ACI 15 «Что на самом деле имел в виду Будда», занятие 3

Class 3,
Transcribed by: Karen Becker

Okay, to repeat where we are, we're in Je Tsongkapa's (b: Lekshe
Nyingpo), okay, (Lekshe Nyingpo) meaning "Essence of Eloquence",
eloquence meaning "something that was taught well, or taught
intelligently or taught great." And when I learned this subject
and when we were in the monastery, they said, "it means it's the
most important thing that Je Tsongkapa ever wrote", you know.
And there's a beautiful story today that Elly told me...she works
at the Office of Tibet, or or the Tibet Fund, and there's a monk
who you may know...Pelden Gyatso is him name?

Student, Elly: Uh huh.)

Who was in prison for thirty three years?

(student, Elly: Un huh)

Under the Chinese and beaten up, smashed, teeth are all gone, you
know, tortured for years, and when he escaped he escaped with the
instruments that they tortured him with and he he testified
before Congress and things like that, and he saw what Elly was
studying and he said "you're studying (b: Lekshe Nyingpo)?"
(laughter) (laughs) and she said, "yeah" and he said, and then
he...he started to read the reading and he freaked out and he
kept holding it up on his head and then he started reciting it

(student: Aw.w.w.w)

And he was in jail for thirty three years and he never got the
the full instruction on the text, he memorized it and he never
got the teaching on it, and he was saying, "you guys are lucky",
you know, (laughs), so that's really cool, that he was like
crying that somebody in the United States was studying it, so
it's really cool. Okay, that's the easy part. Now (laughter)
(laughs) I'm gonna go over a little bit last time because it was
hard and then I have a question here that someone asked me.
Someone asked me to clarify a little bit further the expected
answer on your homework about there was...there's this school
called (Jonangba) in Tibet and they had a wrong idea about
emptiness, and Je Tsongkapa...by the way my teacher, when taught
it, went into a long explanation of why Je Tsongkapa doesn't
mention anyone by name. He always says, "some people said", you
know, "some Tibetans have said" and it it just shows that he's
respectful of the other schools. He doesn't want to say outright
who it is and then the commentaries always say who it is, you
know (laughter), so so he's actually criticizing a school that
was current in his time. That said two things, okay. And these
are contradition, okay. The first thing that they said was that
the third turning of the wheel was spoke literally. Okay.
It..Buddha meant what he said in the third turning of the wheel.
Okay. That's the, that's the first thing you need to know. So
if you're going to answer the homework question, the first thing
would be to say, they they...this school called Jonangba, which
still has people following it. There are American-Buddhist
scholars who say "I accept the Jonangba position" or something
like that, on the one hand, Jonangba school says...and he was a
great scholar, he was a great thinker, and this is a difficult
subject and he got it wrong, according to Je Tsongkapa, okay, and
on the one hand he says, the third turning of the wheel is to be
taken literally. Okay. In the third turning of the wheel, what
is the example used for (yong drup) or totality, meaning
"emptiness", code word. What is the example they use?

(student: Empty space)

Empty space, okay. Empty space, meaning "the simple absence of
something which can stop your hand from moving across the room".
Which is what...my hand here. Okay. The absence of that is
spa...is empty space. And, and I like to translate it as "empty
space" 'cause it gives you that feeling of, you know...it's the
absence of anything ob...any physical obstruction. Okay.
Totally (gok sam me gok), definition of (nam ka), okay, the
simple absence of of something tangible, stoppable that would
stop your hand, okay, like that. So this is...this has empty
space. Everything occupies empty space. This thing is in empty
space. If I moved it, the empty space would still be there.
Empty space never changes. It can be occupado or no occupado.
(laughter) Okay. But it doesn't change. It's either occupied or
not. When this planet is destroyed, and the last atom of this
planet moves off into some other dust into some other galaxy, the
place where this planet used to stand will still be there and
will not have changed an iota, you see what I mean? So you gotta
get used to that. That's empty space. So on the one hand to
accept that Lord Buddha meant that when he talked about emptiness
and then to describe emptiness as some positive, unchanging
thing, self-standing whole thing, like a physical object, you see
what I mean? To say that emptiness is is...some schools, not
Jonangba, but other schools, go so far as to say it's like a
yellow colored light or a green colored light, or it is the
nature of your mind, or it is your mind, or it's the thoughts
running through your mind or something like that, is totally
wrong, you see, because that's a presence of something, that's
the self-standing existence of something, you see what I mean, in
the way that if I had a ball in my hands, that would be a
positive object, and to think that...to say, as Jonangba said,
"emptiness is a positive thing", a positive presence of
something, you know, and almost like a ball or something like
that, or or to say that it is your mind, or it is the the
thinking in your mind, or any which many schools are teaching
nowadays, is wrong. Es, especially you can't agree with that if
you say that the Buddha was being literal in the third turning of
the wheel. You can't say both of tho...you can't have it both
ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say,
the Buddha meant it when he said emptiness is the simple absence
of something in the way that space is an absence of something.
And then on the other hand say, emptiness is this positive thing,
it's a self-standing thing, it's like a big ball, even to go so
far as to say it's some kind of light that you see in your head,
or it's the nature of you mind or it's the thinking in your mind,
or it's the opposite of everything that's not...or something like
that. These are all explanations that you get in in traditions
of Tibetan Buddhism, and they're wrong. They both...they can't
be both right, you see. One of them has to be wrong, you know,
and, and, if you get it wrong, if you get it wrong, it's not just
a a question of two schools disagreeing with each other, or two
thinkers disagreeing with each other or two college professors on
 a TV show at 3:00 am on Sunday, you know, discussing whether
this thing is positive or negative. If you don't get emptiness
right in this lifetime, if you do not see it directly in this
lifetime, you must die and suffer. You can not achieve
enlightenment. Impossible, you know. You will die and suffer.
This is not a a philosopher's argument. This is how are you
gonna save your rear end before you die? Or not. It's a
big...it's not a light question and it's not some kind of a a
sectarian question...it's not like that. This is...it's
essential to get it right or you'll die, you see what I mean.
And if you get it right, you don't have to die. You can enter a
(tantric) paradise in this lifetime. But you gotta get it right.
 So it's not a, it's not a meaningless question. Okay. So
that's the refutation of the Jonangba on this point. And on
other points they're right and on other points they're wrong.
But in this case, do you believe the third turning of the wheel
was literal? Yes. Did Lord Buddha compare emptiness to a simple
lack of things in empty space? Yes. And do you also state that
emptiness is something positive and self-standing and ball-like
thing? Yes. Then you contradict yourself. There's something
wrong there. Okay. You can't say it's the absence of something
and the presence of something at the same time. Okay. You can't
say that. That's the refutation, okay. Now we'll go back to the
content of the last class, okay? Lord Buddha taught, basically,
three cycles of teaching. You can think of them historical, but
it's not necessarily the case, right? I mean when he taught
about the Four Arya Truths or the Four Noble Truths, as he did on
the first hour of his teaching on this planet, you know, he was
teaching what we call the first turning of the wheel. When he
was, you know, seventy-five years old, he was still teaching
about that. But that would still be considered the first turning
of the wheel. So every time he taught the Four Arya Truths, the
five heaps, the twelve doors of sense, okay, the eighteen
categories of a human being, the thirty-seven components of
enlightenment including the eight-fold Arya path and all that
stuff, okay, when he taught all that stuff...when he used to
teach it, he most often said, "and by the way, it all has a
nature of it's own. All of those things have a nature of their
own". Okay? Do they have a self? No. Do they have a nature of
their own? Yes. Do they exist by definition? Yes. Okay. Is
it different to say a thing has a self, a thing has...exists by
definition, a thing exists truly, a thing exists from it's own
side. All the schools have different ideas, you see. When you
get up to the highest school, it's all the same thing. To exist
from it's own side, to exist by definition, to exist in reality,
to exist independent of your projections, is all the same thing.
Impossible. Nothing's like that. But in the lower schools, big
difference between them, okay...big differences. So in the first
turning of the wheel, Lord Buddha says, "this pen does have a
nature of it's own. It has a (ngowo nyi mepa). It has a nature
of it's own. (Tsen nyi gyi dup pa. Rang ni tsen nyi gyi dup pa)
It does exist by definition, okay. A pen is a writing instrument
by definition, okay? This thing is a pen by definition, okay.
What you have before you is a pen by definition. He said that.
First turning of the wheel. Second turning of the wheel, up on
Rajgir...Vulchur Peak, right, Heart Sutra type of stuff which was
spoken there, he gets up and says, "this pen, your nose, your
head, this school, this city, everything you ever saw, everything
you ever thought, every thought you have, everything in the
universe, no nature of it's own". Nothing has any nature of it's
own. To freak his students out, he even says, "they don't even
exist". You know, meaning they don't have any...(mik me, nawa
me, na me, je me, nyum me yi me tsam me (unclear)), nothing
exists, nothing you see, nothing you hear, nothing you smell,
nothing you taste, nothing you think, nothing you touch...nothing
exists, you know. Meaning, nothing has any nature of it's own.
Okay. He says that in the second turning of the wheel, the the
(b: Perfection of Wisdom Sutras) okay. Then in the third turning
of the wheel, okay...who triggers the third turning of the wheel
according to the Mind Only?

(students: The bodhisattva)

It's this bodhisattva, okay. You can call him Dundam Yangdak
Pak, if you like Sanscrit, you can call him whatever it is,
Paramarta Samutgata, okay. Let's call him "the Bodhisattva".
Okay? (laughs) (laughter) And he comes up to Lord Buddha and
says, "you know, Lord Buddha, we really appreciate what you've
taught. It's been a great benefit to us. And and you've been
teaching all these years, and and and you taught about all that
thing during the first turning of the wheel then when you got to
the second turning of the wheel you taught that, but, you know, I
have one question. When you taught the subjects that relate to
the first turning of the wheel, like the Four Noble Truths, the
Four Arya Truths, you said...and when you taught the five heaps
of a person, starting with your physical body, you said "it all
exists from it's own side...it does have a nature of it's own."
You said that. Then when you got up on Vulchur's Peak...I don't
know it was a lack of oxygen or whatever (laughter) okay, but
then you said, "nothing has any nature of it's own. Nothing".
Nothing has any nature of it's own. This pen does not have any
"pen-ness" about it. Nothing. None. You know. So. What did
you mean when you said that, you know? Wha...when you got to the
second...by the way, he doesn't ask specifically about the first
turning of the wheel. He asks about the second turning of the
wheel. He says "what did you mean when you said nothing had any
nature of it's own?" Meaning, what did you also mean when you
said everything did have any na nature of it's own. Okay. So by
implication he's asking about the first turning of the wheel, but
directly he asks about the second turning of the wheel. Wouldn't
you?

