ACI 15 «Что на самом деле имел в виду Будда», занятие 6

Class 6
Transcribed by: Karen Becker

(cut)

Last time we covered the three turnings of the wheel because
that's what the Mind Only School takes the opportunity...that's
what they use to decide whether the Buddha was teaching something
figuratively or literally. Okay. So, you know, they're
interested in the three turnings of the wheel because that's an
easy way to divide everything into what Lord Buddha taught
literally and what Lord Buddha taught figuratively. So they're
very interested in in what were the three turnings of the wheel,
and what did he speak about and are we to take it on face value
or not, and things like that. They have...the sutra in which the
Buddha explains the intention of all his other sutras, which is
the main Mind Only Sutra, right?...which is the whole thing we've
had so far, all of those questions by the Bodhisattva, the answer
by the Buddha, the decisions that are made after that exchange,
those all come from this famous sutra. And in fact the one
chapter called "the chapter re...", you know, "spoken at the
request of the Bodhisattva, Yangdak Pak", or what was his
name...Paramarta Samutgata, okay, so they're very interested in
in this question and that sutra is talking about this question.
What are the three turnings of the wheel, okay? There's the
first one, the second one and the third one, so I'll debate with
you now, okay (laughter). Do we decide the three turnings of the
wheel the order or what's in the three turnings of the wheel by
their historical order...you see what I mean? Do we decide it
like that.

(students: No)

You say no, okay. So, Patricia Wild, we don't call them the
first and second and third turnings of the wheel (laughter).

(student, Patricia: No, we call them the first)

We do, right, we call them first, middle and final turnings of
the wheel, right?

(student, Patricia: Right)

So we do divide them by time.

(student, Patricia: No we we call them we call them)

Yeah, you could say, go ahead, not necessarily so.

(student, Patricia: Not necessarily so)

Yeah, just 'cause they're called first, second and third turning
of the wheel doesn't mean that they they are that they are
defined by historical circumstances, okay. So does that mean
that the Buddha didn't teach the first turning of the wheel
first?

(student: No)

No, he did (laughs) okay. And and you'll get...today you have a
very interesting reading. Before we went to India to get
teachings on this so that I would know what I was talking about,
(laughs) I started to translate the monastic textbook on this
subject which is very very detailed and very difficult...it's all
in debate, dialectic, and I did about twenty five pages in
Australia or something...and then in the cars, right (laughs) and
then when we got to India he says, "I'm not teaching that book"
(laughs) (laughter), you know, so, he taught the original book by
Je Tsongkapa which is extremely difficult, okay. So then I
noticed that today's reading was exactly the subject of the first
twenty five pages of the (laughter) debate manual, so to save
myself about twenty hours, I just stuck it on at the end. Okay.
So that's why your reading is like twenty-forty pages or
something, okay. So you're gonna get there the whole...I thought
it would be interesting and fun for you sadists (laughter)
(laughs)you know, to to...oh massachists...just to look at the
the way a monastic textbook would present the same information.
So you have the information presented by Je Tsongkapa in his very
deep way, Manjushri's deep way, and then you have a a huge
section in which they debate it, okay, and they debate these
questions, okay. So you...so in there you get this question, you
know, was it by time? They say, "no, not only by time". "So we
don't call it first second third turning of the wheel?" "Yeah,
we do". Okay. "Well, so it doesn't relate to the time, right?"
And then you say, "No, it does but that's not the only
criterion", okay? It is true that the Buddha, forty-nine days
after he pretended to become enlightened, says the text, because
he was enlighted before, supposedly, supposed to be, okay...it
is, okay, forty-nine days after that he taught the teachings on
the four arya truths, and then and then only after that, much
later...the year following, it says, he started to teach the the
teaching on on emptiness, okay, at Vulchur's Peak. So it's
interesting that you get some dating in the monastic textbook
that you don't get by Je Tsongkapa. And then you get a lot of
interesting details about the third...the three turnings of the
wheel. Okay. So how 'bout if I throw you this one? Did
everything the Buddha said during the initial period of his
teaching career, you know, in the first year say...unti...before
he got to Vulchur's Peak, right, before he started the (b:
Prajnaparamitra) sutra stuff, okay, is everything he said the
first turning of the wheel?

(student: No)

You gotta say no, okay. You gotta say no. And what's an
example, well, that's on your homework so I gotta write it down
(laughter) okay? This is a very very famous example in the study
of (drang nge). You know, (drang nge) is what you're
studying...whe when did the Buddha mean what he said and when did
he not mean what he said, right, okay. This this quotation is
very famous.

(cut)

Say (gu goma re) (repeat) (gu goma re) (repeat) What's that
mean? It's a joke in a Tibetan class in the monastery, you say,
you know you don't have to carve it, you could just write it.
(laughter) (laughs) Okay. All right. Okay. Say (nga de)
(repeat) (la) (repeat) (shamtap) (repeat) (dumpor) (repeat)
(gowar) (repeat) (jao) (repeat) (she) (repeat). Okay. (Nga de)
is a famous expression, nga means "five", like the great fifth
Dalah Lama is called Nga pa Chenpo, (nga) means "five". (Nga de)
means "the group of five". And this refers to the first five
disciples of Lord Buddha, okay. They were five asthetics who
were hanging out with him when he got enlightened, okay, and as
you know, as...and we're trying to figure out who in this class
was was here at the beginning of these classes in nineteen eighty
four, and I think Robin's the only one (laughs) and we read this
sutra...it's the sutra of the tigers, it's from (b: Sera dompa
do) (b: The Light of...the Golden Light Sutra) and we read that
whole section of the sutra, that was the first thing we ever did
here. And it tells the story of Lord Buddha in a past life
giving his body to a tigress and to her cubs who who he prays
should become his students when he becomes a Buddha and they
actually become the first five disciples later, and that's called
(nga de), those five, first five disciples. Buddha taught the
four arya truths to them, repeated it three times, (unclear), the
main disciple I I'm curious about which one he was, mom or the
cubs, one of the cubs, but anyway, he he achieved the the path of
seeing immediately afterwards, okay, he saw emptiness directly,
immediately, so (nge de) means those five. (Shamtap) means "the
lower part of a monks or nun's robes", okay. This is a
(shamtap), okay. (Dumpor) means, it can mean "circular" like a
skirt, okay. I've heard it also...this passage glossed in the
monastery as "neatly" or, you know, "nicely". Okay. Literally
it means "a round skirt", but I've heard it also explained in the
monastery that this is instructions...(gowar jao) means "you
should wear; don't forget to wear", okay. So this is a famous
sutra in at the very beginning of the Buddha's career...Lord
Buddha's career, where he's advising the first five, you know,
and he says, "don't forget, you guys have to wear nice, neat
lower robes, okay, that circle around your body, you know, that
wrap your lower body, okay. That that's one of the first
teachings he ever gave after the four arya truths. Okay. I
mean, if you say what was the second thing Lord Buddha ever
taught or you know, like that, it was teaching them how to wear
their robes. (She) means "thus did he speak", okay. (She).
Okay. That thing at the end, (She). This is very often quoted
in in in this subject that you're studying. Why? They say, "is
this one of the first things Lord Buddha taught?" (laughter)
Yeah, it is. It's like...I don't know...second thing come out of
his mouth. So he's at the first turning of the wheel? Say "no",
not in this school, okay. And by the way, never forget this
point. We have to distinguish between the first turning of the
wheel in general and the first turning of the wheel that we is
talking about when we're talking about the Mind Only's favorite
sutra, okay. In this sutra, according to this sutra, how it
defines the three turnings of the wheel. This statement is or is
not the first turning of the wheel?

(students: No)

It's not, okay? Oh, so he didn't teach it first? Yeah, he did
teach it first. No, he did teach it first. He taught it, you
know, a couple days after he got, you know...met the first five.
Okay. But is it the first turning of the wheel? No. Why not?

(student: It's not about emptiness)

Be careful. In the monastery, they say "be careful" (laughs)
Why not. Why isn't it the first turning of the wheel?

(student: (unclear) deal with the four arya truths)

He says it doesn't deal directly with the four arya truths.
That's a pretty good answer, but there's a better one. I'm
asking you...in, with regard to this Mind Only sutra, why would
they say, "we don't care...we don't...we we're not worried about
that statement", okay.

(student: It doesn't deal directly with emptiness)

She says, "'Cause you could take it literally". Not exactly.
(laughter) okay. That's one way to answer it. The main thing
is that...I'll ask you this. Is the Bodhisattva deathly
concerned with this statement.

(students: No)
You know, is this what we're gonna sweat about, you know, did the
Buddha mean it or not, you know, I mean, see that's...in this in
this school you have to get used to that. In the Mind Only
School, is this the first turning of the wheel? Are we sweating
over things exist by definition or not when the Buddha says "hey
guys, don't forget to wear your robes", okay. No. Okay. So is
it the first turning of the wheel for the Mind Only School?

(students: No)

Not really. I mean you could say it was taught early on in the
Buddha's career, it's a nice thing to say, but it's not what we
are tearing apart the universe to find out, do things exist by
definition or not. It's not what the Bodhisattva was sweating
bullets over when he asked his question to Lord Buddha.
Therefore it doesn't qualify as part of the first turning of the
wheel in this school. Okay. Huh?

