, which is in all the reading you’re doing. It’s called the
imputating factors, you know. Until there’s the thought which imputes ‘Andy’
to that mind and body, he’s not the {demin duje}. He’s not, he’s not the person,
okay. There’s a big difference between those two. Yeah. [student] Very cool.
Yeah. When we held up the pen, in the class in the winter, and we did that
exercise, first you concentrated on the white and the blue without thinking of it
as a pen and then you looked at the white and the blue and think of it as a pen.
And you can strip off, a good meditation on emptiness is strip off your
imputation of it as a pen and just look at white, blue cylinder. And then, lay it
back on.       It’s like a, it’s like one of these things, it’s like one of these
transparencies, you can, you know, you can think of this pen as a blue and white
cylinder and not think of it as a pen. Look at it the way an Eskimo would. If an
Eskimo came in here from five hundred years ago and saw this thing in my
hand, they would think, beautiful blue and white stick, I wonder how they got it
so smooth, you know. And you’re looking at it a different way; you’re imputing
or you’re laying on it another conception of pen. And that’s a good exercise for
meditating on emptiness. You can strip it away and you can put it back on, you
know. You can think of it as a pen and then think of it as a cylinder and then
think of it as a pen and then think of it as a cylinder. And you get used to the
idea that its ‘pen-ness’ is not a self-existent quality. It’s not innate. It’s coming
from you. And once you get more sophisticated you go to the blue and the
white itself and see if you’re not doing the same thing with that. And if you keep
that up it’s very powerful, you know. It’s a very good emptiness meditation.
But be, be delicate with it; don’t go round saying there’s no pen or I will tickle
you with it, okay [laughs] all right. I’m not suggesting there’s no pen. Anyone
who thinks so can come up during the break and I’ll do my thing. [student]
[laughs] No, I’ll tickle you with a tickling machine, okay.
Okay, you know my favourite class of this whole thing, what, is what? {chi
jedrak} okay. Say, {chi jedrak} [repeat], {chi jedrak} [repeat]. {chi jedrak}
meaning ‘quality and characteristic’. If you wanna think of it more crudely,
‘generals and specifics’, okay; ‘sets and members of the sets’. But if you wanna
get sophisticated, and hopefully you did some meditation on it, ‘quality and
characteristic’. Very delicate. The truth behind that and the truth behind real
changing {mitakpa}, real changing quality and gross changing quality are both
things that I want you to explore in the next month, okay. Try to see subtle,
what they call, subtle impermanence. Try to see the subtle changing nature of a
thing as opposed to the obvious changing nature of a thing. I mean, if I pull
these beads apart and they all fall on the ground, that’s the gross impermanence
or the gross changing quality of this thing. But, but there’s another thing
happening here, you know, even as we talk, moment-to moment, millisecond-
by-millisecond, even more subtle than that. And they say, you have to have a
lot of virtue and you have to meditate a lot to see that. You can’t see that right
now. You know I’m talking about something. You believe there’s a deeper
impermanence there, that it would be very cool to see, but you have to practise
it. And that’s a very good thing to do in the next month, okay. It takes a lot of
practise to see subtle impermanence. It takes a lot of meditation. It takes a lot of
serious meditation to perceive that directly. And it takes even more to perceive
the difference between a quality and a characteristic, okay. It takes a lot of
careful thought and meditation. If you want something to do for a month start
with subtle impermanence and then go on to see if you can understand the
quality, and, and something being char-, read those, read the reading on quality
and characteristic. I don’t remember which number that was, do you? Three.
Read reading number three over and over again. I mean, if you want something
to do for the next month that would seriously contribute to you seeing
emptiness directly, concentrate on that one. And it’s hard, you know. If , if you,
the sign that I know if you’re reading it, is you’ll come like John Stilwell and say,
why all those quotation marks around all those things, okay. I mean, that’s a
sign that you read it, okay. And think about that. It’s the same subject, okay.
