ACI 15 «Что на самом деле имел в виду Будда», занятие 8

class 8
Transcribed by: Karen Becker

(cut)

to buckle down, okay...like this is where you get tired, all
right. We'll keep going. And I really want to thank Thomas and
his crew for doing homeworks...like he doesn't get any sleep on
Saturday night, he's camped out there, and I don't even think
they got any pizza (laughter) but anyway. We're pretty far into
the Mind Only Presentation...by the way, the last two classes,
nine and ten will be the Middle Way presentation, okay.
Traditionally in the monastery we spend four years on the Middle
Way so they don't study it much when they study (drang nge).
Which is they leave the second half of the book; they cover
mostly the first half of the book which is the Mind Only
presentation, so but I figured you better get a little bit at the
end since it's the last official ACI course, that you know,
better that we end it on a Madyamika note. So tonight we're
gonna polish off one one more detail of the Mind Only School.
Remember where we are. We finished the Bodhisattva's question,
we finished that sutra in the first six classes and then in the
seventh class we started to get later interpretations of it by?
Arya Asanga and his gang. Arya Asanga being the person who re re
re rewoke...anyway, brought back the Mind Only School system, you
 know. Some people say he founded it...it's not exactly so. I
mean, our Lama in the monastery was very careful to say he just
you know, like rewakened it...reawakened it because it was
dormant after Lord Buddha taught it. So we're studying mostly
his (b: Compendium) and his (b: Bodhisattva Levels) and in there
we start to get more detail on what the sutra means, and that's
where we left you off last time. At the beginning of the last
class Arya Asanga said, "look, you want to understand what
emptiness is? Understand it as the...as what you have leftover
when you remove two extremes, when you remove two extreme ways of
thinking. If you remove this (ta) meaning "this wrong idea and
its object", and then this (ta) meaning "the object of the
opposite wrong idea", then what you have leftover from these two
extremes in the middle is emptiness, and you can understand
emptiness that way. So he got into the idea of (dron dok) and
(kurn dep). Okay. (Dron dok) meaning "inventing something when
it's not there", and then (kurn dep) meaning "when something
really is there, you refuse it". Okay. And those are the two
extreme views, what they hold onto is called the two extremes,
and those two extremes don't exist, okay. Since they're wrong
views, the thing that they hold is something which is false and
therefore doesn't even exist, okay. It can exist in the in
imagination, you know, you can say, you can imagine a pumpkin
smashing the Twin Towers, but it doesn't exist in reality, okay,
so so we tried to find last week the the result of the when you
eliminate this extreme when you eliminate this extreme,
supposedly what you have left over is a real pure idea of
emptiness. Okay. So I'll go really quickly over the two
extremes again...extreme views. (Dron dok) related to one of
the three categories of the Mind Only system, right, we have (kun
taks, shen wangs and yong drups), right? We have construct,
constructs, we have dependent things and we have totality,
meaning emptiness according to the Mind Only School. When you do
(kurn dep), a class (kurn dep), mainly...sorry (dron dok), okay,
(dron dok), when you see something there's that's not really
there, which of the three categories is the main one that we're
talking about?

(students: (Kun taks))

Yeah, (kun taks). Which according to the Mind Only School system
don't exist?

(students: By definition)

By definition. And (dron dok) which tends to see something there
when it's not there, thinks what?

(students: They do)

That they do exist by definition, okay. What, what are (kun
taks)? Well, there's existing (kun taks) and there's non-
existing (kun taks). Existing (kun taks) would be the fact that
Nanette is called Nanette, okay? That exists, okay. What's a non-
existing (kuntak)? The fact that Nanette is called Nanette that
that could be something which is naturally existing, which exists
by definition. She should be called that, okay, okay, and and
and from her own side she's called that, or something like that.
Okay. So that's an example of an existing concept about her, or
construct about her and that's an example of a non-existing
construct about her, okay, and the one that looks at...you know,
the state of mind that looks at the non-existing one, the evil
boss who's an evil boss no matter what, you know, the fact that
he's called an evil boss, and the fact that the words "evil boss"
apply to him, that is a self-existent thing. It comes from its
own side; it has it's own true reality. Independent of how I
think. I'm not making it up. He is an evil boss. Okay. That
that beliefs that the words "evil boss" apply to him self-
existently, by definition, is is wrong. And and who thinks that
that's true? By the way, that (dron dok). Okay. That's seeing
something there when it's not there. You're making up a boss who
deserves the name "evil boss" from his own side, okay. And it
gives you all the suffering you ever have because it makes you do
bad karma. Okay. Those of you studying the wheel of life, (nye
pa du je gyi le) link number two is collecting bad karma. What's
link number one?