(student: Yeah)

I mean, if the Dalai Lama got up, you know, in Madison Square
Garden and said, "nothing exists, by the way", you know, your
head doesn't exist, your nose doesn't exist, New York City
doesn't exist, thank you very much (laughter) (laughs) you know,
(laughs) you know, I mean you would be concerned, you know. You
like the Dalai Lama, you believe the Dalai Lama, and then Dalai
Lama gets up and says something strange like that, you want to
know what he's talking about. So you say, "what did you mean
when you said that?" When the Bodhisattva asked that question,
he is triggering the third turning of the wheel. It's called
(lek par cheway chunkor). Say (lek par che wa) (repeat) (chun
kor) (repeat) (Lek par che way) (repeat) (chun kor) (repeat).
(Lek par che wa) mea...means "fine distinctions; very subtle
distinctions". Okay. Distinctions between what? You tell me.
He's clarifying something, what?
(student: What he meant)

Yeah, what he meant during the second turning of the wheel. He
says, "oh oh oh oh you know, (laughs) don't take me literally,
okay. I mean, when I said nothing had any nature of it's own, I
I didn't mean it literally, you gotta, you gotta make
distinctions here". You know, I meant it about some things and I
didn't mean it about other things. And then (Dundam Yangdak Pak)
says, "well, how many different things we talking about here?"
And he says, how many?

(students: Three)

Three. Okay. I meant it in three completely different ways
about three completely different groups of things, okay. When I
said nothing has any nature...first of all...here's number one,
okay? We're gonna have three, right? The first thing I was
talking about was things that are just imaginary. Just things
you make up in your mind, okay. Think of, you know, I don't
know, a huge pumpkin, resting on the twin towers, okay. Just a
huge pumpkin. Like, you wake up tomorrow morning, it's in the
New York Times, you know, if you get up high enough you can see
downtown. There's this huge pumpkin resting on the on the Twin
Towers, you know, like crumbling some of the top of the Twin
Towers, you know, and the police are like clearing people out,
you know (laughter) is it gonna fall down, but you can imagine
this huge pumpkin, right. I mean you can imagine it. That, that
is in the category of things we call what, in Tibetan?

(student: (Kuntak))

(Kuntak) Say (kuntak) (repeat) (kuntak) (repeat) (Kuntak) means
"imagined". Imaginary. Okay. So what does Lord Buddha say?
"Oh, you know, when I said nothing had any nature of it's own,
the first thing I was talking about was imaginary things, like
the pumpkin that's crushing the two Twin Towers, okay, the Twin
Towers, okay, and and that does not exist by definition and
that's what I meant, okay. That's the first thing I meant. The
first thing I meant when I said nothing had any nature of it's
own, I was talking about imaginary things, okay". By the way,
question for you. Are imaginary things only non-existent, you
know, are all (kuntaks) like that pumpkin?

(students: No)

No. Some of them exist. Ann, Pelma. Nigel. Okay. They...those
are imaginary things, okay. Those are mental constructs, you
know. All that's really there is this guy with four limbs and a
head. I am making him Nigel. I am thinking of him as Nigel.
I'm naming him in my in my words and I'm thinking of him in a
certain way with my mind, and that's a construct. That's a
that's the same as the pumpkin, except it exists, it's exists in
my mind, okay. It's not like I'm shook his hand the first day
and said "oh you're Nigel. I can tell". You know. It it was
only after somebody telling me "no, this is how you spell his
name, this is his name, this is who who it...this name belongs to
this guy and when you think of this guy, when you meet this guy,
you have to th...imagine him that way, you know, and that's an
imagination. Okay. That's Nigel. Okay. And that...and Nigel
coke, or car or house or arm, those things are idealizations.
They never change. They're perfect things that exist in your
mind, okay. That pumpkin that's crushing the...well, let's not
use that one. Let's use one that exists, okay, you know, the
idea Nigel is a is a idealization. It's a perfect little picture
in my mind of this guy. And it and in this school they say it
does not change. Okay. Nigel can go out of existence...we can
say Nigel's not around any more, and and the idea of Nigel will
slowly fade in the world, but while he's here, while you're
thinking of him at Nigel, you have this mental picture, perfect
Nigel. Impossibly perfect, actually, but you have this mental
picture called Nigel and that does not change, okay. Yeah?

(student: In the Mind Only School how would they explain like
your different...let's say I like Nigel one day and I didn't like
(laughs)

Yeah yeah yeah

(student: you know, then it would see like your imaginary ideal
Nigel changes)
She said, "you you can your your your vision, your mental picture
of Nigel can change and then and then, you know, a week later you
say, I don't like him any more, and then your mental picture must
be by definition slightly different than it was a week before."
That's called a mental picture of Nigel's characteristics, which
in this school is differentiated from a mental picture of Nigel.
You see. Your mental picture of his characteristics is adjusted
or changed or something like that, but the mental picture of of
"Nigelness" didn't change. You can attribute him evil, or you
can contribute him goodness, but "him" doesn't change, you see
what I mean? The the basic Nigel...the picture of Nigel doesn't
change. It's like that. It's an idealization. A perfect a
perfect mental image. Yeah?

(student: But I follow him get, getting older and then have
another picture of him)

But you can't say he's getting older if you don't have a basic
picture where you compare a a a picture of him younger and a
picture of him older, you see what I mean, but you still have the
basic picture, you see what I mean? So they they distinguish in
this school between between a mental image of the features of the
of the object and a mental image of the object itself. And we'll
talk about it more later, okay? "And that's that's the first
thing I meant" says Lord Buddha, "when I said nothing had any
nature of it's own. I meant there were certain kind of things
that didn't have any kind of reality to them, they're just
imaginary, okay. Because in this school, here's a question for
you. What does it mean to have a nature of it's own? What does
it mean to exist by definition? In this school, Mind Only
School, what does it mean to exist by definition?

(student: (unclear))

The thing comes from it's own side through it's own unique way of
being, okay. Do...does that pumpkin that's crushing the Twin
Towers have some kind of essential identity from it's own side,
whether or not you dream it up?
(student: In the Mind Only School?)

In the Mind Only School, no, it does not. Okay. Therefore, in
the Mind Only School they would say, "that thing doesn't exist by
definition". That's what they mean by definition, okay? Why?
'Cause it's just something you made up. It's not like it's there
and it's exhuding it's own identity towards you. It's not like
it's out there and it has it's own identity, and and it doesn't
depend on you dreaming it up or not, okay? There is a pumpkin
crushing the two towers, you know, from it's own side, it has
it's own identity, in the way that this pen has it's own reality,
okay. In their school, not at all the same thing. Okay. In
their school, not at all the same thing. This pen has some real
reality from it's own side...it has an identity which it is
broadcasting to you, but when you dream up in your mind a pumpkin
crushing the twin towers, it doesn't have at all the same kind of
reality. Right? That's all. In this school, that's what it
means to either exist by definition or not to exist by
definition. This thing exists by definition, it has it's own
causes, it came from it's own factory, it's full of it's own ink,
it does it's own thing, it functions...everything else, that
imaginary thing crushing the twin towers doesn't have any of
those things. It's just a mental picture of something that
doesn't even exist. Okay. And it some cases it does exist,
okay, I can think up of Nigel or something, but that thought in
itself isn't doing anything, you know, like that, okay? That's
the difference. "That's the first thing" says Lord Buddha, "what
I me...that I meant when I said nothing had any nature of it's
own. I was talking about these weird things that you just think
up in your mind, okay? Some of them correspond to something
real, Nigel, some of them don't correspond to something real,
pumpkin crushing the twin towers, or what? Self existent thing.
Can you imagine a self existent thing? Yeah. Does it exist?
No. In this school, also, okay. That's a (kuntak) also, okay?
Self existent thing. And we'll get into what it means in this
school to be self existent. Okay.

(student: Sir?)

Yeah?
(student: Having a nature of it's own and existing by definition
is the same?)

Big difference.

(student: It's big difference?)

Yeah, oh...having a

(student: having a nature by it's own)

No, big difference here. Three different things don't have
natures of their own, but among those, only one doesn't exist by
definition. Okay. Don't forget. Take off your Middle Way hat.
Okay. Forget the Middle Way school. In the Middle Way school,
to exist by definition and to have your own nature is the same
thing. It doesn't exist at all, okay. In the Middle Way school.
To say that something exists by definition and to say that
something has it's own nature are equally absurd. There's no
such thing. In the Middle Way school same thing.

(student: Okay, yeah, that's what I meant)

In the Mind Only School, hey, three things don't have their own
nature, but only one of them doesn't exist by definition. What's
that? Imaginary things, okay. Now what are the other two things
that don't exist by...what are the other things...two things that
Lord Buddha was talking about when he was fooling us during the
which turning of the wheel?

(students: Third)

Ngh.h.h.h.h.

(students: Second)

Second turning of the wheel, right. Don't forget you're Mind
Only school, right? By the way, Middle Way school says what,
second turning of the wheel is
(students: (unclear))

True. Third turning of the wheel is?

(student: Not true.)

Not true. Why? Because in the third turning of the wheel, Lord
Buddha said, "in the second turning of the wheel, half the stuff
I said was true, half the stuff wasn't. Okay. Middle Way school
says he was bull-shitting in the third wheel, okay. (laughter)
Mind Only school says (laughs) he was bull-shitting during the
second wheel. That's all. Okay. All right. You gotta remember
that. You gotta remember which school you're in, okay.
That...why why are we doing this? I mean it's confusing, right?
In the end it will clarify your thinking about emptiness, because
you still have some wrong ideas that are very subtle about
emptiness, and you are a classic Mind Only school person. Every
person in this room, I would guess, if you're not...if you are
who you seem to be, which I don't know, okay, but if you're a
normal person, you have certain wrong ideas about emptiness that
are exactly the wrong ideas that the Mind Only school has, so if
you're some very kind Lama in fourteen hundreds, trying to
predict what people might need in America in 1998, you'd write
this book comparing what the Mind Only school thinks about
emptiness and what the Middle Way school thinks about emptiness,
'cause you know that those people are getting very close to the
right idea of emptiness but they gotta little bit wrong idea
left, which happens to be exactly what the Mind Only school
thinks about emptiness. And that's why Lord Buddha taught the
Mind Only school, okay? That's why he taught it two and a half
thousand years ago, for you, okay. For him, for him, five
hundred b.c. and 1998 are totally the same, absolutely no
difference in an enlightened beings mind. They they are as much
today as they are two and a half thousand years ago. Buddha,
Lord Buddha is not on this planet, but his experience of this
very moment is as direct as his experience of his own lifetime,
you know. At, during, when he taught the Mind Only school during
the third turning of the wheel, he taught it for...you. Because
he knew you needed it. Because he knew you still have some
leftover Mind Only ideas about emptiness, okay, and if you learn
them, you can eliminate them. Yeah?