(student: What is it?)

It's a it's a sutra by Lord Buddha, you know. Okay. All right.
What...by the way, is it a sutra because it's written down
somewhere? No. Sutra meaning "ka", okay. The speech of Lord
Buddha, okay, yeah. The open speech of Lord Buddha, okay.

(student: So you could have sutras that have not (unclear) to
Lord Buddha?)

Right. Or maybe not, we'll see, okay. Okay. Second turning of
the wheel, so...if there was a sutra that Lord Buddha spoke
during the middle part of his teaching career and if it doesn't
make some statement like "nothing exists by definition, nothing
has any reality, nothing exists truly, nothing exists from it's
own side", if it doesn't say that, even though it was spoken
during the second period of the wheel...second period of his
teaching, would it be considered the second turning of the wheel
in this school?

(student: No)
From the point of view of this sutra. Especially from the point
of view of the (drup den). What's (drup den)? You had it last
week.

(students: (unclear))

(Drup den) is the conclusion of the transaction. Right? What's
the conclusion of the transaction? What transaction?

(students: The exchange)

The exchange between?

(students: The Bodhisattva...)

The Bodhisattva and Lord Buddha. The Bodhisattva comes up to
Lord Buddha and says, "the first turning of the wheel you said
everything exists by definition, or you kinda implied that,
second turning of the wheel you said nothing existed by
definition, what did you mean when you said that?" Okay, that's
his question. Lord Buddha comes back and says, "Hey. Would I
say everything existed by definition? No. Would I exist..say
nothing existed by definition? No. I'm not crazy. We gotta
divide things." The third turning of the wheel is called?

(Lekpay cheway chun kor)...the wheel in which we divide things.
You know. We divide these. "Oh, I did mean it about those
things...they do exist by definition. I didn't it mean about
those other things, they don't exist by definition", okay? Like
that. He says, "those blanket statements don't work. What I
really meant was two different things", okay? I had two
different things in mind when I did that. Yeah?

(student: Why would, why would the Buddha (unclear) first
turning of the wheel the second (unclear) and then back,
backtrack again with the third turning of the wheel?)

I love the question. Okay. They always sprinkle a bodhisattva
to ask questions in class, okay, like (laughs) okay, I'll jump
ahead okay, since you ask. He said, you know, "why would Lord
Buddha do the, you know, the simplest presentation first, the
most profound presentation second and then backtrack in the
third. Why doesn't he just shift the order?" Well, guess what.
There's a sutra that says that's what he did (laughter) and I'll
give you the name of it. You just got them home fifteen minutes
earlier. They should give you a medal (laughter). Say (sung
gyal) (repeat) (gyi) (repeat) (do) (repeat) (sung gyal) (repeat)
(gyi ( repeat) (do) (repeat). (Sung) is a difficult word...it's
a similar to the word for mantra (nga), okay? (Sung) is a very
similar word to (nga) meaning "mantra". I believe it's (unclear)
okay. And (sung) means like "mystic words", you can translate it
as "mystic words" or something like that, okay. (Gyalpo) means
"king". And (do) means "sutra". This sutra is called "b: The
King of Mystic Words". The sutra called (b: The King of Mystic
Words). Okay. (b: King of Mystic Words) sounds sexy...it has
nothing to do with that...it's a guy named King of Mystic Words
or something like th...and he ask...he requests the sutra, so
don't get, you know, don't peek in it hoping to find some mystic
words. That's just somebody's name. Okay. In this sutra they
say, you know, the real order of the three turnings of the wheel
should have been, say (Den shi) (repeat) (chun kor) (repeat) (Den
shi) (repeat) (chun kor). (Den) means "truth", right? (Shi)
means "four". (Chun kor) means "turning of the wheel of the
Dharma". They say, let's put that number one. Is that anything
different from the Mind Only...is that anything different from
this sutras presentation?

(students: No)

No. What is this sutra? What do I mean when I say "this sutra"?

(students: (unclear))

The sutra in which the Buddha explains his other sutras,
remember? It's called (b: The Commentary on the True Intent of
My Other Sutras)...it's actually autobiographical. I mean,
"commentary" sounds like somebody else wrote it, right? The (b:
Commentary on what the Buddha Really Meant) written by?

(students: The Buddha)
The Buddha (laughs) okay? All right. You gotta get used to
that. I used to search through the Tengyur catalogs, this is
three and a half thousand books, looking for this commentary,
it's not in there (laughs), it's it's in the other one, you know
(laughs) okay, it's not a co...commentary by anybody else, it's a
autocommentary, okay. Lord Buddha's explaining what he meant in
all his other sutras, okay? That sutra says that this one should
be first. By the way, that's the Mind Only School's favorite
sutra, right? Now, the the (b: King of Mystic Words Sutra) does
it also say that this is first?

(student: Yes)

Yes. By the way (b: King of Mystic Words) is gonna say "the
order of sutras should be by profundity. Or by correctness,
okay. Okay, here's the second one, according to that second
sutra now. Okay. (Gu go ma re) (laughter) Say (lekpar) (repeat)
(cheway) (repeat) (chunkor) (Lekpar) (repeat) (cheway) (repeat)
(chunkor) (repeat). (Lek par cheway) means "make fine
distinctions". Fine distinctions. Correct distinctions.
Between what? Distinctions between what?

(student: Three attributes. Literal and figurative.)

Literal and figurative, okay. I did mean that, I didn't mean
that. And more specifically, these things do exist by definition
and these things don't exist by definition, and when I said they
all don't exist by definition I was? Just fooling. When I said
none of them existed by definition, I's just kidding. Okay. You
have to (lek par cheway), okay, that's the...you have to
divide...some things do, some things don't. Constructs?

(students: Don't)

Don't exist by definition. Pens?

(students: Do)

Do exist by definition. And so does? Third attribute?
Emptiness, okay. Okay. (yong drup) okay. That's, I mean,
that's how he would say it, yeah. That's (lek pay cheway). Now
he's made good distinctions, okay. (Chun kor) turning of the
wheel of the Dharma, okay. Now, the (b: King of Mystic Words),
that sutra says, "let's put that as number two" in response to
your question. They knew you wanted to do it so they did it that
way, okay. They moved it from? number three to number two
because it's less correct, okay. And why cause a problem...you
know, why not save the big stuff for the last, right, you know,
denouement, why not have a big finale. You know, first you tell
them everything exists by definition, then you tell them some
stuff does and some stuff doesn't, and then when they're ready
you pop it on them, "hey, guess what (laughs) nothing exists by
definition, okay". That means you would put this one number
three. Ann Lindsey keeps trying to object here, I mean...I don't
know if you're hearing that, but we'll get to that. She keeps
saying "wel wel wel wel wait a minute". (laughter) Try to
imagine what she's trying to object to. (laughter) Say
(Tsennyi) (repeat) (mepay) (repeat) (chun kor) (repeat) (tsennyi)
(repeat) (mepay) (repeat) (chun kor) (repeat). (Tsennyi mepay)
means "nothing exists by definition". (Tsennyi mepay) means
"nothing exists by definition". (Chun kor) means "the turning of
the wheel of the Dharma where Lord Buddha said nothing exists by
definition". The (b: King of Mystic Words sutra) says "let's
move it to? number?

(students: Three)

Three because it's the most correct, you know. So now we got a
very natural, you know, progression. First you tell them, "hey
everything's suffering, you can get out of it, don't worry
everything's cool and it all exists by definition". And then
later on you say, "by the way, I was just being figurative. You
guys should understand that some things are what this thing we
call "emptiness" and they don't exist by definition, although,
of course, some things like "pens" exist by definition, anybody
can see that, okay. They're made in a factory and everything
like that, okay." And then finally when they're mature enough,
you you pop them...you pop on them the third turning of the
wheel... "guess what, this doesn't exist by definition either, it
doesn't have it's own identity from its own side". Okay. You
pop it on them last. Wouldn't that be a nice progression? Least
correct, half correct, totally correct.

(student: For whom?)

She says, "for whom?" Okay. Good, good question, you see. Not
for Mind Only, okay. Mind Only would say, "are you crazy?", you
know. When he said nothing exists by definition, he was he
was...that's when he was half right, okay. And then when, and
then later he got to the real truth, which is that, this exists
by definition, but my idea of this or that doesn't, okay. All
right. So for them, the order should have been? The old way,
okay, the old way. What? Not much correct, halfway correct,
totally correct. Okay. Who do you think...what's sc...of the
four great Indian schools likes the (b: King of Mystic Words)
sutra?

(students: Madyamika)

Madyamika. They like it that way, okay. That's all. You gotta
get used to that. You slipped into Madyamika. I told you you
couldn't go into that door, okay, you gotta stay in Mind Only in
this class, right? A...my...the Lama in Sera where we learned
it, he kept beating us up whe...everytime we slipped into
Madyamika, he says, "don't think like Madyamika," okay, if you're
a Mind Only School the order has to be? Four truths, then
nothing exists by definition, and then you make fine
distinctions. Okay. In increasing correctness, and it's only
the smartest disciples who could take the last one which happens
to be us Mind Only people, or is it?