(students: Ignorance)

Ignorance, okay, and the Mind Only School would agree. They'd
say, "you do bad karma, you say bad things, you fight back at
your boss because you have ignorance about him. Okay. So who is
it that's doing the (dron dok) according to the Mind Only School?
Who tends to see "evil boss" as being deserving the name "evil
boss" from his own side?

(students: Ignorance)

Yeah, ignorance has that problem, and it incites you to do bad
karma. And then the rest of the ten links of the wheel of life
are triggered by that process until you get to number twenve
which is? (Ga she), okay? And then the (b: Heart Sutra) says,
(ma re pa me ma re pa se pa me pa ga she me), you wanna shut off
(ga she), shut off (meg pa), you wanna stop number twelve, stop
number one. So it's not crazy when Michael Roach gets up and
says you don't have to get old or die. The Buddha said that.
That's the whole point of Buddhism. That's the whole point of
the wheel of life, okay? Is that you can avoid number twelve if
you stop number one. It's like turning off a faucet and stopping
a problem in the drain, you know, twenty feet away, okay. If you
turn off the faucet at number one, number twelve's...eventually
number twelve stops. Okay. So that's the idea. So ignorance
believes that, okay. Ignorance believes that. Now we get to the
other extreme (kurn dep), right. Which of the three groups of
the Mind Only School does (kurn dep) concentrate on?

(students: Shen wangs)

Shen wangs and?

(students: Yong drup)

And yong drups, okay. Changing things and emptiness according to
the Mind Only School, which is called "totality" and what does it
think about them? It's denying something about them which they
really do have.

(students: (unclear))

It says they don't exist by definition. This is a wrong state of
mind, a mistaken state of mind, an extreme view that says, "this
pen, wherever it is, this pen and the emptiness of this pen do
not exist...I'm sorry...yeah, do not exist by definition, okay?
When in truth they?

(students: Do)

Do exist by definition. Why, according to the Mind Only School
do they exist by definition?

(students: (unclear)

It has its own identity from its own side. Prove it. It came
from its causes, I mean, how could it go through all that work of
coming from causes, you know, being...oil being made into
plastic, plastic being formed into a pen, and then not exist from
its own side, are you kidding? You know. Okay, that's what they
say. It works so hard to be a pen and now you're telling him he
can't be a pen, you know, from his own side (laughs)? You know
they say the fact that it was caused, I mean, that nails it down,
come on, it has to be, it has to have some identity from its own
side, because it had self existent outside external causes making
it that way, so of course its...the causes were that way and the
result of the causes were that way, come on, it went through so
much sweat to become a pen and now you're saying it can't be a
pen. Okay. They they say you can't say that, okay. So. Now we
get into today's class. Who is it that said this thing doesn't
exist by definition? Who is it that makes this extreme...who is
it that makes this extreme mistake?

(students: Madyamika.)

Yeah. Sorry. No. Who who makes this extreme mistake?

(students: Madyamika)

Yeah, Madyamika, okay. The Middle Way people. Those crazy
nihilists who run around saying nothing exists, okay. They're
the people who say that this...you know, and then we say to them,
"excuse me, you know, does the pen exist by definition?" And
they say "no". And then they say, "well how does it exist,
please tell me". In fact in the text of Arya Asanga it says (tse
dang denpa). What is (tse dang denpa) mean? (Tse dang denpa
Sharipu). What's it mean? Venerable. In in the (b: Heart
Sutra) it means "junior monk", but it's a way of addressing a
monk in an honorific way, "oh Venerable sir". You know, so when
the Middle Way...sorry, the Mind Only starts attacking the Middle
Way they say, "Oh (tse dang denpa), you know, "oh venerable sirs,
if it doesn't exist by definition, could you be so kind as to
tell me how it exists?" You know, and they say, "oh it's just
your projection". And they say "oh, like a (kun tak), right?"
And the and the Middle Way says "yeah, right, like sort of like a
(kun tak), you know, and so then they so, "Oh, okay, so let's say
that this thing doesn't exist by definition. Then then pray
tell, what are you projecting onto? Because you just said it
doesn't even exist.