(student: Who would verify that Je Tsongkapa (unclear)

(laughs) Yeah, very very good. Very very good. He said, "how do
we verify that Lord Buddha's, sorry, that Je Tsongkapa's
interpretation of this whole thing is correct, and we talked
about it the first day, we talked about it in the first class.
Je Tsongkapa says, you can not verify it by what?

(students: Words)

By words. You can't say...Je Tsongkapa said that. Je Tsongkapa
said the second turning of the wheel was correct, the third
turning of the wheel was just inter...you have to interpret it,
you can't say that. Why? Because people like Lord Buddha go
around saying stuff like that and they don't mean it either. So
you can't trust a person's words. He ends up saying what? You
must use reasoning. You must figure it out. In the end you must
use those three tests, you know, does it correspond to your own
direct experience. Does it correspond to what is logical to you?
 Does it correspond to the words that you've heard of people that
you believe like the Dalai Lama or, you know, who are
authoritative pe...that you accept as authoritative, and if it
passes those tests, then accept it. What's that?

(student: It may be true (unclear))

Yeah, it may have been figurative too (laughs). Yeah, yeah yeah.
Obviously the first two are more important, okay. The first two
are more important.

(student: I'm sorry to)

No, that's fine go ahead.

(student: When asked)

By the way, this is the whole point of the class, this is the
whole big question. How do you know when, how do you know Je
Tsongkapa wasn't fooling us on this? Okay.

(student: (unclear) whe can use inference or logic to deduce
that is a ver...you know, it's a valid workable view of emptiness
and that, you know, last one the Buddha said that somebody unlike
(unclear) couldn't find (unclear) but on the on the first side,
you know, direct experience in the sense that, you know, say a
Vasubandu or someone like that had had the Chittmatra Mind Only
view of emptiness, you know, his personal experience has been
that, and so then he writes about it and so on and so forth, you
know, where I might, perhaps if I'm lucky someday, have that kind
of experience as well, so that would be my personal experience
that would, you know, correlate to the Mind Only. Now, the one
question that that brings along is that because the way we think
about a problem shapes the outcome of that problem, how do you
then know that we're, you know, barking up the right tree or the
wrong tree)

(laughs) Two things. Basically he said, I have to repeat for
the tape, okay? It was like, Master Vasubandu, for example,
wrote a lot about the Mind Only school, and and and did he have
Mind Only realizations, but is he writing about his own personal
realizations? It appears that Master Vasubandu, who wrote a lot
from the Mind Only school's point of view is is relating his own
personal experiences, direct personal experiences, and then if if
if if I approach a question from a certain point of view or
certain point certain prejudices or certain question, then don't
I affect the outcome of how I think about it, or something like
that. Fir...the first answer would be that Master
Vasubandu...there's...it's obviously a big question, you know, he
wrote the (b: Abhidharmakosha). He wrote the root text for the
Vaibashkiya school, the lowest school. Throughout the book he
says (sero), which means "they say" or "they claim", okay, and
and so, you know, by the end of the book he reveals that he's
just reporting something that he doesn't believe, you know, that
a lot of the (b: Abhidharmakosha) is not correct, but he wants to
report what the sch...the Kashmiri-Vabashaika believe, okay. And
it's the same with the Mind Only school, he he he wrote from the
point of view of the Mind Only school, but he didn't accept it,
okay. How do we establish that, you know, how do we establish
that he did that, and how do we establish what he thought. I
mean, one important test is reality itself. If you practice
meditating on emptiness, if you think carefully about emptiness,
if you study dependent origination, you will come to certain
realizations that that contradict the Mind Only school. You you
will come...because that...it happens to be reality. You see
what I mean. You will come to...that's that's one test, I mean,
personal experience means that you will begin to experience those
things yourself. Ultimately you will find, and this is very
important...I heard a very authoritative person today give a
ridiculous explanation of emptiness to this group of people, you
know, and they said emptiness means that nothing changes, or
something that...you know, or...everything changes. They said
that. And emptiness means that it's not true that nothing
changes, you know what I mean? The the the test of a of a of an
idea about emptiness, supposedly, the power of understanding
emptiness is that it will destroy your mental afflictions. You
will become a totally happy being. You will never have a mental
affliction again. Supposedly the only energy in the universe
which can destroy your own negativities and your own negative
thoughts and your own negative events in your life is an
understanding of emptiness. If you are holding a certain
understanding of emptiness, like this one I heard today from this
great scholar, from a major university, right, that emptiness
means everything's changing, you know, and and if that makes
you...if it reduces your mental afflictions over a period of time
that you've practiced that, then it's emptiness. And and the
fact is it's not. And doesn't have any affect on your mental
afflictions at all (laughs). You know what I mean. That's
another personal experience. That's another personal test. But
but what they mean more in this context is not a personal
experience of emptiness so much, but but does a person's
description of what emptiness means in any way contradict your
own direct experience of your world. That's all. That's the
main test, okay? Yeah, one more and then we gotta go or we won't
make it to the end, although we can stay until ten-thirty.
(laughs) hee, hee.

(student: (unclear) What is...perhaps, perhaps we can get at it
this way. What is the difference between the (unclear) and the
(shenwang), the person's whose characteristic is, who character
characteristic is like)

Yeah, you can say...it's the difference...he said, "what's the
difference between the (shenwang) of Nigel and the (kuntak) of
Nigel, basically." Okay. The idealization or the construct,
Nigel, and and the changing object called Nigel, okay. And and
that goes back to the boy named Tashi. Okay. The (shenwang),
the changing thing is the object of the appelation, is the object
of the name, is the object of the label. That's that crying,
whe... whe, you know...screaming lump of flesh that came out of
the mother's womb. That's the (shenwang). Think of that as the
(shenwang). That is the changing object. Okay. And it was only
twenty four hours later, after some consultations between mom and
dad, that they decide to think of this screaming blob of flesh as
Tashi. You see what I mean? And then Tashi is created. You
see? Then the idea Tras...Tashi comes into being. And and
forever after people are focusing on the same blob of flesh, and
there is between the perceiver and the and the (shenwang), an
intermediate step called the (kuntak) which is the idea of them
as Tashi. My boy Tashi. Okay. When the blob came out of the
womb, did everybody say "oh, my boy Tashi". No. You see what I
mean? That's evidence that my boy Tashi doesn't exist by
definition. It does not have a unique way of being that's coming
from it's own side, because if it did, then the minute he popped
out, everybody'd say, "hey, Tashi". (laughter) (laughs) You know
what I mean. Seriously. That's an indication that (shenwangs)
the blob of flesh, crying, does exist from it's own side, does
exist by definition, in this school. Does have it's own unique
way of being which is like broadcasting itself towards you. And
Tashi doesn't. Because because if it, if Tashi did, then the
minute he popped out, everybody would...everybody...the doctor
who never heard of what the parents wanted to call him would say,
"hey, hey it's Tashi". Okay? The, Tashi is a...it's a creation
of the mind that is labeled or applied to the blob of flesh
later. A day later. Now later on in his life, people start to
get confused, and Tashi seems to be more and more self-existent.
Right? It more and more seems that he should be Tashi and he has
to be Tashi and every time that you meet him, he is Tashi, right?
 You start to confuse this label that was applied later, and in
the Mind Only school system, that is ignorance. To believe that
the name Tashi applies to Tashi by definition (laughter) is is in
this school ignorance that causes all your suffering. To believe
that a pen is called a pen by definition, to believe that this
pen is a pen by definition, to believe that this pen is the
object of the idea and the name pen by some kind of act of God
and not because it's some kind of construct is ignorance in this
school. And it is what causes all of your suffering. It is the
first link of the wheel of life. It's very interesting and...but
we'll get to it later, okay? Okay. Now, what was the
second...we didn't...we're still reviewing the last class
(laughs) okay. What's the second thing that Lord Buddha meant
when he said, "oh by the way, Bodhisattva, don't worry, the
second thing I meant when I said nothing had a nature was, I was
talking about what?

(students: Shenwangs)

(Shenwangs). Say (shenwang) (repeat) (shenwang) (repeat).
Changing things. Dependent things. Things with causes and
conditions. Things that come from other things. Things that
depend on other things, things at the mercy of other things,
which is what (shenwang) means. Okay. The word (shenwang), "at
the mercy of other things". They have to sit around and wait for
their seeds to come before they can pop up. They don't get to
pop up on their own, okay. That's what (shenwang) means. Okay.
And he's...now...did...what did Lord Buddha mean when he said
"those things don't have a nature of their own". What did he
mean?

(student: (unclear))

Did he mean they don't exist somehow? Did he mean somehow
they're imaginary like (kuntaks)?

(students: No.)

No, he meant something totally different. They don't have a
nature of coming, popping up by themselves. That's all. They
don't have a nature of popping up by themselves. They depend on
other things to happen. What's that got to do with my life? Why
do I...why was it such a big deal that Buddha got up on Vulcher's
Peak and said, "by the way, changing things don't have any nature
of popping up on their own". What was he talking about? Your
suffering. Your aging, your death, the fact that nothing goes
right in your life. The fact that every time something goes good
it screws up, every relationship you ever have, okay.
Everything. Every good thing you have you must lose. Where's
that coming from? Did it just pop up on itself? No. Why did
Lord Buddha get up on Vulchur's Peak and say, "changing things
don't just happen by themselves. They don't have a nature of
just happening by themselves." He's trying to teach you how to
stop your suffering. He's trying to say, "look. Everything
that's happening to you in this screwy lifetime has a cause. You
straighten up those causes, you don't have to go through this
kind of stuff anymore." That's all. That's the important
message. "That's the second thing I meant", says Lord Buddha,
"when I said nothing has a nature of it's own". Okay. What was
the third thing he meant?

(students: Nothing's ultimate.)