Why are those quotation marks around those things, you know? What’s the
difference between car and quote “car”, you know? And if you get it, you’ll be
very close to seeing emptiness, okay. It’s very, very important, extremely
important, okay. So, go to subtle impermanence, play with that. And when you
get tired of that, they call it, there’s a special word called ‘alternating meditation’.
Normally, it’s between shamatha and vipassyana, but you can do it between
subtle impermanence and quality. And, and in your practice for the next month,
month and a half, alternate. When you get dried out on one go to the other one
until you get very good at it, you know. And then they say you can just flip
between them, and, and, try, try to figure it out. Try to figure out the difference
between car and quote “car”, and you’ll be very close to seeing the true nature
of dependent origination, which is extremely close to seeing emptiness, okay.
Yeah. [student] [laughs] With a car or? [student] With quality itself? That’s
nasty. [laughs] That’s really nasty. I would say, one is quality, as a, as a, Jung
called it, what do you call it? What did they call it? [student] An archetype,
yeah, it’s similar to that idea, okay. Quality as an archetype; quality as a, as a
perfect concept, as opposed to quality in real life, you know. Quality as a , as an
ideation, you know. Quality as a concept. And then, quality as it applies to an
object, you know what I mean. And see, that’s a very subtle, I mean, I wouldn’t
go that far. I would just, work on car versus quote “car”, you know what I
mean. And then, when you get really good at that, you can go to quality and
quote “quality” [laughs] you know what I mean. Basically, [student] if, if you
understand why in English we can have four different distinctions: car, quote
“car”, a car, and, the car. Why do we use those, why do we distinguish in
English between car, quote “car, a car, and, the car? And if you meditate on that
for a month you might get very close to seeing dependent origination, which
itself, is very difficult. And that takes you to the door of seeing emptiness
directly. You have to go through seeing dependent origination first. The real
meaning of dependent origination: how you are using ideation or
conceptualisations to get to things. Why are you using archetypes or mental
images {dun chis}, you know. That’s, that would be a good meditation, okay:
car, quote “car”, a car, and, the car, okay. [student] Yeah. It doesn’t matter, I
don’t think the order matters. Probably I’d start with the easy ones like ‘a car’,
‘the car’, okay. But if you get the difference between those you’d be well on
your way. [student] Excuse me? [student] They’re not, they don’t have the
articles that we do in English; they don’t have ‘a’, they don’t have ‘the’, but
there’s ways of expressing it in the syntax of a sentence that it’s clear which one
they mean and they’re different, okay. The four distinctions are there in every
language in the world because every, every human mind thinks that way. Why
are they there, is I’m asking, is what I’m asking. Yeah. [student: inaudible]
Excuse me. [student] She said, does that help to meditate on subtle [student]
How to meditate on subtle impermanence?              I would say this: she said how
would, I understand how you’re describing to meditate on quality and
characteristic, but how do I meditate on subtle impermanence?            There are a
couple of clues, okay. One, meditate on why it’s true, according to Buddhism,
that the beginning of a thing destroys it. Why the beginning of a thing destroys
that thing without the need for any other influence, you know. The birth of a
child kills the child, you know. Why? Why is that? And, and Buddhism is very
strict about it. It says, without any other external causes needed to kill the child;
just the fact that it’s been born. And it applies to pens and chairs and every thing
else, New York City, you know. Why, how is it that the creation of a thing
destroys it without any other intervening factors necessary, okay. That, that
would be one way to meditate on subtle impermanence. Another clue, I’m just
giving you clues, okay, would be why is it that when the mala or the rosary is
created we say it has a beginning and then it stays for a while and then it ends.
We say it has a beginning and an ending and a staying, right. Sometimes they
leave out the staying in order they say, in the Scripture, to enhance your
renunciation, okay, but we won’t do that [laughs] [laughter] ‘cos people say
‘stay’ they cling to the stay and they forget the end. And actually they, in the
Abhidharma Scripture, some of them leave out the staying, ‘cos they don’t want
people to get attached to the staying, okay. Beginning, staying, ending, applies
to the rosary but a very heavy thing – does this rosary have its own emptiness?