(student: (unclear))

Go back to your notes. Who were the disciples for whom each of
the three turnings of the wheel were designed? Who who was the
first turning of the wheel designed for?

(students: May may mahayana, mahayana)
Huh?

(students: Hinayana)

Hinayana, okay. Does that mean we're dissing all the people in
Sri Lanka and Burma?

(students: No)

No, okay, when we say "hinayana" we're referring to a
philosophical mindset of anyone who has a certain idea about
emptiness, whether they're Tibetan, or Burmese or New Yorkers,
okay. You are, you is Hinayana if you think everything is coming
from its own side. And since we do most of the day...what's a
test...what's a barometer of whether you're thinking that way?

(student: Bad thoughts)

Do you have a mental affliction (laughter), okay, okay? The
worse your day went today the more Hinayana you were because you
were taking everything as self existent 'cause you cannot get
angry at a thing or upset or jealous if you understand a things'
emptiness. Impossible. That's why we study emptiness. 'Cause
we want to eliminate mental afflictions, okay? So it's just a
mindset, a Hinayana mindset. So first turning of the wheel was
taught for hinayana mind set. Who was the second turning of the
wheel taught for?

(students: Mahayana. Middle Way. Mind Only)

She says "Middle way, she says, Mahayana". Wha'do you guys say?

(student: Mahayana)

What did the sutra say?

(student: Which of the sutras?)

Mahayana. (te, te po chen ba la yang dak pa shu pay, nam ba dak
pa shu pay, du chang la), okay, he taught this for people who had
excellently, perfectly, entered the Mahayana. Okay. Quote.
Quote what sutra? Which one would they be quoting here? Mind
Only School?

(student: (b: Commentary of the True Intent))

The ("b: Commentary on what I mean when I taught th...all the
other sutras) and specifically the chapter?

(student: Requested by the Bodhisattva)

Requested by this Bodhi...this curious Bodhisattva. Okay. Now
we get to the third turning of the wheel. What did it say was
the audience?

(students: Everyone. All people)

Huh?

(students: Both)

Yeah, it said both, right? In fact, the wording was (te pa tam
che la, yang dak par shu pay tu ja la), okay, which means "for
disciples who are excellently or perfectly entered all the
yanas", okay? Now the reason I brought that up is that...I'm
going this class totally out of order, okay, the reason I brought
that up is 'cause it's a good chance to bring it up, the textbook
writer for Sera Mey, the brilliant Kedrup Tenpa Dargye, even more
brilliant than his teacher...Jetsumba from Sera Je (laughter), we
improved...we improved on their textbooks, okay? He ca he came
up and said "look. What does the...what does the sutra mean when
it says 'everybody'?"...for the third turning of the wheel.
That's...doesn't it strike you as strange, I mean, didn't it
strike you as weird when we talked about it? You know, that
somehow the most advanced turning of the wheel you get to be
hinayana and still hear it? You know, doesn't that seem strange?
 And he says, "it doesn't mean that at all, and I taught it to
you wrong that day", okay, you got it...(laughs) so it's on your
homework now, okay. It says "to people of every yana", okay, and
Kedrup Tenpa Dargye in the last page of your reading, the last
two pages of your reading, he says "what's he talking about? It
wasn't designed for Hinayana people", okay? What's the sutra
talking about? And it's very cool...he goes into a very cool
thing. He says "you know how you really define the first turning
of the wheel?"...and get this, this is cool, "it was the turning
of the wheel that was designed for students who could understand
how the three attributes apply to the emptiness of a person as
that is"...how shall we say?..."as that is"...how do you call
it?..."explained in a version that the kids can understand", in
the first turning of the wheel. Okay. It's very interesting,
you see? As that emptiness is adjusted by Lord Buddha for people
who could only hear it the...in the first turning of the wheel.
Meaning people who couldn't get real emptiness, okay? It's very
interesting. So he's he's defining the first turning of the
wheel that way. He's defining the students for the first turning
of the wheel. People who who could only understand the three
attributes with regard to a kind of simplified emptiness, that
Lord Buddha simplified for them 'cause they couldn't get the real
one, okay? And that's we say is the emptiness of a person which
is easier to perceive than the emptiness of other things, okay?
Generally speaking, okay. So he's like, how do we define the
students for the first turning of the wheel? Anybody who could
get the simple version of emptiness, okay? Anybody who could
grasp the simple version of emptiness. That makes them?

(student: Hinayana)

Hinayana, in this in this presentation. Okay. That makes them
first graders, okay? First grade Dharma people, okay, and tha
that's how he describes the first turning of the wheel. It was
designed for people who could only get the version of emptiness
that Lord Buddha taught during the first turning of the wheel.
Which was the simple one, okay. Which one? The emptiness of the
self. Of the person, okay. The emptiness of Vilma. The
emptiness..the emptiness of Magda, okay. Like that, all right?
That's the simple one. How do you...how then do you define the
se...the people who...for whom the second turning of the wheel
was designed. Mahayana people. But the kind of Mahayana people
who cannot understand the emptiness presented in the second
turning of the wheel unless some Bodhisattva comes up and asks
some question and then the Buddha splits it for them. I'm
sorry...is that right?

(student: No, you said second turning of the wheel)

Yeah, second turning of the wheel. Yeah, you gotta say, who
don't need to rely on that. Sorry.

(student: Who don't need to rely on (unclear))

Yeah, sorry. Yeah sorry. These are Mi..Madyamika. Is
it...don't...let me check. Yeah, but we're talking Mind Only
School and...yeah, without needing such a division. Okay. So
the disciples for whom the second turning of the wheel was
designed are people who can understand the emptiness...the
difficult emptiness, which is the emptiness of objects presented
in the second turning of the wheel without having some
Bodhisattva come up and try to clarify things.

They're smart enough to understand it without that kind of stuff.
 Then how do you de...now it's easy for you to tell me about the
third turning of the wheel. What are the disciples for the third
turning of the wheel? Yeah?

(students: Those people who need to have distinctions pointed
out)

So that they can grasp the kind of emptiness taught in which
turning of the wheel?

(students: The second)

The second, right. Got it, okay. So if you're the kinda student
you're Mahayana, you're really smart, you got a good emptiness
understanding, but to really understand emptiness in the deep way
that Lord Buddha taught it in the...second turning of the wheel,
you need some kind of nice presentation..."hey hey, I didn't
really mean that, you know, you have to split it, there's these
three things, you know, (yong drup, shen wang, kun tak), you
know, and they need that kind of presentation or else they don't
get it. Okay. You all right? You got this grimace on your
face.

(student: Why would he....why would he teach it incorrectly so
that they could understand it correctly, that doesn't make sense
to me)

Why, she said, "why would he teach it incorrectly so they could
understand it correctly?". Listen to His Holiness teach in
America, come on, you know, (laughs) I mean.

(student: Then...what if he wasn't there when he said it)

What people understand when he finishes is that people feel a
little closer to His Holiness, they're understanding has come up
another notch...and isn't that what we're talking about. Aren't
we talking about tolerance in the end...tolerance of different
viewpoints. God knows if the guy that you're criticizing is some
Buddha who's trying to bring those particular students up another
notch by teaching them that yoga connects to your channel and
your left ear and then you can see emptiness which kind of green
light, you know, okay, are these guys crazy, worthless, no good,
bad...maybe, but if it brings that student up a little bit, isn't
that exactly what Lord Buddha was doing when he taught the?
First three and a half schools of Buddhism, okay (laughs) you
know what I mean. It's to study, it's the study of, you know,
bringing students up a little higher. Okay. Would Buddha even
say something was which was directly incorrect to bring students
up higher? Would he even say that a self-nature to things did
exist? Yeah, he would and he did, okay. Yeah? By the way, did
he say that for the sake of people who were already Buddhists?
No. You have to say no. Okay. He said it for some non-
Buddhists. You know, who needed to hear that. Yeah?

(student: (unclear))

It'll be in your reading. It's at the end of your...but it's the
fantastic, great, amazing, miraculous, best textbook writer in
the universe, Kedrup Tenpa Dargye, (bel sam po) okay (laughs)
yeah?
(student: (unclear))

Ah, good question. Is this presentation Middle Way or or Mind
Only? All this stuff I just said.

(students: Middle way)

Smells like Middle Way. Smells like Middle Way. Okay. Okay.
By the way I gotta tell you the punch line or else I'll forget
and then you can ask me some more questions. So what's this got
to do with saying that the third turning of the wheel was
designed for students of all the yanas, of both the Hinayana and
the Mahayana? Kedrup Tenpa Dargye says, "once you say that with
a little help from the Bodhisattva they can get the deeper form
of emptiness, well then, have they gotten the easier one
already?

(student: Yes)

By implication, yes. I mean, you did..it's not stated, but okay,
sure they did, so they got the Mahayana presentation and they got
the Hinayana presentation. They've entered both yanas. That's
what it really means, okay. It doesn't mean people of every
yana. It means those really smart dudes of the Mahayana who
understand emptiness as taught by Mahayana and therefore also
understand emptiness as taught by Hinayana, so you can call them
"guys who have entered all the yanas". Are they Hinayanas? No,
but they already automatically get the Hinayana presentation
'cause they already understand the?