Nothing's ultimate. Nothing's ultimate, okay. What did he mean?
 He meant two two things, okay? Things don't have a nature of
being self-existent. And things don't have a nature...how shall
we say...many things don't have a nature of being what you see
when you see emptiness directly. That's all. Okay. He's
talking about emptiness. He's describing emptiness. Stated in a
positive way, if something qualifies as that object that you see
when you see emptiness directly, it is emptiness in this school,
(yongdrup). Okay. If something doesn't qualify as a self-
existent thing, if something is the absence of self-existent
things, then it's emptiness in this school. And that is what I
meant when I said the third kind of no-nature. Okay. Things
don't have a nature of being ultimate if they ain't what you see
when you see emptiness directly. Okay. And things don't have a
nature of being ultimate if they lack a self-existent thing,
which everything doesn't...does (laughs) okay. All right.
That's what he meant, okay. What's he talking about there,
emptiness itself? Okay. What's the first thing Lord Buddha
meant when he said "nothing had any nature of it's own"?
Imaginary things don't exist really. What's the second thing he
meant when he said nothing has any nature of it's own? Hey, this
stuff that's happening to you in your life that's causing all
your pain? It's it's not like it doesn't come from nowhere. It
does...it's not like it comes from nowhere. It has a reason.
Has a cause. What's the third thing he meant when he said
nothing had any nature? Hey look. There's certain things that if
you saw them you'd be free, that's emptiness. They don't have a
nature of existing self-existently, or something like that.
That's the third thing he meant, the third thing he was talking
about. So he's talking about...when he says "nothing has a
nature", he's talking about imaginary things don't have a nature
of being real. What's the nastiest imaginary thing in your life?

(student: (gok chak))

(Gok chaks) Self-existent thing. You go around every
millisecond of your life thinking there's something there that's
not there and that causes all the suffering in your life. Give
me an example. My boss comes from his own side. (laughter) It's
not me, okay. The person I had a fight with today is bad from
their side. It's not me. Okay. That's an imaginary thing. It
doesn't exist. The person that you had a fight today who comes
from their own side, doesn't exist, never existed, can't exist,
and you believing that causes you all your mental afflictions,
all your bad karma and that's why you're getting old. And if you
stopped it, you could actually stop the aging process, and that's
a (tantric) process. You know, stopping those particular ways of
thinking of things, has an affect on your inner winds and your
body actually stops aging. Okay. Very profound, you know. You
can become a (tantric) deity in this life, you have to straighten
out your winds. How do you do that? Stop thinking of things as
self-existent. You must stop. Okay. But to do that (laughs) you
have to know what self-existent means. So what's the first thing
that Lord Buddha meant when he said that nothing has any nature
of it's own? He's talking about self-existent things. Mainly.
(Kuntaks). Imaginary things. What's the worst nastiest
imaginary thing in the world?
(student: (unclear))

A boss that comes from his own side. A boss who's bad from his
own side, okay. Your problems in your life that you're not
responsible for...which is zero. Okay? Really. That's an
imaginary thing. That's a (kuntak). That's a self existent
object and it causes all our suffering. What's the second
example of a thing that doesn't have any nature of it's own? All
the changing things in your life. Like what? Like the last
relationship you had that fell apart, okay. It's not like it
doesn't come from no causes. It has it's own causes. You gotta
figure them out and stop it. That's the second thing I meant
when I said nothing had any nature of its own. What's the third
thing I meant when I said nothing has any nature of it's own? By
the way, if you cancel all the bosses in the world who'd exist
from their own side, what you have left is emptiness, and that's
reality. That's ultimate reality. That's the real way things
are. There are no bosses in the world who come from their own
side and torture you. They are all coming from you. If you
count up all the bosses in the world who are causing you
suffering, or spouses or anything else who are causing you
suffering from their own side, it equals exactly...zero. There's
none. Emptiness, okay. There are no such things. They don't
exist. But you, you spend your whole day swimming in those
things, thinking they do exist, that creates all your mental
afflictions, that creates all your mistakes in speech and thought
and action, and they perpetuate this world, and they will kill
you, you know. If you don't stop it, they will kill you.
They're in the process of killing you. That's why you look older
than you did five years ago. Okay. Period. Okay. Yeah?

(student: So, if if I take all existing things and I strip away
the concepts, and I strip away all the changing things and I
strip away emptiness)

Yeah, there's nothing else left.

(student: There's nothing left. So)
By the way, what

(student: postively positively stated it means that in Mind Only
with three things it's also that he said there is nothing which
has a nature of of it's own, because he in, in the three examples
in the three categories, he)

Yeah.

(student: he he covered everything which)

Yeah. Axel made a good point.

(student: So what, what)

Those three things cover everything. Imaginary things, changing
things and emptiness covers everything.

(student, Axel: So, so the difference between the second and the
third turn is just that in the second turn you say, they don't
even exist? (unclear) by definition, and in the third turn he
says that only the imaginary things are not existing by
definition, but the others exist by definition?)

Yeah. Roughly you can say that. What Axel said is that if you
summarize it, A)those three things that don't have any nature of
their own happen to equal up to all things in the universe.
That's true.

(student: But why)

In fact, a little bit more, because this one has a little bit of
non-existent stuff in it, (laughs) okay. All right? Let me
finish, okay. Let me finish. So they add up to everything in
the universe, okay? Now in the second turning of the wheel, Lord
Buddha said about those three things, what? None of them has any
nature of it's own - A). B). None of them exist by definition
and that's the same thing. Okay. But then in the third turn of
the wheel, he says, "yeah, I did say none of that had any nature
of it's own, but I meant three completely different things."
Three completely different natures that they didn't have. And by
the way, out of those three, it's only the first that doesn't
exist by definition, and what I meant by definition is something
different than than what I said in the second (laughs) turning of
the wheel, okay. You gotta get used to that. What's the use of
going through all these gym...mental gymnastics? You will
understand exactly all the wrong ideas about emptiness, the
subtle wrong idea about emptiness, and then your own
understanding of emptiness will be crystal clear. By the end, I
hope. If you stay in the class. Okay.

(student: Aren't we back to the Middle Way again?)

Why? She says, "aren't we back to the Middle way?" Why?

(student: Because emptiness...there's only emptiness left
(unclear) that has...I I see, emptiness does have self
existence?)

Oh, she said, "are we back to the Middle Way school in the third
category, right? Are we? Let's check, okay. Do they describe
(yongdrup) or emptiness in their system as "the simple absence of
the (gakchak), the simple absence of a self-existent thing".
Does the Mind Only school also say that?

(student: Yes)

From that point of view, they're describing it in exactly the
sweet, true way. Okay. Emptiness is the general absence of a
self existent thing. It's like saying, there's no two-headed
thirty foot purple elephant rampaging through this auditorium at
this moment smashing people, okay. Is it true that there's no
elephant like that in this room at this moment? Yes. Is it
almost silly to talk about it? Yes. Why? They don't exist
anyway. Hey, emptiess is exactly the same. You go around your
whole life thinking that something's there that has never been
there, is not there now, and could never have been there and will
never be there, okay. Self ex...remember, we're dealing with the
emptiness of a thing that's impossible. What's an example of an
impossible self-existent thing? How about your boss who's bad
from his side? And who's not created by you thinking of him
exactly the way you think of him when he's bad to you. You know.
 How about a boss like that? Find me a boss in the world who is
really nasty and not because you've created him. There ain't
any. There never will be any. And that's the emptiness of those
bosses, okay. So in both schools, emptiness is the general
absence of an impossible self-existent thing that if you believe
in that thing, you get in trouble, okay. Now how do you describe
a self existent thing is big difference in the two schools. We
didn't get there yet. Okay. We didn't get there yet. What it
means to be self-existent is totally different in the two
schools. It's useful to study it because it clarifys your
thinking about what self-existent really means. Today I heard a
recognized, internation, acclaimed, Buddhist, university scholar
from a major American university describe emptiness as
"changing", that the fact that things change. You see. And,
first of all, that's a positive thing, right? I mean you're
already in...you already (laughs) (unclear) okay, and then and
then beyond that it doesn't help you. It it doesn't release you
from your suffering. Now you have to prove that. You have to be
able to distinguish that from what emptiness really means. And
to do that you have to study the different schools, okay. By the
way, there's no Buddhist school that says that that's what
emptiness is, okay. You know that. All right. We go on to the
real class, all right. (laughter) And, by the way, that's the
way they teach this subject in the monastery, typically, half of
the next class will be about the last class 'cause it's so
difficult you have to maintain the continuity, you know, you have
to keep bridging from the last class. Okay. Now. Bad news for
you (laughter), that whole class and a half just covered what the
Buddha meant in the second turning of the wheel when he said
nothing had? Any nature of it's own. Okay. That's all. That's
all we covered. But he said for other things (laughter), right,
we've only covered twenty percent (laughs) okay, remember, he
said five things about...in the second turning of the wheel he
said five radical things. The most radical thing that we spent
the most time on was what?

(students: Nothing has)
Nothing has any nature of it's own. This pen doesn't have any
nature of it's own, okay? Now we've clarified that. How? This
Bodhisattva came up and said, "what the heck did you mean when
you said this pen doesn't have any nature of it's own, after you
got through teaching half your lives that everything did have a
nature of it's own?" And Lord Buddha says, "oh oh oh, I was just
speaking figuratively, you know, I didn't mean it, you know
(laughter), it's not really like that, okay." And Mind Only
school's like, "whew! Oh great, you know. We thought you went
crazy or something", you know. (laughter) Okay. And Middle Way
school's like what? "Heh, heh", you know, "he's fooling them
again, you know. They can't handle (laughter) it, so he's like
lightening the message up for them". His Holiness does it all
the time, right?

(student: un huh)

(laughs) Okay. So like, oh oh he's lightening up so they don't
freak out, you know. The fact that he asks the question means
what? If you're a sensitive teacher, now you're gonna have to
adjust things for them. "Oh, I didn't mean that.", you know,
"that would be freaky, right?" (laughter). That would be too
much, you know. You have to divide what I said. Some things do
have a nature, some things don't have a nature. I didn't mean
nothing had a nature, you know what I mean. The fact that the
guy asked the question means that if you're a sensitive teacher,
you have to immediately readjust. I taught in, was it Kentucky
or Tennessee...where were we? You know, they wanted to know...I
think Christy and some other, Tussie was there, Chudron, and I
got up, they said, "we want to know the fine points of vinaya",
you know. So I get up and I start explaining the the Abhidharma
system of vi..how many vows are this extraordinary halo around
and this and this (unclear) and after like three minutes, they're
all like (laughter)...you know, and then I went to (lam rim). I
just went zip (laughter) and (laughs) and I went to (lam rim) and
 then we had this great class for three days. They never
recognized that I didn't teach what I was supposed to teach
(laughter), you know, and we all had a good time and and and
Tussie comes up to me and says, "you know, you shifted gear after
three minutes. You shifted to a whole different subject. Nobody
even noticed", you know. I said, "yeah, 'cause the audience
wasn't ready for it", you know. So you just shift gears. You go
down about three gears, you know And that's what Lord Buddha is
doing in the?