Yeah. What is the emptiness of this rosary? It’s the fact that it’s not anything
other than a projection forced on me by my past karma, okay. It’s not anything
else than that. What’s its dependent origination? The fact that it is, I am forced
to project it as a result of my past deeds, okay. That’s its dependent origination.
Its emptiness is that it couldn’t have been anything else. It couldn’t have been
anything else. If you want to meditate, you know, if Elly’s in the mood, after
you finish that other stuff about the subtle impermanence of this, the subtle
changing nature of this thing, then meditate on why its emptiness is {takpa}, its
emptiness is unchanging. The rosary is changing and you cannot say that the
emptiness begins and you cannot say that the emptiness ends. You must say,
the emptiness came into being and the emptiness came out, you know, went out
of being. But you can’t say it stopped or it began because that implies change.
Try to explore the difference between those two things. Explore the difference
between the rosary beginning and stopping and then the emptiness of the
rosary which never changes. It, it is, it comes into being and it goes out of being,
but it never begins or ends. Last question: if you destroy the rosary does its
emptiness go away? Yes, okay. Do you destroy the emptiness? No. And, if
you wanna understand subtle impermanence, explore those things. And the, I
can’t tell you more. You must meditate, you know. You can’t see any more
than that if you don’t meditate on it, you know. I can’t describe to you any more
about that, you know. You have, I’m telling you there’s a vast and vital
difference between those two things, but I can’t, but then from there you have to
take the ball and run with it, you know what I mean. Then you have to
meditate. If you don’t mediate on it you will never get it, okay. You must be in
a deep states of meditation to get these. That, and the quality and characteristic.
You’ll never get it in a class. You have to go home and meditate on it and you
must. It’s something you must, you must grasp those two concepts to see
emptiness directly. They are hurdles over which you must jump to get to the
direct perception of emptiness. And no teacher can give you any more than
what I just did. Now you have to go and meditate on it, you can’t see it any
other way. It’s {keldun} right, it’s too deep, okay.
That’s a description, it’s not a perception. You’re not perceiving it, you, you are
perceiving my description of it. To perceive it you have to go, you have to go
and learn to, you have to go and meditate at least an hour a day, okay. Yeah.
[student] yeah [student] but it doesn’t change and it’s not destroyed. And, and
why we have to say that, I, you have to go meditate on it, okay. All right.
Let’s take a break ‘cos that’s pretty auspicious, okay. Go and have your non-
existent drinks and food and [laughter] [laughs]. I suppose you could have
something out in the, in the courtyard, I guess. It’s like uh, uh.
So you better know the three kinds of {chis}, all right, very important to see
emptiness.
You better know why it’s important to know quality and characteristic to see
emptiness, okay. Those of you who took the Future, Proof of Future Lives class,
you studied the idea of a material cause and you’re gonna have to understand a
material cause, what a material cause is. Again, it’s the stuff that flops over into
the thing. For example, the clay for a ceramic pot, or the seed for a tree; and
you’re gonna have to understand that and understand its application to future
lives, to proving future lives. One of the things that you’ll be called on most to
do in the United States as the first American Buddhists will be to defend the idea
of future lives. They say, if you don’t believe in future lives, it’s very hard to
make any progress in Buddhism. And I think that the idea of future lives may be
getting diluted by the new- age interpretation of Buddhism, you see what I
mean. I mean it’s very much a reason to study Buddhism that you aren’t gonna
die when you die. It’s not over, you know. You do have to go somewhere and
it’s, and we can’t just cover it up or pretend that’s not true. It, it’s, it’s very
important to teach people that, to explain to them why that’s true because going
on from there is a very frightening process. And, and you can’t do anything
about it if you don’t believe it so we shouldn’t lose that teaching. That should be
a strong teaching in American Buddhism. It shouldn’t be that Buddhism
becomes a cult of feeling good or something like that or of feeling happy in your
meditation or something like that.           You are dealing with very violent
circumstances of your so-called future life, your next life and it’s no joke. And
we have to be able to explain to people logically why that’s true, okay.