(student: Mahayana)

Mahayana presentation, that's all. So Kedrup Tenpa Dargye's
helping us out. I mean, when I got to that part and I heard, all
all vehicles in the third turning of the wheel...this is supposed
to be the most difficult one, this is supposed to be the most
advanced one. You got guys that jumped from the first turning of
the wheel to the third turning of the wheel? Without going
through "go", you know, I mean...okay...got it? Kind of. All
right. Yeah.

(student: In in the in the Mind Only School...I mean, I don't I
don't know that much about it, but I thought in traditional
readings on it that it was really that everything is mind
centered, has a mind itself (unclear) a self-existent thing, a
thing that really does exist from it's own side and the Mind Only
School don't even really exist in the Mind Only School.)

He said his initial impression of the Mind Only School which
mainly comes the name "Mind Only", right, and and from bad
explanations of Mind Only School in the West, is that they
somehow believe everything is the mind or something like that,
we're gonna talk about that in the next class, okay?
And...specifically, are external objects part of your mind or
not. And is that what Mind Only means...and it's not. Okay.
The word Mind Only has a...and what they believe about the mind
and external objects existing or not is very very delicate, and
very deep and I'd rather spend a whole...and we gotta beautiful
explanation of it in India...I mean, the Lama went on like
unbelievable about it. So I want to give it to you as a package
next week. So I'll answer that...we'll defer that to next week,
okay. To next class which will be Thursday, I guess. Yeah, one
more.

(student: If, like you're saying that it (unclear) Buddha
taught...is like...what makes it incorrect...I mean so it's
understandable)

Oh, Rob says, if it functions then how can it be incorrect. I
mean, you know, if you teach them something slightly wrong about
emptiness to bring them up one notch, then if that teaching has
brought them up one notch, it's a successful teaching, so it's a
correct teaching. The teaching's correct, the subject matter is
wrong, how's that? And it's helpful, okay (laughter). Teaching
correct and the and the viewpoint is incorrect. But it helps
them, it brings them up. Okay. Otherwise everything would be
Annatara Yoga tea...Tantra teachings, and no one would ever teach
(b: Abhidharma) or anything like that. His Holiness would never
give any other teaching except for Vajrayogini, you know, and,
you know what I mean, it's...(laughs) that's not the way it
works, okay. All right. You have to bring up people by stages,
okay. I wanted to give you another example. When he gets to
the...now go back to the subject we were on, okay. We were
talking about the first turning of the wheel, I said, "is
everything Lord Buddha taught during the first turning of the
wheel the first turning of the wheel"

(student: yup)

And he said no, and I said, well give me an example.

(student: Wait a minute)

And you said. "Wear your robes nicely, you five"...when he says
"you five" that's already a clue what? It's gotta be one of the
first things he ever said 'cause he...disciple number six hasn't
showed up yet (laughter) (laughs) okay. All right. We're ahead,
we started with six students at...in the basement at thirty
nineth street, okay. So he says, you know, "no". Then he says,
what about the second turning of the wheel? Then they say, "any
teaching that Lord Buddha gave during the middle part of his
career, right, which according to Kedrup Tenpa Dargye started
like a year later, then, if he did not state, if he did not talk
about what?...then it's not the second turning of the wheel.

(students: Emptiness)

Emptiness. Okay. Or to state it more correctly in this in this
school, about the fact that nothing existed by definition, you
know, that nothing existed by definition, okay. If he wasn't
like obcessing on that and talking about that clearly or directly
during that particular teaching, we don't count it as the second
turning of the wheel in the (drup den). In the thing that the
Bodhisattva figures out later, he says, "oh Lord Buddha, I get
it. You didn't mean what you said in the first two turnings of
the wheel and you meant what you said in the third turning of the
wheel, which is now" and Buddha goes, "right" (laughter) okay.
When we talk about the three turnings of the wheel from his point
of view, at that moment of his realization, then we're
restricting the second turning of the wheel to?...statements that
Lord Buddha made...those crazy statements from the Mind Only
School point of view, nothing exists by definition. Pen's don't
have their own identity. There's no penness coming from this
thing. It doesn't have any penness. I'm holding up a stick. If
you happen to see a pen it's coming from you and there is no pen
in my hand, it's a stick. It's a green and white stick. If you
think there's any penness to that, you got a problem, okay. It's
coming from you...it's not coming from here, okay. If you
believe that, you will never have another...

(student: Mental affliction)

Mental affliction. If your boss is an irritating person, you can
kick one thing...one person, meaning you (laughs) okay, can never
be angry at another person again, okay...which means that you all
is stuck in the Mind Only School and it's useful to talk about
this, you see what I mean? That's why we talk about Mind
Only...that's the reason to talk about Mind Only and Middle Way,
okay, because in in class from seven to nine, you are defending
Madyamika, you know. At work from nine to five (laughter) you
know, you are holding Mind Only School. My boss...that person
who sits next to me and is so irritating is irritating from their
side. And the way to stop them is to argue with them or to
reason with them or to fight with them or to get the boss to hurt
them, or or get the other workers to believe my way, and then if
somebody came along and said, "no, the best way to get rid of
this person, the best way to eliminate this person is to be kind
to them and never again have a bad thought about them." And
they'll be out of there in six weeks...transferred, heart attack
(laughter) (laughs) something, you know what I mean (laughs)
okay? It works. For God's sake try it. This is Buddhism. This
is real Buddhism, you know. You can, you can have a world where
everyone around you is the most sweet, incredible, amazing
people, you know. You just gotta work on it the right way. Not
the self-existent way. The self-existent way is to go to the
boss and complain. The right way is to be so good to them that
they get transferred. Okay (laughter). All right. All right.
Seriously. I'm not kidding.
(student: (unclear) think of you being so nice)

Nah. Sikes says you can punish them by being nice to them, but
that's another thing. Okay. (laughter) Third turning of the
wheel. We're still on this last ques...the same question, you
know, did...is is everything that Lord Buddha taught during the
final period of his career something that belongs to the third
turning of the wheel?

(students: No)

No. Why not? Because there's lots of teachings in which he
doesn't?

(students: Make fine distinctions)

Make those fine distinctions. Okay. In this school, from this
school's point of view, you don't get to be in the third turning
of the wheel unless you are some kind of statement where Lord
Buddha is making up with us, "hey, I didn't really mean it.
These things do exist by definition. These things don't exist by
definition". Okay. Can you give me an example of such a
teaching, okay...it's on your homework. Say (dulway) (repeat)
(dordu) (repeat) (rung tung) (repeat) sorry...(rung tun) (repeat)
(du) (repeat) (drakpa) (repeat). Okay. On his deathbed, meaning
just before he passed into final Nirvana voluntarily, right,
meaning just before he withdrew his emanation on this planet,
Lord Buddha suddenly pops out with a (dulwa) teaching, okay.
(Dulwa) means "vinaya", okay. Vowed morality. For laymen and
for ordained people. Eight sets of vows, three for lay people,
five for ordained people, okay? So (dulwa). Vinaya. (Dordu)
means we could say, "an abbreviation of the Vinaya", okay. Just
before he leaves, he gives a final teaching on...called (b: An
Abbreviad...an Abbreviated Presentation of of Vowed Morality),
okay? What's the subject matter? (Rung tun), okay? (Rung tun)
means, basically all of Lord Buddha's teachings on Vinaya can be
divided into three categories. One is called (rung tun). (Rung
tun) means "okay to do; you should do it", okay. Like he said,
you have to do (sojong). Okay. Like monks and nuns have to get
together every two weeks and and frankly, openly, discuss their
faults with each other, okay. That's that's that's something
you're supposed to do, okay. Now what's something you're not
supposed to do? So it'd be like a (kak pa) of wearing lay
clothes, okay. Not supposed to do it. All right. So that's the
second category. And then there's (rung tun) which means "okay
to do but you don't have to do it", okay? So certain kinds of
monastic practices that you that you're allowed to do but you
don't have to do, so like, things at which you have a choice,
okay. And those are the three. (Rung tun) means "okay to do".
(Drakpa) means "he stated", or he told people that's okay. Okay.
 So (rungtun du drakpa) means "at on his on his deathbed, Lord
Buddha said, "look I taught you a lot of things about vinaya, now
you oughtta know the kinda things you're supposed to do and the
kinda things you're not supposed to do. I taught you already.
So carry on from there, you know. And the last words of the (b:
Vinaya Sutra) are...you know, now apply that to to your times and
your country and your culture, what I taught you about Vinaya.
Now you take those rules and you apply it to your own culture
and, and that's called (rung tun). It's a very famous teaching
at the end of the (b: Vinaya Sutra), okay? And it's very
important for the future of monasticism and nun-isticism in in
the West, okay. You hafta apply it...you hafta apply it to your
milieu. Okay. Okay. Anyway that's was the last Vinaya teaching
he gave. Is that...was that spoken in the final period of his
life?

(students: Yes)

I mean, he purposely chooses what? One that he spoke on his
deathbed, okay, it's gotta be the final period, okay. It's not
like we're not talking the last year, the last month, we're
talking you know, last few hours, you know. Is it the final
turning of the wheel...according to the Mind Only School?

(student: No)

No. Why not?