(students: Third turning of the wheel)

Third turning of the wheel according to? (laughter)

(student: To Tsongkapa)

Yeah, no, not according to Je Tsongkapa. According to the Middle
Way school, okay? According to the Middle Way school, okay.
He's changing gears to soften it up. Okay. Going back to the
five things he said, five radical things. He said "nothing has
nature" in the second turning of the wheel, right? Nothing has
any nature of it's own. Nothing starts or grows. Nothing ever
stops. Everything is in a state of peace from the beginning.
Everything is nirvana. Okay. Five different radical statements,
okay.

(student: (unclear))

I'm gonna spell them...I'll write them out for you, okay? We're
gonna go one by one through them. Okay. I'm gonna put them up
one by one, the the different things that Lord Buddha said. We
gotta cover the other four...the other four are easy. The first
one is hard. Okay. Here's the first one of the four.

(student: the first one)

Yeah, this is actually the second of the five and the first of
the last four. Okay. In the study of this subject, they say,
which one are you studying, you say, I'm on the last four. You
see, they call it the "latter four" or "the first", you see?
When you say, "what're you studying these days?" (b: Drang Nge
Lekshe Nyingpo?) "Oh which one are you studying, first one of
the other four?", you see? So, I'm on the other four, okay?
Yeah?
(student: Is the first one (unclear))

Yeah, the first one was (ngowo nyi mepa), "nothing has any nature
of it's own". We covered that, we finished it, it's all wrapped
up. Packaged. You understand it perfectly (laughter). It
refers to three different ways in which nothing has a nature.
(kuntak, shenwang) and what was the other one?

(student: (Yongdrup))

(Yongdrup). Okay. You finished that. You got that. Now we're
on to the other four, okay? Say (ma kyepa) (repeat) (ma kyepa)
(repeat). Nothing starts, nothing grows. It, the a the expanded
version here here is (chu tang gyi ma kyepa), nothing in the
universe has the nature of growing. Nothing. Let's talk about
the sun going up in the morning, coming up, okay? That's a
perfect example of (ma kyepa), okay? Does the sun come up in the
morning? Of course it does, okay? I mean (laughs), you know,
I've never been up to witness it exactly (laughter) but, okay,
but by ten it's definitely up, I'll tell you that, okay?
(laughter) So, you know, it does come up in the morning, okay.
But Buddha, Lord Buddha in the second turning of the wheel says
"it does not come up in the morning". The su...this is a perfect
example, whenever you think of (ma kyepa) think of the sun. The
sun does not come up in the morning. In the Middle Way school
what does that mean when Lord Buddha says "the sun doesn't come
up in the morning"?

(student: (unclear))

What?

(students: From it's own side).

From it's own side. Independent of your projections, okay. The
reason you see the sun come up in the morning is that your past
karma is screwing around with your mind and forcing you to see
this thing come up, okay. If your past karma wasn't there to
make you see it come up, you wouldn't see it come up and it
wouldn't come up and you'd be blind, in a prison somewhere or
dead or and on another planet. Okay. Seriously. Okay? The day
that the karma ends for you to see the sun come up in the
morning, we'll say "oh, she died last night". Okay. That karma
is not self-existent, that karma is not permanent. It wea...it
is wearing out everytime you see the sun come up, you know.
Don't think it's your God-given right to see the sun come up
because there will be a morning when you don't. Okay. It's a
karmic result. And it's wearing out as we speak, okay. You are
closer to the last time you see the time come up, okay every
every time we speak you are closer to that day, okay. It does
not exist from it's own side. (Ma kyepa), okay. From the Middle
Way point of view.

(student: And Mind Only has a different)

Mind Only school has a totally different take on it because they
say, Lord Buddha wasn't speaking...?

(students: Literally)

Literally...when he said "nothing starts". You have to interpret
it. He didn't mean...would he say that? Would he say like the
sun coming up depends on your mind? (laughter) Course not. Of
course the sun comes up from it's own side, you know. Go out,
look in the morning. I mean, what do you think you're just
dreaming it, you think you're imagining it, you think it's just a
projection of your mind? Come on, it heats the whole planet.
Six billion people see the same thing. Are you crazy? Is like
six people...six billion people having a collective
hallucination? Middle Way school would say?

(students: Yes)

Yeah, that's right. (laughter) (laughs) Okay. Just because it's
more people doesn't make it less unreal, okay. I mean, that's
the Middle Way school. Mind Only school says, "come on. Don't
be crazy. Of course the sun comes up in the morning...from it's
own side, okay. So what did Lord Buddha mean when he said,
"things don't start".
(students: Things (unclear))

In the Mind Only school? Now if you're Mind Only school, when
Lord Buddha starts saying crazy things, you're gonna divide them
into?...those three categories, 'cause it makes it easier to
understand him, okay? So don't forget, on your homework
(laughter), when you get to "what does the Mind Only school say
about things not starting", you're gonna have to say, "oh excuse
me, which things are we talking about? (kuntaks, shenwangs) or
(yongdrups)? Okay. Are we talking about imagined things, are we
talking about things that come from their causes, or are we
talking about emptiness? Because he meant a different thing in
each case when he said they don't start. Okay. Oh, well what
did he mean? You gotta cover all three, okay? You gotta cover
all three. What...do, do imaginary things grow? First question.
 Let's not say start, let's say grow, okay. Do imaginary things
grow? Did that pumpkin that's crushing the twin towers start as
a small pumpkin and get bigger? Did my conceptualization of the
person named Nigel start like two inches high and then go to four
inches high and then get five feet, six feet? No, it's a perfect
little visualiza...idealization from the first moment I have it.
It's called Nigel, okay? It's not like it grows, okay? It's, it
has a...it comes into existence. We don't say it grows. Grows
means a process of starting small and getting bigger, okay? And
and and my idealization of Nigel, or the thing you call "car" or
the thing you call "pot", or the thing you call "school", is a
perfect little picture from the first moment of it's existence.
Okay. It does not slowly, like, grow.

(student: What if I do imagine Nigel small (unclear))

Oh, you can say that you have a you have a an idealization of a
small Nigel and you have a idealization of a larger Nigel, that's
okay. Those are different things. But we're talking about
"Nigelness". Okay. The con the concept "Nigelness" or "me".
You see, the concept "me". It's not like its gets smaller and it
grows bigger and like that. It, you either a perfect "me" or
you're not a perfect "me". Period. That's all. In this school,
okay? Like that. And I think even in the other schools you'd
say that, okay? So, so first of all, can can you say that Lord
Buddha...can you say that Lord Buddha...what did Lord Buddha mean
when he said "things don't grow"? Oh, which of the three
categories we talking about here? Imaginary things. When he
said imaginary things don't grow, was he being literal? I'll ask
you again. Be careful, okay. We are in a class about what's
literal and what's figurative, right? We're in a...that's the
subject of this class. I ask you again. When Lord Buddha
said...Mind Only...put on your Mind Only hat, okay, forget Middle
Way. When Lord Buddha said that imaginary things don't grow, was
he being literal?

(students: Yes)

Yeah, okay. Got it? That was easy. Okay. What about
emptiness? Was he being literal when he said emptiness doesn't
grow?

(students: Yes)

Of course. Why? Emptiness doesn't get bigger or smaller, come
on. You're either a hundred percent empty or you're not, okay.
You're either the fact that there's no thirty foot two headed
purple elephant in this room or not. Can he be halfway here?
Yeah, I used to try to imagine his butt in the room and his head
outside (laughs) (laughter) or something like that...it's not
like that (laughs), okay. I mean either he's here or he's not
here. You see, reality, truth is like that. Truth is either a
hundred percent true or not true. It's either A or B. You can't
say A and a half. You see what I mean? If if this room has it's
emptiness then it's a hundred percent emptiness, you see. It
can't be like forty percent empty. Okay. So (yongdrups). The
third category. Emptiness itself according to the Mind Only
school, could never have grown anyway, okay. 'Cause it don't
change. Emptiness doesn't change. Can emptiness go out of
existence? Does the emptiness of this pen go out of existence
when I destroy the pen? Yes. Does it slowly stop in stages?
No. It just blinks out. You see what I mean. It's a hundred
percent emptiness up to the last moment of the pen's existence.
And then the next moment there is no pen so there's no emptiness
of the pen. But the emptiness doesn't get smaller or get older
or shrink a little bit or become forty percent emptiness and then
thirty percent emptiness or something like that, you gotta get
used to that. Okay. Emptiness is a constant. Okay.
Unchanging. Okay. That's why I don't like the translation
"impermanent". It's wrong. Is is emptiness impermanent? Yes,
it goes away. Does it change? No. That's a mistranslation...a
terrible mistranslation. Okay. Anyway. In the sutra where the
Bodhisattva asks the question and Lord Buddha explains himself
and when he gets to (ma kyepa) he covers the (ma kyepa) of
imaginary things...they don't grow. And then he covers the (ma
kyepa) of emptiness. It doesn't grow, and you know what? He
leaves out (shenwangs). (laughter) Okay? He leaves out (shen
wangs). I mean, everybody fig...for the next two thousand years
people are wondering, "why the hell did he leave out (shen
wangs)?" You know. You tell me. What does Je Tsongkapa say?
What do you guess he says? Why did Buddha skip (shen wangs) when
he got to (my kyepas)? When he said things don't grow.

(students: By definition. That they wouldn't start)

They do exist. They do grow. Not only do they grow in this
school, they grow?