You already had that. You already had that. Let’s see. I think it’s important to
know what a valid perception is. What makes a perception valid, okay. {sardu
miluway rikpa}, okay; ‘new, unerring perception”, in this school. The ‘new’ part
in this school because this school doesn’t accept that memory is a {tsema} is a
pramana, okay. Two kinds of valid perception: this one[demonstrates] and this
one, okay. And they’re both, why is that important in Buddhism? There are
many things that you can’t see with your eyes. Like, when you’re dealing with
America and you’re dealing with capitalism and you’re dealing with life in New
York City, it’s all what you can see. It’s the realm of what you can see and touch
and buy, you know. But when you’re dealing with Buddhism and trying to
escape this realm into another realm much of what you’re dealing with is
invisible right now, you know. Much of what you’re dealing with is, you can’t
see right now, you know. You hear me talk about hells, you hear me talk about
a Buddha paradise, you hear me talk about all this stuff; you have to be able to
develop your capacity of reasoning so that you can move beyond what you can
see. And you can’t get there any other way, you know. The original or the
initial perceptions of emptiness, the initial perceptions of your future lives are
gonna be this one [demonstrates], you know. They’re gonna be of something
that you can’t see with your eyes and you’re gonna have to develop your
powers of reasoning to where you can accept it because it’s logical. And, and
you can act on it because it’s logical. And you’ve gotta get to that point. Later
on it will become a direct perception s much as this. You will be able to see your
future lives. You will be able to see the day of your enlightenment. You’ll be
able to confirm the existence of your other lives, directly. But there’s a, there has
to be the reasoning first, okay. And you have to get used to the idea that the
perception which sees the beads this way and the perception which sees the
beads this way are totally equal in their validity. They’re both as powerful as the
other. And you have to get used to that because you are in a realm called
Buddhism, where many of the places you have to go to reach your goals in this
life, are gonna be invisible to you, you know. And, and especially the higher
teachings, the secret teachings, they run off of logic, you know, because if you
trust your emotions, or, or, or your culture you can’t, you won’t be able to do
them. You won’t be able to practise them, you know. They have to be, by that
time, you have to be running off of very powerful logic, because your culture is
running the opposite way, you know. And, and your instincts might run the
opposite way. You have to depend on reasoning and on logic and, and, and,
because at that point, so much is invisible that, that there’s very little to be, you
know, that you can see and confirm with your eyes or your nose, you know.
The texts say that, by the way, you know. By the time you get to that stage of
the higher teachings that are necessary to reach enlightenment in one life, you’re
not running on your nose and your ears and your eyes anymore. You’re
running on your spiritual sense, based on logic, you know, based on reasoning.
And it’s much more, it’s a difficult place to be in and you might as well get used
to it now. You have to establish truth by thinking carefully and not ignoring
these questions anymore because you can’t see those things. Death is real
whether you can see it or not. What’s gonna happen to you after that is real
whether you can see it or not. The forces that created this world and that are
creating your death are invisible but you godamn well better figure them out;
and you don’t have much time, you know what I mean. And so, reasoning, you
better, you have to know the two kinds of valid perception, okay.
Three kinds of good reasons.
The two kinds of negatives and, again, I stress the negatives, the study of
negatives. The most important negative of all is what?          Emptiness. Okay.
{megak}, the simple absence of something. I want you to study the different
kinds of negatives so that you get a deep appreciation for the fact that emptiness
is the simple absence of something. And, and that will disqualify about ninety-
five percent of the wrong ideas about emptiness, because they’re all positives or
{mayin gaks}but they’re not {megaks}, okay. They are not the simple absence of
something that never existed, never could exist, never will exist, okay. And get
used to that. And, and every time you meet a person who claims to be teaching
emptiness and they describe it any other way say, hey, wait a minute, is that a
{megak} or a {mayin gak} or a {drupa}?          You, you seem to be describing a
positive thing, you know. That’s not what emptiness is. Emptiness, every book
says emptiness is a {megak}, emptiness is an absence of something. It’s not like
some golden light or some black light or, or watching your mind, okay. Or
watching your thoughts come and go or something like that. Those are not
{megaks}, they’re not the absence of something, okay. Can’t be emptiness;
automatically disqualified.