(student: No)

You know, a (shen)...you went around saying that a (shen wang)
doesn't exist by definition. The main thing in the universe that
exists by definition, doesn't exist by definition. So it can't
exist at all. Now what are you pu wh what're you putting your
projection onto? What're you projecting onto? You just said
they don't even exist. So what's there to project to?" You know
what I mean, okay, what is it that...where is the cylinder that
you project pen onto. You just said it didn't exist, okay.
Because you said there's a changing thing in the world that
doesn't exist by definition, and that's impossible, so since
nothing exists, what the hell are you projecting onto? Where's a
where's a cylinder that you're projecting onto? If everything is
projections what're you projecting onto, because you just said
they don't exist, okay. Then what does the Mind...now, that was
the end of the last class. Now we go on the new class, okay.
Middle Way School, how do you answer. Venerable sirs. (ca ba ma
chu), oh (ca ba) be careful. (Ca ba ma chu) means, "I agree that
they don't exist but I can still say they're projected." Now you
gotta say (chi chr. Chi chr) means "who said that? Who said
they didn't exist?), okay. (Chi chr) means "hey, wh...I...who
the hell said that? I didn't say that? I didn't say they didn't
exist". Okay. What does the Middle Way School say? I never
said that they didn't exist. I didn't never say that the
cylinder didn't exist. I said it didn't exist?

(students: By definition)

By definition. You wanna know what we think. Here's what we
think. Lot of stuff tonight, heh heh heh, okay. Light bulb.
Gotta light bulb? Kick it?

(student: At first kick it and then (unclear)

We imported an engineer from Germany (laughter) (laughs) who
could turn the switch on (laughs) okay, okay. (unclear)

(students: (unclear)

Oh. We imported a psychiatrist from the New York City school
system (laughs) (laughter), perceptual expert. Now remember from
last class, the Mind Only School kept sneaking this thing past
the Middle Way School, right

(student: Yes)

Well, if you say this cylinder doesn't exist at all....wait, wait
wait wait wait, we never said that, okay. We didn't say it was
(me pa), okay. Say (me pa) (repeat) (me pa) (repeat). (Me pa)
means "doesn't exist at all", okay, doesn't exist at all. All we
said was, it doesn't exist by definition. Which in our school
you can also say as "it doesn't exist (dundam du), okay. So say
(dundam du) (repeat) (me kyang) (repeat)(dundam du) (me kyang),
(Dun dam du) means "ultimately", okay, ultimately. Okay. In an
ultimate way, okay. (Me) means "doesn't exist". And (kyang)
means "but"...dot dot dot, okay, you're gonna get another half,
okay? We didn't say the cylinder didn't exist. We just said it
didn't exist ultimately. Okay. And it's a big difference, okay.
 Say (ta nye du ) (repeat) (yu) (repeat). (Ta nye du) (repeat)
(yu) (repeat). (Ta nye du) means "nominally speaking; nominally
speaking", okay. (Ta nye) means "a name or a term". (Ta nye du)
means "nominally speaking", (yu) means "come on, they exist".
The cylinder exists. You're nominally speaking. Okay.
Nominally speaking. What does nominal mean...I mean, how does
the Middle Way School think that this pen does exist?

(student: Through your projections)

Through your projections. So nominally means "by virtue of your
projections". Whether they be verbal, "this is a pen", or
whether they be mental, "this is a pen", okay, either way, that's
nominally speaking. Would there be a pen here, independent of
your projection of it being a pen?

(students: No)
No. It would only be a cylinder. Prove it. Dog's don't have
projections of this as a...pen. They have projections of this as
a chewable thing. If it could exist out there as a pen without
your projection, then the dog would say, "Oh, here's a?"

(students: Pen)

Pen, okay, and they don't, so they're not having that projection,
okay, and that's...that's all. So as as a as a thing which I
create as a pen because I'm forced to by my...I'm compelled to by
my?

(students: Past karma)

Past karma, okay, impressions in my mind, printed there,
imprinted there when I did good things or bad things in the past,
okay, ther there's a pen there...nominally speaking, meaning,
"projectionally, there's a pen". But take away the projection
and try to find the thing without the projection...nothing's
there. You won't find a pen there. There is no pen there once
you take away my thinking of it, the cylinder, as a pen. Once
you remove my thinking of the cylinder as a pen, there's no pen
there. That's all. So when the Mind...now I gotta question for
you. When the Middle Way School says "ultimately speaking", what
do they mean? In and of itself. Independent of your
projections. Independent of what your karma...the karma is
playing on the screen, you know. Independent of all that, which
means "ultimately speaking", yeah, it doesn't exist. It doesn't
exist, yah?