(students: It didn't make fine distinctions)
He didn't make fine distinctions. He wasn't like "oh, I...that
does exist by definition, that doesn't exist by definition,"
okay. All right. So it doesn't qualify. In this, in this
school, as the third turning of the wheel. In this sutra as the
third turning of the wheel. By the way, I asked Rinpoche a
question that I wasn't sure about and I fudged it, okay? In the
in the Middle...well let's let's go to the easy one. In the Mind
Only School, is the first turning of the wheel figurative or
literal?

(students: Figurative...say it again?)

(laughs) In the Mind Only School, is the first turning of the
wheel figurative or literal?

(students: Figurative. Literal. Figurative. Literal)

No.

(students: No, it's figurative. Literal. Everything is just
figurative.)

Let's say, with regard to this sutra. He taught that everything
exists by definition. Was he being literal? I mean...don't
forget, main point of the first turning of the wheel from the
Mind Only point of view, he said "your heaps, the
four...everything exists by definition".

(students: Figurative)

Was he...it's figurative. It's figurative. It's a blanket
statement. It's wrong. Okay? You know, when he says "nothing
exists", I'm sorry, "everything exists by definition" it's gotta
be figurative. He can't be telling the whole truth, okay.
Everybody knows, some things do and some things don't exist by
definition. So in the first turning of the wheel must
be?...according to the Mind Only School?

(students: Figurative)
Figurative. Okay. Second turning of the wheel? "Nothing exists
by definition".

(students: Figurative)

Figurative. In this school. Okay. Last turning of the wheel.
"Hey, I was just kidding, you gotta divide it"?

(students: Literal)

Literal, okay. Now, switch to?

(students: Mind Only...Middle Way)

Mi Middle Way School. Good. First turning of the wheel?

(students: Figurative)

Figurative for what reason?

(students: It's not directly about emptiness)

Louder.

(student: It's not directly about emptiness)

Yeah, it's not clearly, directly presenting the subject of
emptiness. That's what it means in the Middle Way School to be
figurative or literal. Don't forget. We not only shift meanings
about emptiness, we shift criteria for whether it's figurative or
literal. It's no longer, "can you take it on face value", it's
no longer, "is he making those distinctions". It's "is he
talking about...emptiness", okay? And the first turning of the
wheel he...doesn't, clearly, directly. Does he mention it? Yes.
Why? 'Cause he mentions the Four Arya Truths, and it's one of
the Four Arya Truths...which one? In cessation...in the middle
of cessation he mentions somewhere aspect of of (dak mepa), okay.
 Selflessness, okay. Second turning of the wheel? Mind
Only...oh sorry. Middle Way School. Figurative or literal?
(students: Literal)

Literal. 'Cause he just smeared emptiness all over the place.
(b: Heart Sutra) (b: Diamond Cutter Sutra) (b: Prajnaparamita
Sutras), okay, obviously, literal. Now the one I wasn't sure
about, and the one I just kinda avoided last class, is the third
one.

(students: Figurative)

Does he talk about emptiness or not?

(student: Not clearly (unclear)

Not clearly...you could say, yeah, okay, I mean Rinpoche said
"yeah, it's not clear and it's not exact", you know, although
he's making distinctions and saying "I meant this emptiness and I
didn't make that"...to me, I wasn't sure 'cause it seems like
he's talking about emptiness alot. But Rinpoche said "no. It
doesn't count". (laughter) Okay (laughs) Okay, so the accepted
Madyamika viewpoint is that, yeah, third turning of the wheel is
figurative. Okay. And I think Ora made a beautiful chart in
which she put all those...the time, the place, the subject
matter, the viewpoint, the disciples, and the view...whether it's
figurative or literal to the Mind Only School and the
Middle...did you finish it...I don't know. Did you...print that?
Yeah?

(student: (unclear))

Next class or this class.

(student: (unclear))

This class?

(student: Next class)

Oh, you get it next class. Anyway it's a big chart...and it's
really cool...Tibetan and English, and, I think it's almost done.
 Okay. Last thing before the break, okay, and then we'll take a
break. There's a section now that Je Tsongkapa turns to, he says
"why did Buddha go through all this hassle"...it's kinda your
question, okay...you know, why go through all the trouble of
stating one thing and then stating the opposite and then stating
that neither one was correct (laughs) okay? What's the point,
you know. What's the point of doing that? What's the point of
going through the exercise of trying to decide which turnings of
the wheel are literal and which are figurative. What's the point
of the sutra? You know, what's the sutra trying to get...what's
it's trying to help us, right? All sutras...part of the
definition of a sutra is to help the student, you know, so what's
he trying to do for us. What's Buddha trying to help us a
wi...you know, what's the point of setting out three different
stages of your teaching and then ripping them apart and saying
this is what I meant and this is what I didn't mean it, you know.

(student, Robin: Try to remove our misconceptions)

Robin says, trying to remove our misconceptions. And here's the
standard answer for your homework, okay? I mean, that's actually
correct, and you've seen that that that's what they're doing,
right, especially Mind Only...we talk big, we talk Madyamika.
Our viewpoint at work is Mind Only. Proof is? You get mental
afflictions. You couldn't be holding a Madyamika viewpoint of
your boss or of your fellow worker and still be angry at them.
You must be holding a Mind Only viewpoint, okay. Changing (shen
wang), okay. Self-existent (shen wang)...bad from it's own side.
 Okay. Not because of my crummy karma which I'm now perpetuating
very nicely. Okay. Okay. Three goals that Lord Buddha had in
mind when he taught that sutra, that the Mind Only School likes
so much. Okay. When he ripped apart his own teaching, okay.
First goal. Lord Buddha wanted us to learn not to take his two
blanket statements literally. So it's a negative kind of goal,
okay. First one's kind of negative. What what two blanket
statements?

(students: First and second turnings of the wheel)

Yeah, first and second turning of the wheels. Noth...sorry,
everything exists by definition or nothing exists by definition,
okay. He wanted us to learn not to take either of those two
blanket statements literally. That was goal number one.

(student: This is Mind Only)

Yeah. Yeah. Has to be Mind Only School. Okay. Second goal is
a positive goal. He wanted us to understand that of those three
groups...which is what? (Kuntak, shenwang, yongdrup), okay, (kun
tak) meaning?

(student: Constructs)

Constructs that you...things you imagine. Okay. (Shen wang)
meaning?

(students: Dependent things. Changing things)

All changing things. All dependent things. (Kun taks),
sorry...(yong drup) meaning?

(student: totality)

Emptiness, the the Mind Only version of emptiness, okay. That by
dividing things into those three and saying...he wanted us to
understand...hey, imaginary things don't exist from their own
side, by definition...they don't have their own identity...you
lend them their identity...by by will-power, wishing,
imagination, okay. But hey, the other two things, pens and?

(student: emptiness)

Emptiness, oh they got their own identity. They exist from their
own side. Okay. He wanted us to be able to make this
distinction. This stuff doesn't exist by definition. This stuff
does, okay. This one category doesn't. These two categories
do...exist by definition. He wanted to enlighten us, okay.
You're not gonna ask me which school I'm talking about now,
right?
(students: No)

It's obviously a?

(students: Mind Only)

Mind Only...whatdoyoucallit...propagandist (laughter) okay. He
wanted to help us out, you know. Something's exist by
definition, some don't. He wanted us to understand that. Thank
you Lord Buddha...for finally clearing it up, okay? Which
according to the Middle Way School is? BS (laughs), you know,
okay, come on. Okay, third one. He wanted to give us a really
cool way of understanding emptiness. A really cool way, with
what? I mean, that teaching in in, you know, that sutra,
presents three different categories. What are they? (Shen
wang)...sorry, (kun tak, shen wang, yong drup) okay. What,
imaginary things, dependent things and emptiness in the Mind Only
thirty-one flavor version, okay. That's a really cool way to
understand emptiness. Get it? That's why he taught it. Okay.
That's why he went...that's why he went through all this stuff.
It's such a cool way to understand emptiness. Why? First of all
you take the thing you want to establish emptiness about which is
a?

(student: (Shen wang))

(Shen wang), okay. So the (shen wang) part of the three is to
help us to choose to talk about its emptiness, okay. What? How
'bout a pen, a dependent thing, okay, a (shen wang). Then you
say, guess what it doesn't have?...

(student: A certain kind of (kun tak)?)

A certain kind of (kun tak). Beautiful answer, okay. By the
way, the root text and Je Tsongkapa don't often say "a certain
kind of (kun tak)". It just says "(kun tak). But you know
there's good (kun taks) and bad (kun taks). Okay. What's the
good (kun taks)?

(student: (unclear))
Yeah, when your parents thought of you as, you know, Robin.
that's a (kun tak) but that's okay...no problem there. Okay?
But when I think of you as a Robin that exists independent of a
of me...of my mind, a de...separate karmic seed is producing you
and another one is producing my mind, then I gonna get into
problems. That idea about Robin doesn't exist, okay? And the
fact that it doesn't exist on you is?...your (yong drup), okay.
This is a cool way of understanding emptiness. The emptiness of
Robin means that the idea that Robin is coming from some
separate, outside thing and not from my mind, okay, or not from
my own karma, is false and the fact that that doesn't
apply...that's a (kun tak) which is false, and she's a (shen
wang), and the fact that that's not true about her is her?