Two types of relationships are important, okay. There’s a relationship between
quality and characteristic and there’s a relationship between cause and effect, and
it’s good to know the difference, okay. Especially when you’re studying karma,
okay.
The ultimate application of the reason to prove the absence of something, okay.
The ultimate application of that one; you gotta work on that.
Remember that long question where you had to identify all the elements in a
logic question, in a logical statement? That’s on the final. [laughs] [laughter]
okay, all right. If you didn’t figure it out yet, go the ‘Three Jewels’ on Saturday
and Sunday, you know, get some help. Huh? Yeah, there were fourteen in it,
yeah. If you know that you know formal logic. You can go through the other
schmeils and memorise the definitions and all that, but if you know, this is the
subject, this is the thing you’re proving, blah, blah, blah, then, you’ll be all right.
Then you understand logic, you know. Whether you use it or not is another
thing, okay.
We studied, the last thing we studied, was the subject of time, and there was this
cute little question where you had to fill in the three different groups and stuff
like that. I like that question, okay. Especially important, I think, to look into in
what sense is, what did we say? Future vase, the vase future, the future water
pitcher, future for the water pitcher; we said it a better way though, what was it?
[students] Future pitcher, was that it? Being related to the cause of a pitcher?
Picher future, yeah, yeah, yeah. Pitcher future. It’s pitcher future, somehow
being related to the cause of the pitcher, okay, pitcher future is somehow related
to the cause of the pitcher. And you have to think, there’s some things you have
to think about. Unfortunately, you just can’t answer them. Okay. That’s all the
final stuff.
It’s a custom in the monastery, you know, when they examine you for your
Geshe, they torture you [laughter] [laughs] for like, seven to ten days or
something. And, and you get to do all these different things, painful things, you
know, and it’s really hassle. And then slowly you get through the week and you
start to get towards the end of the week and you know you reached [cut] [end
side A]
[side B]
And the last part is the most difficult. Every one in the monastery can come up
and pick on you, you know, and ask you questions. Everybody. And you just
have to sit there, like late into the night, and finally, you know, the debate
master says, he makes some sign, you know, and dong, it’s all finished, you
know. And then every body sits down and there’s this big quiet and it feels so
good, you know,[laughs] and then you know you’re done, you know. And then
one guy gets up, I don’t know how they choose the guy, I still don’t know, and
he gets up and he makes a certain debate to you. And I thought it’d be
auspicious to end on that debate, okay. You have this in your reading, okay.
I designed this particular exchange with a whole bunch of sneaky stuff in it so
you have to practise it, you have to think about it, you have to look at it. Both
sides get a chance to be right and both sides are wrong, or are they? Okay. And
you have to think about it, okay. So we’ll do it with, who can we pick on? Elly,
are you ready? [laughter] {korwa …..}does, does samsara have a limit? Okay. I
say samsara does have a limit, okay,does have an end, okay. Samsara does have
an end; think about it, okay. First stop and think about it, you know. You
know, is, every pain you ever had had to have come from a bad deed. That bad
deed had to have come from a former state of ignorance. That ignorance had to
come from former bad deeds, etcetera. There was no beginning, okay. That’s
scary because it makes you feel like maybe there’s no end, you know what I
mean. And that’s the debate. This is from {parchen}, this is from the study of the
perfection of wisdom, okay. {korwa la ….}I say there’s an end to samsara.
[student] She said, you can’t say {dir} to a {chir}[laughter] {korwa la …..}because
there is an end to samsara. {yer} just repeat my verb. I said {yer}, it has, okay.
{ yer…} are you telling me there is an end to samsara? [student] So there must
be a beginning to samsara? Right? {yata} You telling me there’s a beginning?