(student: What's projected?)

Your karma from the past

(student: I understand, but what...)

(students: State of mind)

Oh, state of mind, yeah,...and that is also a projection.
(student: Yeah, that's what I mean.)

Yeah, no problem. In the...in Middle Way, no problem. What's
the problem with that? Of course it's still a projection, okay.
When you focus on your mind, it's projecting...you're projecting
a mind. What...do arhats really remove their mental
afflictions...(b: Diamond Cutter Sutra) people can answer easily,
especially those of you who traveled around the world and heard
it twenty times already. Does an arhat remove...when you reach
nirvana, do you remove your mental afflictions from your mind.
If you're gonna be a (b: Heart Sutra) type of mystic, what would
you say? No. Those people who remove mental afflictions from
their mind mentally, don't remove any mental afflictions from
their mind.

(student: Right they just...)

Get it. I mean, Lord Buddha would say, "get it"? (laughs), you
know. Meaning what? Due to their past good karma, when they
think...when they focus on their own mind, they are forced to
project it as having no mental afflictions. It's very cool.
They did not remove mental afflictions from their minds, they
collected such good karma, that that good karma, when they look
at their own minds, they are forced not to see more mental
afflictions, and that's the only way you ever reach nirvana. And
that's a short cut...I mean, but actually it's the only way.
It's the fast way and it's the only way. And you wanna remove
your mental affllictions, clean up your act, keep you book, keep
your bodhisattva vows, keep your vow, and then and then one day
you'll look at your own mind and you won't see any more mental
afflictions, because you'll be forced not to see them because
your mind is also a projection.

(student: (unclear) your mind.)

No, you will see your mind. You'll be forced to see a mind and
you'll be forced to see it as having no projections.

(student: (unclear) never see the mind then?)
Sorry?...No, you always see your mind. Consciousness never
stops. After you get enlightenment, consciousness continues
forever, okay. There is never a moment in all time when you have
not had consciousness. And even after you reach enlightenment,
there will never be a moment when you don't have consciousness.
It it it's forever. You...it's, the idea that the mind stops
when the body dies is a new idea invented in the West and it's a
stupid idea, okay. I mean don't think of the the Asian people as
somehow being mystical or something like that. They're totally
right, they've always been totally right, and this idea that the
mind stops because the body stops is a is a new-fangled, foolish
idea of some people in the West after about fifteen hundred...you
know, just a weird idea, okay. And it'll go away some day, okay.
 It's just a popular thing right now. Okay. (laughter). The
mind is independent of the body in that way. You can put an
atomic bomb in your...you can hug an atomic bomb and switch it
on, you know, you can't get rid of your mind. It'll be there two
minutes later. Okay. Really. You can't destroy the mind.
Absolutely no affect on the mind. Why? It's not physical, come
on. Okay. Atom bombs only destroy physical things. Yeah?

(student: I just had a quick question...like the Buddha's
fourteen unanswerable questions)

Yeah, good, okay.

(student: In terms of (unclear) tathagatas that were dying or
(unclear), I mean how how would that...)

He he said, "what about the fourteen unanswered questions".
(Lung ma ten chu shi). The...by the way, (lung ma ten) normally
means "karmically neutral". Here is has a totally different
meaning. (Lung ma ten) means, "the Buddha didn't choose to
answer". And they asked him, you know, "does your mind go on
forever or not?" And he said " I can't tell you". Meaning, he
knew that if he said yes, they would take it to be a self-
existent yes. And he knew if he said no, they would take it to
be a? Self existent no. Given the fact that what answer he gave
they would take it the wrong way, he said, "I'll answer you
later". Okay. And when you become a teacher you'll find out
that you have to do that a lot (laughs) okay? All right. (Ta
nye du yu) means "do exist nominally", okay. So now we get into
a whole new can of worms, okay? This statement by the Middle Way
School people, we just meant it didn't exist ultimately, we
didn't mean it didn't exist nominally. Everything does exist
nominally. This is gonna start a new fight. Okay. And the next
section of the (drang nye lekshe nyingpo) is a huge fight breaks
out between the Middle Way School and the Mind Only School. So
we're gonna talk about that. So, a a a let's pretent I'm a
I'm a Mind Only School person, and and Patricia Wilde is a...I'm
sorry, yeah, you can be a...no, you be Mind Only...I'll be Middle
Way, okay? (laughter) And I say...I'll be Middle Way, okay...I
say...no, you be Mi, you be Middle Way, I'll be Mind Only.