(students: (yong drup))

(Yong drup). It's her emptiness. It's so cool, it's such a cool
system for understanding emtpiness of anything. Brilliant.
Third goal of the sutra, okay. Third reason why Lord Buddha goes
into all this (drang nge) stuff. Okay. The third reason why he
has to pull out of his bag of teachings, the idea of these three
attributes, okay. Why? 'Cause they're so cool for understanding
emptiness. Okay. In general, they're pretty correct also, I
mean, you know, if you look at them the right way, they can be
okay. Okay. According to the Middle Way School, okay.
According to the Mind Only School they're brilliant already,
okay? All right? So the third goal of Lord Buddha going through
this exercise of trying to reinterpret his own teachings by
bringing up these three categories is that it's a very cool way
to understand the emptiness of anything, you know. You're
obviously...after you've had that teaching about emptiness,
you're not gonna go around saying that emptiness is "watching
your mind". Or "watching the luminous nature of your mind flow
by" or something like that. Has nothing to do with what we're
talking about, okay. So, obviously it's a very valuable teaching
to give somebody...hey, think of it in these three terms. The
fact that it doesn't...that a self-existent object, a (kun tak)
has nothing to do with this changing thing, a (shen wang), is
what it's emptiness means, (yong drup). And that's a very cool
way for understanding emptiness in the anything, okay, and then
you're not gonna get into these wrong ideas like emptiness is
some black hole in the (unclear) or something like that, okay.
All right.

(student: (unclear))

Those three things. Okay. Those three things. Okay. What Je
Tsongkapa's trying to clarify for us...why does the Buddha go
through this exercise...I mean, why doesn't he just come out and
say everything's empty, you know? Why's he gonna bring up these
three stupid things, and why's he keep going back and rehashing
his three turning of the wheel? And what's he bring up this literal-figurative stuff
for? Well it has those three goals. I
don't want you to take everything I said as a blanket statement.
Negative goal. Positive goal. I want you to understand that
some things exist by definition and some things don't. (whispers)
This is Mind Only School only, okay. And then thirdly, I want to
give you a really cool way of understanding emptiness by giving
you these three things, you know, changing things...dependent
things, constructs, and then totality, or emptiness, okay.
That's all. One last question and you get some refreshments,
okay.

(student: You can use that three way description of emptiness
and turn it into a a a Middle Way School analysis by saying, once
you take away the (kun tak) of the pen, then you have just the
(kun tak) of cylinder and blue, you take away those (kun taks)
and you just keep going infinitely.)

Yeah, Mark said you can use the the presentation of the three
attributes to explain Madyamika also. Yes. Does Madyamika
accept the three attributes?

(students: Yes)

Yeah. Do they say it's a useful way to understand emptiness?
Yeah. So what's the difference between them and the Mind Only
School? Oh they don't need this Bodhisattva to come and ask a
question about it...they get it right away. (laughter) (laughs)
Okay, no...that's that's actually part of the definition. Yeah.
You can say that all of the schools accept the idea of those
three attributes. They have different ideas about what it means
and they interpret it in different ways, but it's it's
un...Mark's right, and in fact it's the case, that if you went
and asked an Abhidharmist or a Sutrist or a Mind Only School or a
Sautrantika or Svatantrika...tranti...tranti...Svatantrika or
Prasangika, you ask them all...do you like this idea of three
attributes...they say, yeah, it's kinda cool. What's it mean?
And then each of them would st...go off onto his own spheil and
they'd be different, okay, but they'd all say it's a useful way
to think, okay? Okay. I think we'll take a break, and I
promised you...some kind of discussion about Lord Buddha making
some kind of crazy statements to non-Buddhists about saying "self-
nature does exist", okay. He did say that. He even went that
far. Now what did he mean, okay? We'll talk about that...after
a commercial break. (laughter) (laughs) Okay.

(break)

(laughter) (laughs) Everybody pray tomorrow at work that
we...they're having a board meeting out in Arizona about the
property that we're trying to grub off of this rancher, so
(laughter), I mean this sponsor and

(student: What's the rancher's name?)

Jerry Dixon...fifty thousand acres. I mean (laughter), no,
that's what he's...his ranch is. So we're just asking for a tiny
little couple acres (laughs) (laughter). Okay. And then, if it
works out, everybody has to come out and build a adobe retreat
place, all right. Okay. We were talking about...no but please,
seriously, do pray for tomorrow, okay. We were talking about...
Lord Buddha, did in a very generous day, you know, for the sake
of some people who who he wanted to attract into Buddhism...you
know, they probably asked him, you know, you've been saying a lot
of radical stuff about self not existing. Did you really mean
that? And he probably said something like, "no, I didn't...at
all. Of course there's a self, you know. Of course, of course
you have some self-existent self about you, okay". And then they
said, "well, what is that?" And then he went off into a thing
called (deshin shekpay nyingpo). Say (deshin) (repeat) (shekpay)
(repeat) (nyingpo) (repeat). (Deshin) (repeat) (shekpay)
(repeat) (nyingpo) (repeat). So, at some point, in Tibet, in the
time of Je Tsongkapa, there were Tibetans who said, who who
started to get so radical they said, all three turnings of the
wheel are literal. You have to accept the subject matter of all
three turnings of the wheel. Okay. This is...you get to some
point, if you argue the Mind Only School the wrong way, that you
have to accept all three of them as being literal, okay? And
this was a popular viewpoint among certain schools in Tibet, that
all three schools...all three turnings of the wheel were literal,
and that when Lord Buddha specifically said that you did have a
self nature of yourself...by the way, do you have a self?

(student: Yes)

Of course you do. You's Robin. You's, you's, you's you's, you
know (laughter)

(student: Is that literal or)

(laughs) He said "literal or figurative". I'm speaking
literally, okay. Yeah, of course you have a self. You know,
you're Bruno Denardo, you know, you're you're you're you you you,
of course you're a you. Okay. Michael Roach is standing up here
giving a talk, okay

(cut)