(students: (unclear))

By definition. They a hundred percent grow. Forget it man, they
grow from their own side. They grow through some own unique way
of being on their own. They're not even a projection when they
grow. They grow out there on their own. Lord Buddha would never
say they didn't grow. That's why Lord Buddha skipped it.
(laughter) (laughs) Okay. He'd be crazy to say they didn't
grow...in this school. Not only do they grow in this school,
they grow "by definition", meaning from their own side, by
themselves. Nothing to do with my projections or anything else.
I'm not imagining it. It's out there. My boss is an asshole
from his own side. It's not me. It's not my fault. He's a bad
person. Everyone should dislike him like I do. I don't know why
some people see him as nice. He's self-existently one hundred
percent evil. (laughter) You know. The people who think he's
got any good qualities are having non-pramanas, you know.
(cut)

withstand, you know, okay? He's bad from his own side. It's
nothing to do with me, okay. That...so we skip it, okay, in this
school...in in the sutra he skips it, and you'll see in the
reading a discussion, "hey, why did Buddha skip it"?, okay.
That's the sec...we'll do one more and then we'll take a break.
Say (ma gakpa) (repeat) Okay, write it down. Say (ma gakpa
(repeat) (ma gakpa) (repeat) This is the third thing that the
Lord Buddha said in his crazy second turning of the wheel. You
know, from the Mind Only point of school he went out of control.
Okay. Said "nothing has any nature of it's own. Nothing begins.
 Nothing grows." And then he said (ma gakpa). (Ma gakpa) means
"nothing ends". Nothing is destroyed, okay. He said that.
Nothing in the universe ends, he says. Nothing has a nature of
ending. We can use as an example death itself, okay? Now, my
teacher in the monastery, he'd say, "I'm gonna let you guys take
a little trip, you know, I open the door to Middle Way school,
okay. You're tired of this confusing Mind Only stuff? Let's go
back home, you know. I let you go in the Middle Way school,
okay. Take off that Mind Only hat. Put back on your Nagarjuna,
Je Tsongkapa, Lord Buddha hat. Go into that comfortable place
called Middle Way school, okay. What did Lord Buddha mean when
he...let's take the ultimate (gak, ma gakpa), your death, okay?
What did Lord Buddha mean when he said you don't die? (ma rik
bam me, ma rik basa bam me, ban ne ga she me). You don't die.
What did he mean? What did he mean?

(students: (unclear) with your projection)

Yeah, you don't die independent of your projections. Your own
death is your projection. Okay. The day you die and you look
down and see this dead body, except you can't look down, okay,
that's a projection. It does not have any reality of it's own.
Okay. And if you stopped the state of mind that does that
projection, you would be in a (tantric) paradise never to die
again. And you can do it because it's true that it's a
projection. This becomes important. Projections are not like
some philosophical, played thing, you know what I mean. This is
life or death. You don't have to die. It's a projection that
you're getting older and it's projection that you'll die, okay.
When Lord Buddha said, "nothing ends" (ma gakpa), in the second
turning of the wheel, what he meant was, things don't end
independent of your projections. It's all your projections. If
you fixed your mental afflictions, you wouldn't have to die.
Tantrically speaking your winds would straighten out and you
wouldn't and you would actually change your body. Your body
would change, okay...permanently. Okay. That's that's all. You
can do it. Okay. That's what he meant. Okay. Now. Forget that
Diamond Cutter Sutra stuff (laughter), close the door, Middle
Way, come back to Mind Only, okay. Come back to the Mind Only.
Come back to this auditorium. Okay. We're in the Mind Only
school. Hey, I was just kidding when I said things didn't end.
I didn't mean it. Of course things end, okay? Of course things
end. Did...let's talk about it in those three categories. Okay.
 We're in the Mind Only school, right? We've gotta look at each
of the three categories. What's the first one?

(students: (kuntaks)

(Kuntaks). Imaginary things. Do imaginary things end? Does the
pumpkin that's crushing the Twin Towers get old and soggy and
start falling down...

(students: no)

and people climb up to make pumpkin pies or something (laughter),
no, okay? Never could get old. Okay. When Lord Buddha said
things don't end, what he meant about imaginary things is that
they don't get old anyway, come on. Okay. They're just in your
mind. Okay. Then when he gets to emptiness he says, emptiness
don't end and is he being literal?

(student: Yes)

Yeah. Emptiness does not get old, okay. Emptiness does not wear
out. Does emptiness com... go out of existence? Yes. When the
pen is destroyed it's emptiness goes out of existence. But in
the final hours of the pen, does the emptiness get less empty?
(student: No)

No. It's always a hundred percent empty. Up to the last moment
it's one hundred point zero zero zero percent empty up to the
last moment of the pen's existence. The pen, up to the last
moment of existence, is anything but "self-existent". Forever,
okay. For as long as it's there, it's one hundred percent not
self-existent. It doesn't get less that way or more that way,
it's always been that way, okay. So, category number three.
(Yongdrup), emptiness in the Mind Only school. Does it slow down
and end?

(student: No)

No, okay. That's what Lord Buddha meant during the second
turning of the wheel. And again the sutra skips what?

(students: (Shen wangs)

(Shen wangs). Okay (laughs). The sut...but if you notice in the
sutra, Lord Buddha doesn't say, "oh and what I meant when I said
changing things don't end," he doesn't end...he skips it. Why?

(students: Changing things ends)

Changing things do end. They not only end, they end...in this
school...by definition. From their own side. Nothing else
necessary. No projections. No imaginations. They have their
own external reality. They end because their causes stop and
they stop, from their own side, through their own external
reality, independent of you. Okay. Who believes that?

(students: The Mind Only school)

The Mind Only school. And so do you (laughter), okay. No, you
know. I ask you, do you have to die? You'd say yeah, you know.
I ask you, does Buddhism teach you how not to die? Say no, I
never saw anybody you know, practice really good and didn't die.
You know what I mean. You believe that. And and when I get up
and say "you don't have to die", you think, well, maybe he's been
figurative (laughter). (laughs) Or something like that, you know
what I mean. Okay. It's not that way. By the way, to see
yourself not die is extremely difficult. It takes devout pure
practice your whole life. I compare it nowadays to learning
concert piano. You'd have to put in the same effort. You
can...everyone in this room could become a very good pianist if
they really had a good teacher and if they took the lessons
seriously and practiced enough every day, almost everybody in
this room, except Sikes, maybe, (laughter) could, you know, who
has the least ear, okay, could could learn to play piano like a a
concert pianist. But, if, you know, how many people could
actua...would actually do it, that's a big difference, okay.
Everybody in this room can see emptiness directly. Everybody in
this world...in this room can can reach (tantric) paradise in
this life but it takes just about the same effort as becoming a
con con concert pianist. It takes about the same seriousness
about it. And the odds that you'll do it are are about that.
See what I mean. You you have the capacity in the way that
everyone here has the capacity to learn to play piano that well,
but but whether or not you'll take it seriously enough soon
enough to do it is another question. Okay. That's a whole nother
question. But it's about the same amount of effort. You could
do it. You...what I'm trying to say is, if you take the amount
of effort it takes to see emptiness directly and not die in this
life, and then you take the amount of good karma it takes to see
someone not die in this life, even though you die in this life,
they're very similar, okay. To say that Buddhism doesn't prevent
people from dying because I never saw anybody who didn't die is a
fallicy. Because they're very similar effort. The effort to see
a miracle occur and the and the ability to do a miracle and the
ability to be there when a miracle is performed require very
similar karma, very similar effort. By the time you see somebody
walk across the lake you're very close to doing it yourself. And
and to say that you haven't see anybody cro cross, walk across
the lake so nobody can walk across the lake is just evidence of
you lack of effort. You see, see what I mean, that you're not
even close enough to see it. To see someone else do it. But but
they're actuallly they're very close, you know, it's a very close
thing. And if you were like wavering half and half between
having enough karma to see it and having not enough karma to see
it, the doubt itself is enough to stop the miracle. You see what
I mean. It's...in (tantra) that's the whole basis of (tantra).
The doubt itself is enough to prevent it from happening. And
then what happens? Like you walk like two feet on the water and
then suddenly you doubt (laughter), no seriously, and and
according to (tantric) theories the karma of that moment of doubt
is enough to stop the water from being hard. You see, and it
would stop and you would sink and you'd say, oh, you know, help
me. (laughs) (laughter) Okay. All right. So anyway, (Ma gakpa)
means that. Okay? And and again in the sutra they skip
(shenwangs). Why? Because in this school changing things really
do end from their own side "by definition". Okay. Whether or
not you're having a karmic projection or blah blah blah we don't
care. They would have done it anyway. The tree would have
fallen in the forest anyway. Okay. Yeah. Last question. We
gotta have a break.

(student: But when you say the pen and the pen perceiver have
the same karmic forces and of less (unclear) so, and now you say
things end because their cause end, then that is the same cause
as I have and that...then I don't see the difference between the
Middle and the Mind Only school because then it must be my
projection. So there I I don't see the real difference.)

Dido says, you know, at the end of the last class you said that
the pen and the eyeball and the eye consciousness which sees the
pen, in this school, come from the same karmic seed. And in fact
it's such a powerful connection they even call it quote "the same
substance", the same stuff, the pen and the and the mind are the
same stuff. But what it's a code word in this school for they
come from the same karmic seed. Is that the same as saying "I'm
projecting the pen"? And they they'd say no. You see there's a
subtle difference. And struggling with that difference,
struggling to understand the difference is is purifying your view
of emptiness. You see what I mean. Struggling with these
distinctions...what's the difference between saying my eye and
that pen came from the same karmic seeds and saying that that pen
is a projection of my karma? Is there a difference between those
two? Are they subtly different? See, studying the Mind Only
school helps you make your understanding of the Middle Way school
much more pure. Much more subtle. Yeah. You gotta deal with
those differences. There's a there's a very beautiful example.
What's the difference between saying that this pen's very nature
depends on my projection forced on me by my past karma, and
saying on the other hand, that my eyeball and that pen have both
been created by one karmic seed. Is there a difference between
saying those two things? You have to deal with that because one
is emptiness and one's not. Okay. And you have to deal with
that. And it helps you clarify your thinking about emptiness.
It's very cool. It's very helpful. That's why we study the Mind
Only school. That's why Lord Buddha taught the Mind Only school.
 Okay. Take a break. Come back in ten minutes. We got two more
left, they're easy, okay. (laughs) (laughter)

(cut)

on the on the, also I have the honor to welcome Captain Ten Huk
Chen, and his associate Dr. Ho, who are here from Singapore.
He's the former director of the center there, Amitabha Center,
right, in Singapore which is a very beautiful FPMT center of Lama
Zopa's, so I'd like to thank them and welcome them, like that.
(applause) Okay. Back to the truth of suffering. (laughter)
(laughs) This is number four, okay? Come on Sikes, you don't
write the Tibetan anyway. (laughter) I want you to make sure
it's on his homework, okay? Four of the five, three of the last
four.