(student: I'm Mind Only)

Okay. Why do you...wh why do you say everything is a projection
when you deny the very thing you're projecting onto?

(student: Why do I say...)

Why do you say everything is a projection? You Middle Way...I'm
Mind Only. Okay.

(student: I say, everything doesn't exist by...)

No, I didn't get there yet. I didn't get that far yet.. You say
everything's a projection, right? Is that true? Do you Middle
Way guys say that?

(students: I don't think...yes...)

Do you say everything exists just through your projection?

(student: (unclear) karma)

Yeah, right, by your cus..all...you can add anything you want,
okay, you guys are so far out (laughter) that if you can keep
adding whatever you want, I'm still gonna beat you, okay.
(student: Okay. I say it's a projection.).

Do you guys says everything's just a projection of your past
karma of whatever you want.

(student: Yes)

Okay. So, and you have to project onto something, right, like
there's a cylinder and then you have to

(student: Right)

project that it's a pen, right. Like there is a blue and white
cylinder, right?

(student: Right)

Right? So you're projecting on...and and that cylinder is
something that doesn't even exist, right?

(student: No, I didn't say that it didn't exist.)

Good. Now she's do...being a good Middle Way School. Oh oh you
didn't say it didn't exist?

(student: No)

Then what are you saying?

(student: I said it doesn't exist nominally)

Sorry, no. Doesn't exist

(students: (laughter) Does exist nominally. Doesn't exist
ultimately)

Oh oh, she says, "oh I didn't say it didn't exist, I just said it
didn't exist ultimately." Okay. I didn't say it doesn't exist
nominally, okay. Oh, and and and ultimately would mean like
what, by definition or something like that?

(student: From it's own side)

Yeah, right, so you saying that this pen doesn't exist from its
own side, right?

(students: That's right)

Ha.

(student: (unclear))

Huh?

(student: (unclear))

She's Mind Only. She has to say...oh, who are you?

(students: (laughter) No, I'm Middle Way. Middle Way)

Oh, so you say, this thing doesn't exist from its own side?

(student: Right)

And it doesn't exist ultimately?

(student: Right)

So according to you, nothing exists ultimately.

(students: No. We wouldn't say that. Be careful. No. Wait
wait wait. (laughter))

No, according to you, does everything exist ultimately? Take
away the projection and does anything exist?

(student: No)

No, nothing exists ultimately. So the ultimate doesn't exist.
(laughter)

(students: The ultimate is the emptiness. (unclear)

Wait a minute. Let's go back. Let's go back (laughter) You
guys are really confusing, (laughter) (laughs) you know. You
Mi...Middle Way people. You you just like...greased pigs, you
know, never stay still. (laughter). We'll ask you again. Does
this pen exist ultimately?

(students: No)

So are you saying nothing exists ultimately?

(students: We didn't say that, we said that...no no)

They do say that. (Geshe-la whispers: Middle Way does say that,
okay, because nothing exists independent of your projections,
right.

(student: Right)

If you take away the projection there's nothing there, there's no
pen there, it's just a blue and white cylinder, until I think of
it as a blue and white cylinder, there's no...yeah, until you
project it. So so you're saying nothing exists ultimately?

(student: No)

Just checking.

(student; Yes)

Right, nothing exists ultimately...so there's no ultimate
existence.

(students: Ultimately. Not ultimately.)

I didn't ask that.
(student: What're you asking? What're you talking...oh no)

So is there any ultimate existence or not?

(student: yes)

(laughs) How can there be if nothing exists ultimately? You
guys are really confusing. Just try to get it strai...you guys
wanna talk it over and then let me know (laughter)? That's what
they say in the debate ground...they say "I'll I'llbe back in
five minutes", you know, "you guys talk it over" (laughs) okay.
Is there any ultimate existence? Does anything exist ultimately?

(students: No)

No. So is there any ultimate existence?

(student: I guess not. No.)

She said no. So there no ultimate, right?

(student: (unclear))

Is there any ultimate or not? If nothing exists ultimately...

(student: Not from it's own side. Is there any emptiness? Not
from its own side.)

Oh, wha'do I mean by "ultimate"? What do you mean by
"ultimate"..I'm asking you.

(student: That's what I'm trying to find out what you mean by
ultimate.)

Tell me according to you. (laughter) Tell me according to your
school, is there any ultimate.