He exists. There's an exis...there's a self that exists and
there's a self that doesn't exist. You gotta get used to that.
What's the self that doesn't exist about Michael Roach? The one
that's not coming from your karmic projection. Well where's he?
He don't exist. All right. If you like me, that's your problem.
 If you don't like me, (laughter) (laughs), that's your problem.
Okay. If you see something nice, you collected some good karma.
Congratulations. You know, if you see something you don't like,
that's your problem. I'm sorry...that you did that, you know what
I mean? But I I myself, have no nature. The proof of that is
that fifty different people have fifty different interpretations
of what I'm saying and wh and who I am, okay, what I mean? So,
so that that would be the non-existent Michael Roach. That's
what we mean when we say "no self" and that kinda of "no self"
applies to every other object in the universe, okay? Now these
guys got it wrong and they say Lord Buddha was speaking literally
when he said we had a self, and there is a self-nature of me, and
what he was talking about, specifically...you know, the the other
schools of Tibetan Buddhism said, "come on", you know, "tell me
what he was talking about then". You know, when Lord Buddha's
trying to attract non-Buddhists, and he says, "yeah, we do have a
self nature that comes from your self, you know, that it stands
out there all by itself, okay, then then what on earth do you
think he was talking about? Okay. This is...Je Tsongkapa is
criticizing some other schools. Je Tsongkapa is very discreet.
Why? He doesn't?...mention any names, okay. But you know who
you are (laughter) (laughs) okay? Okay. No, I mean, that was
his style, and later commentaries di...identified the the
speakers, which is the Jonangba School, it is a particular school
of Buddhism in Tibet that that had some strange ideas. Jonangba
was a brilliant scholar who who according to Je Tsongkapa,
stretched things a little too far, okay. So here's another idea.
 They say, the thing Lord Buddha was talking about, in the first
turning of the wheel which seems to be the least literal thing he
ever said, like the thing you'd want to say was figurative, when
he said, "yes, you do have a self-nature. Definitely". They say
he was speaking literally, and he was talking about that little
Buddha inside of you. Okay. Every person has a little Buddha
inside of them, you know, like there's already a Buddha under
your skin, okay. And you just have to peel off all of those
delusions and you'll see yourself as the Buddha 'cause you
already are, okay? I mean, they misinterpret a teaching of the
Buddha, okay. The Buddha did give a teaching called (b: Buddha
Nature). Does it mean that you are already a Buddha, and you
just have to reveal or unveil something and you'll find your
little Buddha in there, you know. This is a very popular
teaching. I've seen it. I've I've read books on it. You know,
I've heard it expressed, and and Lord Buddha never said that. He
never meant that. He talked about a Buddha nature, it doesn't
mean that you're already a Buddha. It would not have taken Lord
Buddha seventy-five thousand plus seventy-six thousand, plus
seventy-seven thousand times ten to the sixtieth power eons to
achieve Buddhahood if it was just a matter of unveiling this
little Buddha inside of you, okay. No, you have to develop it.
You have to train yourself. You have to practice, okay? There
is no little Buddha sitting inside of you. Does that mean you
don't have a Buddha nature? No, it doesn't mean that. You do
have a Buddha nature. What does "Buddha nature" real
mean...really mean (sugata gharba), okay, Buddha nature. Very
simple. What is it? The emptiness of your own mind. When you
get to Buddhahood there's only one part of you that's still gonna
be the same. I hope our minds won't be the same. I hope my
body's not the same, okay. All right. But I...but the emptiness
of my mind I can carry all the way to Buddhahood and I will.
Okay. And it's great. Why? It's the capacity for me to become
an enlightened being, okay? If my mind was not empty, if my mind
existed in this dirty, mentally afflicted, angry, jealous etc.
way, from its own side, I'd be stuck with it forever. If it was
like a pen that existed from its own side, I could never remove
my mental afflictions, but since it's empty...meaning, since it's
a projection of my karma, then if I clean up my karmic act I'll
start seeing my mind as...better and better. Like aryas mind,
and an arhat's mind, and an enlightened being's mind. Is it
because I'm training my mind or something like that? No. It's
because I'm collecting virtue at such a rate that it forces me to
see my mind a different way. And arhats, as the (b: Diamond
Cutter Sutra) says, are just people who are being forced or
compelled by their karma to see their mind as totally pure, okay.
 So that's the real way to do it. It's the same as getting rid
of people at work. Same concept. You don't do it by some
external self-existent process. You change your karma. You do
your book. And then you are forced to see your mind as a sweeter
place to be in. Okay. Because you're projecting different
karmic things onto your mind. Okay. So that's...and if your
mind wasn't a blank screen, you couldn't do that. So the best
thing about you, and in fact, the only enlightened part of you,
so called, you know, quote "enlightened", is the fact that your
mind is empty. And it...and that's the potential for you to
become an enlightened being. If you mind wasn't blank, in a
sense, you'd be in trouble, you know. If all those mental
afflictions were were a natural part of your mind, and were not
your projections, then you'd be in big trouble. Then you
couldn't get rid of them, you...'cause there wouldn't be any
place to put new projections. Okay. So your mind is blank, your
mind is empty, and that's why you can become a Buddha. This is
your potential. This is your Buddha nature, okay. That's all
Lord Buddha meant. He never said, there's a little Buddha guy
somewhere down near your appendix, and you know, you just have to
reveal your true nature or something like that. Your true nature
is mentally afflicted. Your true nature is to misperceive the
world every single second of your existence. That's your true
nature, okay. It's changeable. Why? Because your mind is
empty. That you have a Buddha nature. And will that be the same
when you become an enlightened being? Yeah. Minds of
enlightened beings are just as empty as minds of non-enlightened
beings. Okay. In fact that's the only piece of you that's gonna
be left over when you get to enlightenment. So, you know, enjoy
it. You have some little piece of your enlightenment with you.
(laughter) Okay. That's all that that means. So again, Je
Tsongkapa is not only...and by the way, when we got taught this
in Sera Mey, the teacher spent a whole...I don't know, like an
hour or two hours on this point, you know, and he said...and then
at the end he said, "I'm...I'm concentrating on this point which
is a minor mention in Je Tsongkapa's text in your reading...you
might even skip it if you don't read it carefully. He says, "I'm
concentrating on it because I've heard that in the West people
are teaching this, you know, and I wanna make sure that you
understand it. That's not what Buddha nature means, okay?"
Here's the word for Buddha nature. We're going to the last
subject. Is that (trung dun) or (nye dun)? Figurative or
literal statement? (laughter) (laughs) I don't know. Actually
because of the question...I told you...I told you he saved you
fifteen minutes...okay, he did. Okay, last last thing on your
homrwork that I didn't cover is...oh, that's too bad. Okay.
There you go (laughter). Buddha nature...the word for Buddha
nature. So on your homework when it says...by the way, every
day I put up on the screen is on your homework, in case you
didn't notice yet, (laughter) okay. Say (deshin) (repeat)
(shekpay) (repeat) (nyingpo) (repeat). (Deshin) (repeat)
(shekpay) (repeat) (nyingpo) (repeat). (Deshin) means "like
that". Tha ta in Sanscrit. Tha ta. Like that. (Shekpay) means
"gone". Gata in Sanscrit. Thatagata. Tha-ta-ga-ta. Okay.
Gone like that. Gone that way. Gone what way? Gone to
enlightenment, okay. Gone that way, okay? Those who are gone
that way. It's a...it's a synonym for a Buddha, okay? (Nyingpo)
means "the essence or the heart", okay. And this is a code word
for...for Buddha nature, okay? So yeah, Buddha did talk to
people about some kind of essence...essential nature in their
being, he was not talking about a self-nature of the person, he
was not being literal in the first turning of the wheel. You're
wrong if you think all three turnings of the wheel are literal.
Okay? That's all. He was talking about the emptiness of your
mind, your Buddha nature. That's all. He wasn't talking about
some permanent, self-standing, from it's own side, self, okay.
Wasn't talking about that. So don't get it messed up, yeah?

(student: The atman)

Yeah, what they call "atman" in Sanscrit. All right, last thing,
where is that. So, I threw into your reading twenty five
tortuous pages of dialectic on these subjects...they're very
beautiful...if you have time, go through them, okay. All the
questions that came up in your mind, naturally, during this
class, are treated there. Because that's how they write those
books. They're brilliant, you know. They actually anticipate
yo...the questions that come up in your mind and then they argue
them like you argue them in your own mind, okay, and they're very
beautiful. To me they're the most beautiful kind of Buddhist
literature, you know. Wrong ideas are brought up by this guy
over here and this guy over here argues and then finally they
decide and and and and then somewhere in the middle they give you
the straight party line, okay. But what's cool is you don't
learn a straight party line until you've heard all these
arguments, okay? Like ten people have come and made very
sophisticated arguments about Buddha nature, for example, that
are slightly wrong, and you've gotten to see the arguments
develop and cha...and fold, unfold, and then by the time they
finish arguing you already understand what Buddha nature is very
beautifully, okay, and that's the style in which these books are
written. Comes a point where Kedrup Tenpa Dargye stops torturing
you with dialectic, and he says, "okay, look, you wanna know what
the real thing is...I'll tell you". Okay. And he gives a
definition of the first turning of the wheel for example, that's
about this long, okay, I mean, this has to be a technical
definition that you could defend in a debate ground against a
thousand other monks. You better cover every single thing that
someone might argue about, okay. Technical definitions for the
debate ground tend to be like ten lines long, okay. Then he
says, you know what, you don't even need that technical
definition. I'll give you a new one. For the first turning of
the wheel, and he gives one little sentence. It's very cool,
okay. I thought it'd be nice, and that's the last thing for
tonight.

(student: Literally?)

Literally. (laughter) The definition of the first turning of
the wheel, Kedrup Tenpa Dargye, the ultimate definition, okay,
say (korlo) (repeat)(sumpo) ( repeat) (gang rung du) (repeat)
(gyurpak) (repeat) (tek men gyi) (repeat) (do) (repeat). One more
time. (Korlo) (repeat) (sumpo) (repeat) (gang rung du) (repeat)
(gyurpak) (repeat) (tek men gyi) (repeat) (do) (repeat). This
definition of the first turning of the wheel, okay. (Korlo
sumpo) means...(korlo) means "turning of the wheel" and and I I
know you still remember the meaning of "turning of the wheel",
right? The teacher turns the turning of the wheel of the
Dharma...the physical the physical Dharma, meaning the teacher's
speech, or the teacher's writing, and that turns a a
corresponding wheel of realizations in the students heart, and
that's that's how you turn the turning of the wheel, okay, and
that presentation comes partly from the last pages of the (b:
Abhidharmakosha). Okay. So (korlo sumpo) means "the three
turnings of the wheel". (Sumpo) means "all three". (Gang rung
du gyurpay) means "anyone"...we could say, "which belongs to
anyone", okay? Which belongs to anyone. (Tek men) means
"Hinayana: lower way, lower way". (Gyi do), (do) means "sutra".
How's this for a first...how's this for a definition of the first
turning of the wheel. Ready? "A a sutra of the lower way that
belongs to any of the three turnings of the wheel". Say again.
(student: (unclear))

Say again.

(student: That (unclear))

That's his definition. That's the ultimate definition, okay?
Now I will ask you. How's that for a definition? "A a sutra of
the lower way that belongs to any one of the three turnings of
the wheel" is the definition of the first turning of the wheel.
Nice.

(students: No No No)

How can you...it's circular. It's circular. How can you define
a turning of the wheel by referring to other turnings of the
wheel. That's like saying the guy in the first seat is the guy
that is sitting in any one of the three seats. (laughter) No,
it is. It's exactly the same thing. Think about it. The guy in
the first seat is the guy sitting in in any one of the...the guy
sitting in the first three seats, or something like that, it
doesn't make sense, you see. How can you define the first
turning of the wheel as being, you know, something which belongs
to the other (laughs) three, any one of the other three, any
one...you know, meaning so it maybe it may be might belong to the
second, might belong to the third.

(student: If the first thing happens, happens... (unclear) to a
lower thing)

I I I think, well I think what you have to say is, you have to
interpret this turning of the wheel as meaning what? Any one of
the three periods...historical periods, you see what I mean? If
you read it that way, does it work? How 'bout we read it that
way. The first turning of the wheel consists of all the Hinayana
sutras ever spoken in any of the three periods of the Buddha's
life, you know, you take it to be historical turning of the wheel
as opposed to the turning of the wheel as described in the Mind
Only School sutra. Something like that, okay? You gotta be
careful. I think you gotta read it that way. And and one more
point. Does lower way mean Hinayana?