[student: tak ma drup] We say a front - end and a back- end; in Tibetan there’s a
word, front-end and back-end, okay. When some body asks you, does samsara
have an end; you have to say, do you mean front end or back end, okay
[laughter] [laughs] [unclear] There is an end to samsara [student] There is no
end to samsara? [student: there’s a back end but no front end] Don’t get so, all
you can do is say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, I’m sorry. [laughs] okay [student: Yes, there’s an
end to samsara] No there’s not, because there’s no final end. There’s no, there’s
no back-end to samsara. {chi ta me pechir}there’s no back-end to samsara. No,
you should say, {tak ma drup} or {kyappa ma jung} Huh,So there is a back-end
of samsara, you telling me there is? [student:dir] No there’s not because
samsara’s limitless. [student] Ho, ho means by the way, now I gotcha, okay
[laughs] [laughter] So you’re telling me it is limitless? {kyappa ma jung} means it
is limitless but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an end. When you say {kyappa
ma jung} that’s what you’re saying, okay. It is limitless but it doesn’t have an
end. [student] {tak yata}So, so it is limitless? She says {tak ma drup}, they say
{kyappa ma jung}- you guys wanna make up your minds? [students] Oh, so it’s
not limitless? Right? Samsara’s not limitless. So, if the beginning of something
is infinite, the thing is not infinite? {uhn}[laughter] If I can count my past lives
and never end in the counting, that’s not limitless? It’ll never end. If I start to
count my past lives, you know, like if I count this one as one and my last one as
two, there is no end. It’s infinite. [student] It’s infinite. So it’s limitless. It’s
limitless. It has no limit. [student: if you’re going in reverse] In reverse [laughs]
So, numbers themselves are not infinite? [student: no, numbers are finite]
Numbers are finite? Are the total number of numbers finite or infinite? Infinite,
right, right. Is the number of numbers infinite? Why? ‘Cos you can always
add one more. Okay. That’s all. You can always add one more. So the front-
end has a limit like one, integers okay, positive integers, has one and it goes
infinitely, so we call it infinite {yin pa ta}, {dir}, so samsara’s infinite. {dir} so
samsara never ends because it’s infinite. [students] You just said it’s infinite.
[students] Huh? But numbers are infinite the other way and you still say it’s
infinite. What are you talking about? You don’t say numbers are infinite? Lives
are, oh {tsa}so, show me the first past life you had. Huh? Future lives are finite?
I’m not talking about that. I’m saying, are your future lives finite or infinite?
[student] I’m saying lives, my question is lives. I’m not saying past or future,
you’re saying past or future. If you wanna get up and debate me you can do it.
I’m asking you. Are your lives infinite or finite? So they’re infinite. So samsara
doesn’t have an end, because samsara’s infinite. Huh? It is infinite. It is infinite.
You don’t say [unclear] if someone asks you are numbers infinite, you say yes
they are. Why?        ‘Cos they’re infinite in one direction. It’s the same thing.
{rikpa ..}same thing. You call numbers infinite ‘cos they stretch out infinitely in
one direction, right? So samsara’s infinite. Same thing, what’s the difference? I
can count my past lives backwards and never finish. Same thing. Exactly the
same thing. That’s how I define it. So samsara’s infinite, right? So samsara’s
infinite. [students] Is samsara, no, really, seriously samsara’s infinite then. In the
same way that numbers are, in the same, in the same way that numbers are
infinite. I mean, what’s the definition of infinite? What’s the example of infinite?
From this point in space you can travel into the universe and never reach an end;
that’s infinite, right?      So from that point of the currant life and working
backwards you can never find a last life. That’s infinite. That fits every sense of
infinite that you can give me. Right? So samsara’s infinite [students] Well you
give me a definition of infinite if you don’t like my definition [laughter].
Seriously. Get straight here. You define infinite. I say infinite in the mind of
everybody in this room means they’re standing on planet Earth and they look
up at the sky and they realise that if they kept travelling in some kind of
spaceship or something, they would never reach the end of the universe.