(student: Emptiness)

Is that ultimate?
(student: Yeah)

Yeah, okay. Good answer, okay. She's trying to get out of it
and she did. Okay. The question is, even though nothing
exists...now Middle Way, according to Middle Way. Does anything
exist ultimately? No, because ultimately in the Middle Way
School means?

(student: From its own side)

Independent of your projection, okay. So we say, yeah, nothing
exists ultimately.

(student: (unclear))

Ul...existing ultimately, nothing exists according to the Middle
Way, because if you took away the projection, this could never be
a pen. Okay. That's 'ca...something that's ultimate would have
to be independent of your projection. Existing from its own side
as a pen whether or not you were there to think of it as a pen,
okay. But does that mean that "ultimate" doesn't exist?

(students: No)

No, it doesn't mean that. So big difference in the Middle Way
School between "ultimately" and?

(student: Ultimate)

Ultimate. Okay. So don't forget the difference. Here it
is...and this is the easy way to spell it.

(silence)

Say (dundam) (repeat) (denpa) (repeat) (dundam) (repeat) (denpa)
(repeat) (Dundam) is ultimate. (Denpa) means...it's sometimes
translated as "truth" and sometimes maybe better translated as
"reality...ultimate reality". Okay. Does ultimate reality
exist, Miss Miss Miss Middle Way?
(student: (unclear)

Does ultimate reality exist?

(student: Yes)

Yes, and it's the fact that nothing has any nature of its own.
Okay. How's that? Okay. It's the fact that nothing has any nature of its' own.
Emptiness. Okay. According to us...Middle
Way people, okay, us Middle Way people. (Dundam denpa) or
ultimate reality does exist, okay. As opposed to (dundampar) or
(dundamdu), meaning "ultimately things existing". They both mean
"ultimately thing existing". Both of these expressions
(dundampar) and (dundamdu) means "ultimately". All right. Do
things exist "ultimately"?

(students: No)

Not at all. Okay. Do things exist...can something exist as
ultimate reality?

(students: yes)

Of course. What is that?

(student: Emptiness)

Okay, you gotta get used to that...big difference in this school.
Does anything exist ultimately? No. Does anything have
ultimate existence? No. Does ultimate reality exist? Yes.
Does anything exist as ultimate reality?

(students: Yes)

Yes. Okay. Big difference. Okay. Gotta get used to it, okay.
Get used to it. Okay. Got it?

(student: (unclear) existence also began...)
Right. Right. Ultimate reality itself exist ultimately or not?

(students: No)

No. No. It's also a projection, okay. That's ul...(laughs)
I'll ask you again. Does ultimate reality exist...itself exist
ultimately?

(student: No)

Middle Way School.

(student: No)

No, okay. Because if it did, like when an Arya was like
perceiving it directly or when you thought about it intellectual
you'd have to do so without being forced to do so by your karmic
projections, okay. How's that? All right? Now...I got some
kind of...I think you're gonna need this one...let's see
here...this is on your homework...

(silence)

This is directly from the Middle Way School as presented in...you
know, by Arya Asanga, okay? Say (chu) (repeat) (tamche) (repeat)
(kyi) (repeat) (ngowonyi) (repeat) (mepa) (repeat) (ni) (repeat)
(dundam) (repeat) (denpa) (repeat) (yin) (repeat). Okay, (Chu)
means what?

(students: Dharma)

Dharma, meaning "existing object"...in this case. Okay.
(tamche) means?

(students: All)

All of them, okay? All of them. (Kyi) means "all of
theirsssss". Okay, possessive, all right. What's (ngowo nyi)?
I'm translating it as "nature of their own", okay, it means "very
nature" or something like that, okay. Nature of their own.
(Mepa), in this case, it means "they don't have". Okay. If
pe...somebody says "you got any money you can loan ly, loan me?",
the guy'll (laughs) go, in the monastery, go (mepa). (laughs) you
know, meaning, "I'm broke myself". Okay. So (chu tamche ngowo
nyi mepa) neans...means "the fact that no existing object in the
world, in the universe, has any nature of its own", okay. The
fact that no existing object in the universe has any nature of
its own. Okay. By the way, some translators...baby translators
say, "the fact that every object in the universe doesn't have a
nature of its own." It's...we don't say that in English, you
know. "Everybody in this room doesn't have money." We say, "No
one in this room has any money", okay, I mean that's just a in in
English syngtax...syntax. If you're learning Tibetan and you're
learning to translate, please, you know, say "no object in the
world has any nature of its own". That's all. You don't say in
normal English...although you could say it in translator
English..."every object in the world doesn't have any nature of
its own". Okay. That doesn't make sense in English, okay.
(Dundam denpa yin). Say (dundam) (repeat) (denpa) (repeat) (yin)
(repeat). (Yin) means "that's what it is". (Yin) means "that's
what it is". What? (Dundam denpa). That's what ultimate
reality is. You want to know what ultimate reality is? It's the
fact that nothing in the world, including this pen, has any
nature of its own. Does it have any nature of its own?