(student: No)

Not really here, okay. Is it dissing all the people who practice
Theravada...no. Okay? What are they talking about? Any sutra
which expresses...more basic, or more elementary ideas
about...emptiness, okay. Any sutra like that, no matter when it
was spoken, no matter which of the three great convocations, no
matter which of the three parts of the Buddha's life, doesn't
matter. That is a...sut...first turning of the wheel. That's
the first turning of the wheel, okay. Sorry?

(student: Would you repeat (unclear))

Yeah, the first turning of the wheel consists of all the
teachings the Buddha ever gave throughout his lifetime that
expresses a more simple idea of emptiness, a modified version of
emptiness that's a little simplier for people to understand.
That's what we call the first turning of the wheel. Then, as
you'll read in his reading, you could define second turning of
the wheel as "any Mahayana sutra or or any teaching that Lord
Buddha gave...what would you say...in which he taught emptiness
but he taught it for the sake of people who didn't
understand...oh, I'm sorry, who could understand the meaning of
emptiness without getting it rehashed or reinterpreted by some
book like that one where the Bodhisattva asked the question. And
then you could say the third turning of the wheel is, you know,
any teaching which the Buddha gave for Mahayana people who needed
that kind of rehash to understand emptiness as it was taught in
the second turning of the wheel. Okay. Because they couldn't
get it. Comfortable? Okay. And you'll...you know, that's a
ho...that's a simple presentation of how he di... how he presents
the three turnings of the wheel. Is there a big gu...is it
comfortable? Got it? Okay. Okay. Then and now now we're down
to the end of the class and we're down to the main point of
interpretation and in fact, next week we're gonna go...next class
we're gonna go on to a totally different subject. We have just
crossed a major turning point in Je Tsongkapa's text. He's done
with the sutra. He's done with the sutra. He's gonna go on to a
few famous Mind Only School thinkers of ancient India and how
they used the sutra to invent the Mind Only School...or to
present the Mind Only School. Who's gonna be the main culprit?

(student: Probably (unclear) Asanga)

Master Asanga. Okay. Master Asanga. Is Master Asanga
presenting his own viewpoints?

(students: No)

No, you'll see he's reporting Mind Only School viewpoints, okay.
That's the important point. So before he goes on to that, the
very...I mean the big point here is this. Get it? The
definition of the second turning of the wheel is...or the third
turning of the wheel is where Lord Buddha has to has to...what do
you call it...he has to

(student: Argue. Clarify)

It's not a clarification. He's actually making up something
which not correct. Which is not true, to help somebody who
couldn't get emptiness the first time when he taught it back on
Vulchur's Peak, okay. He's has to come up with these three
attributes, and he has to start saying "ah, I didn't mean it in
that case, I did mean it in this case"...he's rehas...what do you
call it? He's...what do you call that, there must be a word in
English.

(student: Reinterpreting. Reinventing.)

He's rewriting history or something. What do you call it?

(students: (unclear))

Re...(laughs). I don't know...anyway.

(student: But does he get it correct?)

He's repackaging it. (laughter). Okay. For people who couldn't
get it the first time. When was the first time? On Vulchur's
Peak in the second turning of the wheel. He's repackaging it in a
different nice splits that deodorant into three different types,
you know, he makes a new box, he says "okay, get it now", you
know? Okay. Like that.

(student: But he doesn't get it.)

Who doesn't get it?

(student: The third)

No, the Bodhisattva gets it. (Drub ten) Hey, I get it, you
didn't mean it in the second one and you...oh yeah he still,
yeah, no he doesn't get it. As long as he's still stuck in Mind
Only School he doesn't get it. But at least he reached Mind Only
School. You see what I mean? That was the whole point. Getting
him to Mind Only School. We'll get to Madyamika tomorrow, you
know. Where was he before that? He wasn't even up to Mind Only
School yet. Okay. Yeah.

(student: (unclear))

Sorry?

(student: E q u i v o c a t i n g)

Oh, equivocating, in a way, yeah yeah (laughter).

(student: Could we say (unclear) skillful means (unclear)?)

Absolutely. Remember the sole whole sutra started out by saying
what? I mean the whole... Je Tsongkapa started out by quoting a
sutra that says "look, Buddha uses a billion different arguments
for emptiness and he uses (tap sul). (Tap sul) meaning "sneaky
ways" to get them to understand something, okay. Yeah.

(student: In...well, I mean he was a Bodhisattva, then why would
 he be asking a question.)
He says "why is a Bodhisattva asking a question 'cause it seems
contradictory, because when you reach the Buddha...first
Bodhisattva bhumi, you must have by definition, perceived
emptiness directly." It is true that when you reach the first
bodhisattva bhumi, you...it is...you do reach it by seeing
emptiness directly and by having bodhicitta in your heart. So if
you see emptiness directly and don't have bodhicitta in your
heart, you just become a Hinayana arya. Okay. If you see
emptiness directly and you do have bodhicitta in your heart, you
become an arya, you become two of the three jewels on that
moment, and then, incidently, you become a a bodhisattva on the
first bodhisattva bhumi...that's when the bhumis begin. But you
become a bodhisattva long before that, okay. Two steps before
that...way before that. There's a big difference between a
bodhisattva arya and a bodhisattva non-arya, okay, meaning a
bodhisattva who's seen emptiness directly and who hasn't seen
emptiness directly, so you can be a bodhisattva long before you
reach the first bodhisattva?

(student: Bhumi)

Bhumi, okay. And actually (laughs) millions of years, may...
thousands of years before, okay...or something like that, okay.
Becoming a bodhisattva only requires having bodhicitta.
That...then you get to become a bodhisattva. It's (tsog
lam)...Mahayana (tsog lam), path of accumulation. And then much
later you achieve path of seeing and start the bhumis, okay, like
that. Yeah, one more question.

(student: There this (unclear) as a bodhisattva, couldn't he be
asking the question for the benefit of others)

Yeah, he says, "well, even if he already was a bodhi, you know, a
bodhisattva arya, maybe he was just asking it for the benefit of
others, yeah. And and most times in the commentaries you'll see
somebody say, "he's actually Avelokiteshvara." He's actually a
tantric deity already, as we saw in the Diamond Cutter Sutra.
Subuti is already a tantric deity. And then he's just playing
fall guy for the Buddha. And you see it in the monastery all the
time. The very humble, brilliant older geshes will come into a a
(tsog) of a thousand monks and debate and make some small mistake
in their presentation to a new geshe, and let them beat him, but
it takes them three hours, you know, and at the end they say, "oh
oh man you're so smart" (laughter), you know, I never
thought...you know, and then actually they're just trying to help
everybody else, and then they sit down, like, you know, and put
their head down, and (laughter) act, and act like they got
beaten, you know what I mean? But it's really...they're just
doing it for for everybody else when they do that, you know.
Okay. Had some other point...what was that. Oh, so that's all.

Oh, so that's all. The main point being, to me, the beauty of
Kedrup Tenpa Dargye there is that he's pointing out that the
Buddha is repackaging his presentation of emptiness according to
the audience, okay, and and you're and and and you're gonna have
to do that too. You're living in a country where people have no
idea of emptiness. If they ever heard the word they think it
means some kind of black hole. Or they've heard ten long
explanations of it from ridiculous to pretty cool, and and you're
gonna have to be able to to make your presentation, you know,
fitting the audience, you know, and in fact, not to attempt to
fit your explanation of emptiness to your audience is breaking a
bodhisattva vow, okay? If if they're not ready for a certain
one, you have to you have to give them a Mind Only version or
something like that, okay? And that...what shall we say, Je
Tsongkapa in his commentary to that bodhisattva vow says, "if you
think you're giving them one that fits them and turns out that
you didn't, do you still break the vow?"

(students: No)

No, okay. It's to your best knowledge. You you judge your
audience to the to the best of your knowledge you judge your
audience and you give them a presentation of emptiness. Now some
westerners say, "therefore, I should never teach emptiness to
anybody". And that's not correct either. You must. You have
to...try, okay. I would say a good judge of whether or not
you're presenting it in a responsible way, and in a correct way
is does it immediately link to virtue and non-virtue. Do you
immediately start talking about "emptiness means that things are
determined by the karma which, you know, by the projections which
are forced on you by your karma," And then you immediately start
dar...talking about compassion and good deeds and stuff like
that. If someone talks about emptiness for more than five
minutes and doesn't bring up the link between that and and your
projections forced on you by your morality, then there's a
problem, you know. Then then I think the audience is is in
trouble of misunderstanding emptiness, you see what I mean? You
have to bring up...as soon as you bring up emptiness you better
get to karma in five minutes. As soon as you bring up karma, you
better bring up emptiness in five minutes, okay? Otherwise it
doesn't tie together. That's why Lord Buddha spent forty years
tea...sorry, twenty five years teaching one, twenty five years
teaching the other. That's why the (kangyur) divides pretty
equally into morality and emptiness, okay, 'cause they go
together, all right? All right, we'll do some closing prayers,
okay. Ready Phunsok-la?

(prayer: short mandala)

(prayer: dedication)
What the Buddha Really Meant