(student: It's three of the last (unclear)

Number three of the last four; four of the whole five. Say (suma
ne) (repeat) (shiwa) (repeat) (Suma ne) (repeat) (shiwa) (repeat)
 (Su) is a very very very unusual word. Those of you who know
Tibetan don't mistake it for "patience" which is (ba oh), okay,
this is (ka oh), okay (ka oh san dar su da su) means, it's a very
very rare word, (su ma ne) means "from the beginning of all time,
for all time, since forever," okay. (Suma ne, suma ne) means
like "from the very beginning of things", meaning beginningless
in Buddhism, right, okay. From the very beginningless of things?
 How's that? (laughter) Okay. Something like that (laughs).
(Suma ne). (Shi wa) means "peace or extinct". Okay. In in
Tibetan it's the same thing, like if you put out a fire it's
called (shiwa), extinguish a fire, but it also means "peace". As
you know, peace is a synonym for nirvana. Right? Okay. So,
(suma ne shiwa) means, (suma ne shiwa) means "Lord Buddha, in the
second turning of the wheel, when he went crazy, according to the
Mind Only school, right, said nothing has any nature of it's own,
nothing grows, and nothing ends, and everything has been from the
very beginning in a state of peace or extinction. Okay. What
does that mean, to be in a state of peace or extinction from the
beginning? What's he talking about, you know. How is it like
nirvana from the beginning? What does that mean when you say
everything in the universe has been at a state of...in a state of
rest from the beginning. What does that mean? It means "free of
the mentally afflicted side of things". This is a code word in
Buddhism. Everything in the universe is either on this side,
called bak she in Sanscrit, or on this side. This side is all
the mentally afflicted stuff in the world, meaning mental
afflictions, the things that cause mental afflictions and the
things that come out of mental afflictions. Like what? Your
body, okay? Your mental afflictions themselves. This room, this
school is a product of mental afflictions. So it's on, what we
call the, mentally afflicted side of things. Ninety-nine point
nine nine nine percent of your of your life is tied up is
invested in either active mental afflictions, or the consequences
of your old mental afflictions or the or the causes for your new
mental afflictions, okay? Ninety-nine percent of your world is
that. We call it (ku ne nyo mo kyi chok). Say (ku ne) (repeat)
(nyo mo) (repeat) (kyi chok) (repeat) And it means "the whole
mentally afflicted side of stuff". And that's ninety-nine
percent of your world is that. Then there's what they call the
the totally pure side of things, the pure side of things. What
is that? Your Dharma studies, your understandings of emptiness,
your renunciation, your compassion, okay? The tiny little good
side of things, okay? So Buddhism says there's two sides of
things. Two huge divisions, okay. Ninety-nine percent of your
day is over here. It's either mental afflictions, or triggering
mental afflictions or a consequence of your old mental
afflictions, okay. Then over here is this wimpy side, the little
good thoughts you have, the little understandings of compassion,
the little understandings of emptiness, the little study that you
do, the twenty three minutes of meditation you do (laughter) you
know what I mean? (laughs) It's all over on this side, okay?
And then Buddhism says there's two whole sides of that. (Shi wa)
here means "extinct" meaning the bad side has stopped. Free of
the bad side. (Shi wa) here, peace means or extinct means "free
of the bad side of things from the beginning free of the bad side
of things." Free of the samsaric side of things. Free of the
suffering side of things. Now. Did Lord Buddha mean it when he
said everything was free of the negative side of reality? Of the
dark side of your existence. Did he mean it when he said
everything is free of that?

(student: What school?)

Oh what school. Mind Only school. Good question. Did he mean
it?

(student: Depends on which of the three)

Yeah, we better check the three categories. Sal's right. In the
Mind Only school you gotta go to those three categories. Okay.
What's the first category? (Kun taks) Imaginary things. Are
imaginary things, meaning mostly here...here's the clue,
okay...meaning unchanging things like empty space, okay. Stuff
like that. Are they generally free of mental afflictions?

(students: Yes)

Yeah. We can say then they are free or extinct or peace from the
beginning. For...from forever, they have been free of mental
afflictions. So the Buddha was speaking?

(students: Literally)

Literally. When he said they are (suma ne shiwa). They
they...from the beginning they are in a state of peace, okay.
They are in a state of peace. If if that's how you take it to
mean...you see what I mean? And that's what it means, okay?
The sutra skips the next one...we'll come back to it. Okay.
Third one, emptiness itself, (yongdrup), totality, the third
category of the Mind Only school. Is it generally speaking free
or devoid of suffering things, negative things?

(students: Yes)

Yeah. Okay. Fits perfect. That's what I meant when I said
everything was peace from the beginning or extinct from the
beginning, okay? Bodhisattva, don't take it to be something wild
like, you know, "everything's free". Everything's free of mental
affliction, because the vast majority of things which are in
what, category number?

(students: Two)

Two. Changing things. How much of your world is changing
things?

(students: Ninety-nine)

Ninety-nine point nine nine nine nine nine nine percent. (Du ma
che na num su te, nom ka da nyi go pa oh) (b: Abhidharmakosha),
opening lines, okay. There's only three unchanging things in
your whole experience. All the other zillion things are
changing. Okay. And they're all suffering, okay. Ninety-nine
point nine nine...except for your glimpses of compassion, your
glimpses of renunciation, your glimpses of understanding of
emptiness, the ten minutes you spent on your homework (laughter)
okay, everything else is suffering. Every other changing thing
in your reality is suffering. You can not call it...peace, from
the beginning, okay. You can not call it devoid of mentally
afflicted stuff from the very beginning, okay? That's why the
sutra skips it here too. (laughter) Okay. You can't say that
about changing things. They are intimately connected with your
mental afflictions. They are intimately connected with the chaos
in your own mind, your world is ninety-nine percent a production
of the chaos in your mind, the chaos in your mind or new chaos
being created. Okay. That's the truth of suffering. You live
in it, okay. Most of your world is that. All the things around
you. Why? What's the evidence of it? The bad things is bad and
the good things is changing. And getting worse, okay. That
covers everything. (laughs) Okay (laughs). All right. That's
the nature of samsara. So Buddha, Lord Buddha didn't refer to
the second category that way. Okay. Did you have a question?

(student: Yeah, (unclear))

I didn't I didn't catch it.

(student: (unclear))

Oh, Ken said, wouldn't (kuntaks) for example imaginary bad
things, like a nightmare or something like that, wouldn't
be...wouldn't that be negative? Yeah. In the debate ground you
always say (pel char). (Pel char) means what? "For the most
part". You cover your rear end. (laughter) With (pel char),
okay (laughter), you know, you say, "for the most part, imaginary
things are are are not involved with the act of suffering. I
mean, empty space, I mean, you know, empty space is not
suffering. I...see what I mean? It's just neutral, okay...for
the most part, how's that? Good point. And they do say (pel
char). Okay. Last one. This is kind of long but since it's the
last one you don't mind. Okay, say (rangshin gyi) (repeat) (yong
su) (repeat) (nya ngen le) (repeat) (depa) (repeat). (Rangshin
gyi) (repeat) (yong su) (repeat) (nya ngen le) (repeat) (depa)
(repeat). Okay. You know, most of you, (nya ngen le depa) (nya
ngen) means "grief, trouble, problems". Okay. Literally "grief"
though, when someone dies, you get (nya ngen), okay, that's
called grief. (Le depa) means "transcended or gone beyond
grief". Gone beyond grief. That's the literal translation in
Tibetan for?

(students: nirvana)

Nirvana. Okay. Nirvana. Those of you who studied the Diamond
Cutter, you know that there's two kinds of nirvana. One is the
permanent ending of your mental afflictions because you saw
emtpiness directly, right? (Unclear) But what's the other one?
What's natural nirvana?
(students: Emptiness)

It's the emptiness of all things. You see. Nirvana is also a
code word for "the emptiness of all things". Natural nirvana,
okay. That's not quite what we're talking about here. We're
talking about a third kind. Okay. So don't get confused. We're
not talking about the normal nirvana, which is stopping your
mental afflictions forever because you saw emptiness directly,
and we're not talking about the natural nirvana of things which
is their emptiness. Okay. We're talking about something
slightly different, okay. (Rangshin gyi) means "by nature, by
it's very nature". (Rangshin gyi) means "by it's very nature".
(yong su) means "completely". (Nya-ngen le depa) means "gone
beyond all grief", okay? So, the last thing that Lord Buddha
said when he went crazy according to?

(student: Mind Only school)

The Mind Only school during the?

(students: Second turning of the wheel)

Second turning of the wheel, okay, was everything is beyond all
grief and that's their very nature. Completely beyond all grief.
 Everything is totally nirvanasized already. Okay. And people
say that, you know, people I meet...people misinterp...people
take it in the wrong way, right, they say, "oh, you're already in
nirvana, you just have to recognize it". Meanwhile you're dying,
you're having root canals (laughter), you're having to put up
with work year after year, and these guys are "feel good", you
know, "your real nature is pure. You just have to come to an
understanding of it", you know. Yeah, let me do your teeth
(laughter) (laughs), you know, okay, all right, it's not like
that. You know it's not like that. You're experiencing (laughs)
it not like that. Okay. So what does it mean here? Grief here
is a code word for the mentally afflicted side of things.
Meaning everything in your world which is active mental
afflictions, or is created by mental afflictions, which means
ninety-nine percent of your world, or which is making new mental
afflictions for new samsara and new suffering in the future,
okay. The whole bad side of things is is called "grief" here,
okay. So did Lord Buddha mean it when he said, everything is
beyond that?

(student: What school?)

What school says Sal...I missed you last course, you know
(laughter). Okay. What school? Mind Only school. Then what's
your next question.

(students: Which of the three categories)

Which of the three categories we talking about, man, okay. Okay.
 Let's go through them one by one. Are imaginary things like
empty space or Tashi basically free of mental afflictions and
those problems of mental afflictions?

(student: Yes)

Yeah. Okay. So Buddha was...that's what he meant. He meant
what he said. He said, "they are free of that condition."
Imaginary things are free of that condition, okay. Let's skip
the second one (laughs), let's go to the third one. Can you say
that emptiness itself is already devoid or free of mentally
afflicted stuff?

(students: Yes)

Yeah. It's just neutral old emptiness. It's the lack of a two-
headed purple elephant in this room. Okay. For example, you
know what I mean? So no problem. Now, Lord Buddha skips it in
number two. Why?

(student: Because it's not free (unclear))

Because the rest of your world ain't free (laughs) of mental
afflictions, all right. So he kinda (laughs) skips over that
one. All right. He doesn't mention it. All right. He doesn't
mention it. Okay.
(student: How can an imaginary...I mean an imaginary thing can
cause you (unclear)

She said a very interesting thing...an imaginary thing could
cause you mental afflictions like crazy, and in fact, all your
mental afflictions come from one imaginary thing, which is what?