(student: No)

I'll ask you first. Does it have any nature of being a pen of
its own?

(students: No)

No. But doesn't it have any nature of being white of its own?

(students: No)

You gotta say no, okay. Does it have any nature of being a
cylinder above it own?

(students: No)
No, you see, you keep going down in level, level, level,
level...you'll never find anything. (ta nye takpay takdun
tselway tse-ne mepay chir), you know. When you look for the
thing that gets the name, you never find anything. Very famous,
okay. If you take away the name, if you if you don't think of it
as a pen, and then you don't think of it as a cylinder, and then
you don't think of it as white, and then you don't of it as long,
and then you don't think of it has a half of being wrong, and you
keep going down, down, down, down...it's the onion skin theory of
Madyamika. Okay. Really. Each time you focus on the next
level, you are again projecting, okay. And if you keep that up,
you'll never find anything. Does that mean that you should go
around in a daze and think that nothing exists?

(students: No)

Go stand in front of a cab and let us know, you know (laughter),
send a...send a postcard from the hospital and tell us if there's
a an illusion you know...the bill and your broken legs, (laughs),
you know what I mean? Okay. No, you shouldn't go around in a
daze and think that nothing exists. It's not the point. You
should immediately start keeping an ethical way of life. If you
understood what I'm saying, the immediate implication is, I
better straighten out my karma pronto, you know. Why? Because
everything's empty. Okay. I mean, this is real Madyamika, Okay.
 It leads to, you know, this whole world of enlightened beings
being good to each other. Okay? That's pretty cool. All right.
 Okay. Next question. When they said, "nothing exists
ultimately but everything does exist nominally", there's another
way to say that. You can divide the whole universe into two
realities, okay. It's called the "two truths"...I hate that.
Anyway. Truth means "reality", okay. Normally truth means "a
statement", or something like that. Like it's a truth that my
credit card's always over spent, or something like that, okay?
That's just a truth. But think of it as "reality", okay.
Re...think of (denpa) as "reality", you don't have to translate
as "two truths"; it's "two realities", okay? It's tru...two
realities. In fact there's a big debate about it in the monastic
textbooks. They say it cannot mean "truth". You know,
technically, the word is "truth", but if you, if if you said that
it meant "truth" you'd be wrong. You can not translate it as
"truth". Why?

(student: 'Cause one of the (unclear)

Because of this word right here.

(silence)

Say (kundzob) (repeat) (denpa) (repeat) (kundzob) (repeat)
(denpa) (repeat) (Kundzob) means "fake". (Kundzob" means
"deceptive", okay. Like (dsob tsu) in modern Tibetan means "a
person, a faker, like a person who's pretending to be a spiritual
teacher and hasn't studied and can not help you and is, you know,
collecting your money or something like that. (Dsob tsu). Same
idea. It means a fake or a someone who's not for real, okay. So
(kundzob) means "fake or deceptive". (Denpa) means "reality",
okay. And in the monastic textbooks they say, "come on, you
can't call it 'truth' because then what would this translate as?"

(students: Fake truth)

Fake truth (laughs), come on. It doesn't mean truth, it means
reality, okay. All right. You can't...they, I mean they would
say you can't translate it as "truth". Now some people go and
call it "relative truth". There's no word in Tibetan for
relative. There's nothing about this word that means "relative".
 There's never been any word that meant relative. There is an
idea about relativity in Buddhism that, you know, compared to a
short thing another thing is shorter, or compared to this thing
another thing is longer...that does exist. That concept is
discussed in totally different contexts in totally different
books. Nothing to do with this. I don't know where they got
"relative truth" from. Okay, you can junk it. Call it "nominal
reality"...which is correct, meaning...nominal meaning
"projectional", nominal "names" meaning the names that you
project onto things, meaning the the reality, the penness you
project onto pen, okay. That's okay. You can say nominal
reality. (Ta nye...ta nye du yupa). We already had it. But
(kundzob, kundzob) is very clear. (Kundzob yupa...kundzob denpa)
means "fake reality; deceptive reality". Okay? Why? There's a
state of mind that thinks this pen comes from its own side. But
in fact it doesn't, and so that pen is faking you out. Okay.
That pen is deceiving you, okay. And that's all. That reality
which deceives you, that reality which fakes you out, is called
(kundzob denpa). Okay. So everything in the universe is either
ultimate reality or the reality that fakes you out. The reality
that deceives you, okay. By the way, do Buddhas get deceived by
pens?