There’s always one more inch. There’s always one more inch. Or, the other
meaning of infinite would be, you start numbering with numbers and you can’t
reach the end because you can always just add one more, so it’s infinite. It’s
unending. {yinpa} You give me a better, you wanna change it to, do you think
everybody in this room thinks of infinite in any other way? That’s how they
think of infinite. Come on, I grew up in America, what do you have? What
else? [students] Infinite means you can always add one more and you can’t
reach the end of it. No, we have to define, we don’t have common ground here.
We don’t have common ground. We don’t have common ground. We don’t
have common ground. We have to make sure we mean the same thing when
we say infinite. From my currant perspective, going into the thing I’m talking
about, I can always add one more. To me that’s infinite. What are you talking
about direction? From my rear end [laughter] the universe is infinite [laughter].
From my front end [laughter] the universe is infinite [laughter] I’m not kidding.
I’m not kidding [unclear] telling me direction, okay. [students] [laughs]
[laughter] From my back end too it’s infinite [unclear] [laughter] It is, I’m not
joking, come on. You can go the other way. Go down from one. Split it in half,
it’s a half. Go split that, it’s a quarter. Split that, it’s an eighth. It’s infinite that
way too. Back end and front end. You want a back end you got a back end
[laughter]. I’m not kidding. It’s infinite. It’s infinite. That’s the meaning of
infinite. {yin pa tel} or you give me another meaning. Show me something else
that’s infinite. [student] Huh? [student] So past lives are infinite? Oh, okay, I
gotcha, I gotcha, I gotcha. This is the crux. So past lives are not samsara?
[student] past lives are not samsara {yinpata}[student] [unclear] [laughter] She
said past lives [unclear] [laughter] [unclear] you said [student: you have the red
outfit on] You said, past lives are samsara, so samsara’s infinite, right? [student:
you have a red outfit on] [unclear] just stick to the subject, don’t talk to my,
[unclear] [laughter] Get back to the question here. Are past lives infinite? {dir}
Are past lives nirvana? [students: no] So they must be samsara. {dir} So
samsara’s infinite? [students] Huh? [student: kyappa ma jung] Oh, so if my past
lives are infinite, my samsara’s not infinite. {dir} So my past lives are not
samsara. [students] [laughs] So my past lives are samsara? {dir} So if these
beads [laughs] how can I say, are these beads round? And if they’re round do
they have a circular outline? So these beads have a circular outline? So, if that’s
true, then let’s go the other way. Are my past lives infinite? Are my past lives
samsara? They’re not samsara? [laughs] nirvana {yinpata} So they’re not
produced by my bad deeds and mental afflictions? [students] In general, in
general, in general. By the way, we’re talking about past samsaric lives, of
course. Yeah, yeah. The Buddha doesn’t have lives-s-s anymore, just one, okay.
So past lives are samsara, right? Let’s, I’ll do it again and you know, [unclear] I’ll
make it easy for you guys. [laughter] Is the bead round? If something’s round,
does it have a circular outline? So, so can we say that beads have a circular
outline? Right. Got it? Are you past lives, are the beads round, each, each
individual round, bead?          If it’s round does it have a circular outline?         So
therefore we can say that beads have a circular outline. Right. Now, are past
lives infinite? Are forced past lives samsara? So samsara’s infinite by same
reasoning. {tak ma drup} [laughs] [laughter] All right. {….} Say {…} [repeat]
Okay, whatever you wanna make up is fine with me, you know. {…} Oh, okay.
So, samsara doesn’t have an end?           [students] Because it’s infinite; ‘in’ means
negative, ‘finite’ means it has an ending, fini, fini, right, right? I just got through
that - back end, front end, doesn’t matter [laughs] [laughter]. If it’s infinite in one
direction it still counts as infinite. Okay, so it’s infinite.
So, samsara doesn’t have an end?
[student: tak ma drup]
Samsara does have an end. [students]
Why? [laughter] [laughs] [students] Say, I’m sorry, if samsara’s infinite? That’s
what I’m saying. I’m saying you can’t. I’m saying we could just go home.