(students: Your attachment. Self existence)

Self...your belief in a self exis...the self-existent thing which
is an imaginary thing which doesn't exist at all. Yeah, in
actuality, it's the root of all your mental afflictions. It's
the very root of all of them. In general, they say (pel che)
(laughter), majority, okay, meaning empty space and the fact that
this room is not round and things like that. I mean, there are
many facts, there are many truths, constructs throughout the
universe which have nothing to do with your mental afflictions,
and that's all. That's the main point. Yeah, but that
particular construct has everything to do with your mental
afflictions, okay. Yeah.

(student: (unclear) I'm not understanding this the difference
between number four and number five, the)

Yeah, number four and number five are the same, okay. (laughter)
They're not much different. You're right. You're right. If
somebody says "I don't see much difference between four and five,
you're right, you're basically right." Okay. In this take. In
this interpretation of them. Okay. Basically the same thing.
But number one and number two are the same way too, aren't
they...I'm sorry, two and three. They were basically the same.
I mean, if a thing can not start by definition, it's not gonna?

(students: Stop)

Stop by definition. Once you've established one you've
established the other. So actually he's just rubbing it in,
okay?
(student: (unclear) a construct?)

If a thing can't start by definition, it can not stop by
definition, see what I mean? If...in this school...Mind Only
school, once something exists by definition it's gonna start by
definition and stop by definition. Once a thing has started by
definition, of course it stops by definition. Okay. One more
last thing. (laughs) Which is a contradiction. Question number
five on the homework, you do not have to answer it in Tibetan
'cause we're we're too late, it's too late, okay. If you're
interested in the Tibetan, I'll have it up on the...well you can
see it on the answer key. Okay. You're gonna get the answer
key. But we don't have time to...I don't want to overload you.
Okay. I do want you to know this one. Okay. Please repeat,
last thing, really. (Ranggi) (repeat) (gyu kyen) (repeat) (me
ne) (repeat) (ma kyewa) (repeat) (dang) (repeat) (ma gakpa)
(repeat). Okay. Now. In the text by Je Tsongkapa...very very
famous, okay...somebody pulls out a quotation by Master Asanga.
Okay. That quotation says, "the last four characterizations",
right, the last four of the five which we studied tonight,
doesn't start by...doesn't grow, doesn't stop, has been in a
state of peace for...since forever, and is in a state of nir, you
know, nirvana from...by nature, total nirvana, or something like
that, okay, Master Asanga says, "Lord Buddha meant those about
all three categories." Okay. There's a famous quotation where
Master Asanga says, "Lord Buddha didn't mean to skip number two."
 And then there's this debate starts, you know, this fight breaks
out, you know, somebody says, you know, "Je Tsongkapa...I mean
the sutra isn't is not there, it's missing, he never mentions
changing things when he talks about the last four". Okay. And Je
Tsongkapa says "he can't talk about the last four because they
really do start from their own side, they really do stop from
their own side, they really are mixed up with grief and they
really are not extinction or peace. They're totally mixed up
with mental afflictions. Buddha couldn't have spoken of about,
spoken of them in those terms." But here comes Master Asanga and
says, "Buddha meant all three". Okay. What did he mean? Okay.
What did he mean? Do changing things start or not? Question?

(student: Dependent on your own karma)
She said, "Dependent on their own karma).

(student: Your karma)

Let's go the Middle Way school. I'm sorry. Mind Only school.

(student: Depending on causes)

Yeah. Depending on their causes. If the causes are there they
start, if the causes aren't there they start, so we say they
don't start? In a sense you can. If you characterize it how?
If you

(student: From their own side)

Yeah, from their own side. They don't start without their
causes. Okay. So Master...you know, somebody's trying to
explain, what did Master Asanga mean when he said Lord Buddha was
talking about changing things when he said they don't start. He
say, "he meant they don't start if they don't have their causes,
dumb head". Okay. That's all. Easy. Okay.

(student: That's the Middle Way)

Did Lord Buddha...no, this is Mind Only, yeah, Mind Only school
can say, "Lord Buddha did mean changing things also when he said
things don't start, because when he said it about changing
things, he meant they don't start without their causes." And
that's what these words here mean. (Ranggi) means "it's own".
(Gyu kyen) means "main causes and contributing causes". Main
cause being, the seed for the tree, (kyen) or contributing causes
being the water, the soil, the...okay, stuff like that, the air,
all right? So (gyu kyen) means "causes and conditions". Okay.
So (ranggi gyu kyen) means "it's own causes and conditions".
Okay. (Me ne) means "if they're not there", if they're not
there, okay, then what (ma kyewa) meaning "nothing
stops...starts, sorry, nothing grows. (dang) and (ma gakpa)
meaning what? You tell me.
(student: Nothing stops)

Nothing stops. Okay. If the conditions don't stop...if you don't
stop your ignorance, what? You will continue to suffer. You
will die. You will continue to get old, okay. Things don't stop
on their own, things don't start on their own, things don't start
without their causes and conditions, things don't stop without
their causes and conditions, and that's what Lord Buddha meant
when he said in the second turning of the wheel what?
(Shenwangs) or dependent things don't grow. And (shenwangs)
don't stop. He didn't say it directly, but he meant it, says
Master Asanga, okay. I admit he didn't talk about changing
things when he nothing starts and nothing stops, but he he did
refer to them, because what he meant to say was that they don't
start on their own and they don't stop on their own. And they're
not mixed up with your mentally afflicted stuff on their own.
They're due to causes. That's all. All four of the last four
can be said to apply to (shenwangs) or changing things if you
take them to mean "without their causes". Okay. They don't
start without their causes. They don't stop without their
causes. They're not free of mentally afflicted stuff from the
beginning unless they're free of those causes and they're not,
you're not gonna get to nirvana without their causes. That's
all. Okay. So that's the last point. Master Asanga says "hey,
Lord Buddha was talking about all three. He just didn't say it
directly, okay"?

(student: (unclear) Mind Only school?)

This is Mind Only school. Master Asanga is representing the Mind
Only school. He is speaking...he's the spokesman for the Mind
Only school. What school he really in?

(students: Middle Way school)

Middle Way school. Okay. But he is the the the spokesman in
history for the Mind Only school. Unfortunately he didn't belong
to it. All right. Yeah?

(student: Why does...why does the (unclear))
Sorry?

(student: Why does the quote only address to)

Oh, because I didn't want to put too much on the board, (laughs).
There's one small point. Question number four on your homework.
When it says, "how does not growing and not stopping apply to
emptiness in the Mind Only school?" Okay. We already talked
about it. Emptiness doesn't grow. Emptiness doesn't stop.
Emptiness comes into existence when the object it applys to comes
into existence. Emptiness goes out of existence when the object
it applys to goes out of existence. But the sutra don't say it
that way, and I want you to know what the sutra says. The sutra
here gets very weird, okay. And Je Tsongkapa thinks it's it's so
weird that it's necessary for him to give an explanation of it.
All the sutra says here is that, "emptiness doesn't grow, and
emptiness doesn't stop because it continues in the time of
changeless changlessness and up to the time of unshaken
unshakability." (laughter) Okay. That's exactly what the sutra
says. Now Je Tsongkapa says "have mercy on me" (laughter), you
know, he says "come on Lord Buddha, what're you talking about"?
What do you mean when you say "in the time of changeless
changelessness and the time of unshaken unshakability" which you
can read in the reading, it says, "that's how long emptiness
continues". Emptiness continues from the time of changeless
changeless changelessness up to the time of unshaking
unshakability. And and Je Tsongkapa says, "come on, what's he
talking about?" You know, what kind of proof is that for the
fact that emptiness doesn't grow or stop, is that all you got to
say about it, Lord Buddha?" You know, it's gonna continue from
the time of "changing changlessness" and it's gonna continue up
to the time of "unshaking unshakability". Je Tsongkapa says, by
the way, all the great commentaries from India and from China
say, these are code words, okay. "Changeless changelessness"
refers to all the time that the thing had before, from the time
it started, like the pen, okay. The emptiness of the pen has
existed from changeless changelessness in the sense that the
emptiness of the pen has been there since the? Pen began.
That's all. It's just a code word for "since the beginning of
the thing." And then when the sutra says, "and it's gonna
continue up to the time of unshaking unshakability" it's talking
about? All the time until the end of the pen. That's all. Not a
big deal. Prove to me that emptiness can't be described as
something that grows and can't be described as something that
shrinks and then disappears. Prove it. Then if you're gonna
speak from the sutra, you say "that's easy because it continues
from the time of unshaking unshak...sorry, changeless
changelessness up to the time of unshaking unshakability".
(laughter), you know, and in the the debate ground, that's
enough. You see. And somebody says "are you crazy? What are
you talking about?" Oh, changing changelessness means "since the
thing started". "Unshaking unshakability" means "until the thing
stops". That's all. No big deal, Okay. But if Je Tsongkapa
doesn't come and help you with that, I mean, you're gonna freak
out, right (laughter)? So that's on your homework, okay, I mean,
you gotta know those code words, and he takes the time in his
commentary to say, "ok, you know, look,...Lord Buddha's being
real obscure here. Here's what he means. That's all. And
that...and he's quoting some famous Indian and Chinese
commentaries, (laughter) okay. Cool. That's it. (laughs) By
the way, hang in there. This is not useless stuff (laughs)
(laughter) okay. This is the hardest class...I saved it for
last, seven years I saved it, okay, and don't don't freak out.
You you will understand emptiness ten times better if you get
through this course than if you don't, okay. Besides that, you
can show off Mind Only school stuff, you know, all right. Okay.
Where'd that guy go?

(student: He's hiding there.)

Sorry?

(student: In the middle)

Yeah, Puntsok, you ready? Sorry, question?

(student: No class Friday or Tuesday?

No class Friday and no class Tuesday. Friday is...Friday of this
week is a is tsok, is tsechu, and...by the way it will be out in
New Jersey with Khen Rinpoche, and Tuesday...I forget why
there's...sojong. Tuesday is sojong. So the next class of this
class will be on Thursday. And then there will be every Friday
night "Wheel of Life". If you can come, come. It's incredible.
You will never hear it again, I don't think, for a while, so,
it's the whole twelve links of dependent origination, okay.
Okay. Ready Puntsok-la?

(prayer: short mandala)

(prayer: dedication)

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for coming.
What the Buddha Really Meant