[student] Right. [student] No, oh, no, I say there’s no end, there is no end. It’s
infinite. [students] Aahhh, anyway. Samsara {la chi ta yata} are you telling me
samsara has a , we’ll go to the end, okay. We got two more minutes. [laughter]
[laughs] You telling me that there is a back end to samsara? Say {dir} [repeat]
{yer te}, why the hell? Why? Say, {dang zing gyi} [repeat] {nyenpo} [repeat]
{ tokden} [repeat] {yer perchir} [repeat]. [repeat]
Because the tendency to hold things as self-existent has a powerful antidote,
which is called, the direct perception of emptiness. That proves you don’t have
to suffer. That proves you don’t have to suffer anymore, okay. Period. End of
debate. And then, every body goes Taaaaaaa. Ready?                  Taaaaaaaa [laughs]
Okay.
Okay, that’s in your, [unclear] gonna like that one. And then you got this thing
in your heart, like your Geshe’s over, you know, and you can go home and have
some tea, okay.
Okay, I have a few thankyous.
[acknowledgements and applause]

Okay, couple of things, we have to stop. Next class I think starts around May
  th
19 and as I said it will be Lojong. Total departure from this class, okay. I’m
just trying to make sure you come back, okay. [laughter] It’s very sweet
teachings that were invented about a thousand years ago about how to have a
good heart from day to day in your office, in your family, at home. How to
develop a good heart. And we’ll do some very famous Lojongs. One is called by
the Diamond Lion, {Dorje Senge}and the one that I really like which I don’t think
has been taught in this country that I’m aware of is called {shempa shi
drel};Pabongka Rinpoche used to love it. It’s Sakya. Very powerful, by Drakpa
Gyeltsen, very, very, very great Lama of our lineage, and, so, that’ll be the
Friday night. We’ll concentrate on that on friday night. [other announcements]
I wanted to say one thing. As I said at the beginning, Gyaltseb Je said the kindest
thing Je Tsongkapa ever did for him, you know, he taught him all these tantras,
he taught him all these incredible meditations, everything. He said the kindest
thing he ever did was to teach me logic, you know. And, really, I feel very
proud that, that we did a transmission. What we just did was a transmission,
you know. You don’t get, you haven’t delved into years of logic. I mean, it
could be years, right, but you have a very, very thorough understanding of all
the main subjects of Buddhist logic. And I don’t want to see it die in America,
you know what I mean. I, the transmission has occurred, you see what I mean.
The book is there, most of it, okay. [laughs] [laughter] try to finish it, okay. And
now I want to see you pass it on to other people. It’s very, very important for
the perception of emptiness. You must have it. It’s called the key to emptiness.
And, don’t let it stop with you now. I did my job. My schtick’s finished, okay,
transmit it, you know what I mean, okay. And now you have to go over it and
transmit it to other people, okay. And that’s a big transmission. We’re talking
about, really, it going from the eastern world to the western world. And, and
this is one big group of people; the survivors of the logic class, class thirteen, you
know.[laughs] You are the survivors of the logic class and now you have to
transmit it to other people, okay. You really have to, you have to take good care
of this knowledge and make sure, don’t leave logic for last, don’t say, teach it to
your students. And make them do logic and make them do debating. Please,
please learn debating. We’ll start debating now in all of the classes. And start
doing it with each other, okay, and follow the rules, all right.
I also want to thank John Stilwell who does a lot of work. [applause] And, and I
want to thank you really for coming ‘cos I, it forces me to learn these things
again and you’re very kind. I perceive you as very kind to ask me to teach and
to keep having me teach. I take it as a great kindness. It’s for me a very
beautiful life and very precious time, okay.
So, we’ll do some prayers, all right.
[cut]
[mandala]
[dedication]




                       Course XIII: The Art of Reasoning--NYC
                                RAW TRANSCRIPT



                                     PAGE 262