(students: No)

No. So there's a little bit more to the definition. "That
reality which deceives a deceived state of mind". (laughter)
(laughs), okay? Okay? You gotta say that. Otherwise Buddhas
couldn't see pens. All right. So the real meaning of
this...(kundzok) means...samvrti in Sanskrit...means "it comes
from...the the reality was named from the state of mind that
doesn't get it". Okay. (kundzob) means "the state of mind that
that is faked out", and so we call it, "the reality which is the
reality to the state of mind that gets faked out". That's the
real meaning of "deceptive reality". The word "deceptive". So
"relative" gets even worse. Okay. Okay. (laughs) Okay? Why?
Wh wh what is the second kind of reality? Deceptive reality.
Why do you call it deceptive? Because there's a mind which gets
deceived, and the word "deceptive" refers to that state of mind,
not to the reality, okay. (Kundzob) refers to the mind which is
faked out by that reality, okay. That reality only exists with
reference to a faked out state of mind. What is that state of
mind...well how is it faked out? Well, the pen appears to exist
from its own side...but in truth it doesn't, okay? What's
deception mean? When you say "he deceived me, he faked me
out"...there's two elements have to be there, what?

(students: (unclear))

Has to appear one way and has to be in reality something
different, that's deception. You can only have deception if two
elements are there. What? Looks one way but really is a
different way. Then you have...deception, okay. He deceived me.
 Why? Oh he said he was a nice guy and later I found out he
wasn't. Okay. What? Appearance of nice guy and reality of not
nice guy. Okay. He said he was trying to be my friend, but I
found out he was after my money. Okay. Appearance...trying to
be my friend. Reality...trying to get my money. Okay. That's
deception. Deception requires that something appear one way and
be a different way, okay. What's the deception with regard to
this pen? To a (kundzob) state of mind? What's the deception?

(students: That is comes from its own side)

Looks like it comes from its own side, doesn't come from its own
side. Who cares? What's that got to do with my happiness?

(student: (unclear))

Go to work, meet a bad person, if they come from their own side,
you're in trouble. You can't change them. Okay. What's the
self-existent way to change a bad person at work?

(students: (unclear))

Go talk to them, discuss with them, try to reason with them, or
shoot them if you get a change (laughter), okay, all right.
(laughs). What's the Buddhist way to change them?

(students: Be (unclear))

You clean up your act and they'll change, because it's all your
projection. Very interesting. When you meet a person who has a
particular irritating habit, the only way to remove it is to
change yourself. Okay. And thinking any other way causes all
your suffering. If's very interesting. If you have a person
near you, like your husband or wife, or whoever, who irritates
you (laughter) and they're doing some certain thing that
irritates, like they speak lies all the time or something like
that...why is that happening? Because you lie, okay. What's a
self-existent way to change them? Go talk to them, "please
honey, don't lie any more. You drive me crazy with these lies",
okay. Get angry at them. Yell at them, okay. What's
the...what's the Madyamika way to change them. Strictly avoid
lying. And purify your old bad karma, you know. Purify the old
ones...what's the best way to purify your old lies?

(student: Stop right now)

Stop lying completely, even about small things, okay? And then
they they just change, you say, "I can't believe it, my wife
hasn't lied for six weeks", you know (laughter), "wonder what it
is", you know. Okay. That's the Buddhist way to change your
whole world. Last question. What's the natural reaction to
someone who lies? I mean, or someone who yells at you?

(students: You yell back)

You yell back, you see what I mean...yeah, to a to a (kundzob)
state of mind. You see. You yell back. That's exactly the worst
thing to do. It's exactly how to make them stay in your life.
It's really weird. I repeat. If anyone around you is showing
some kind of behavior that you don't like, examine it, and then
remove it strictly from your own life, and they will change, and
that's the only way to change them. It's very cool. If you kept
this up over a long period of time...you'd be a (tantric) deity,
and you'd be stuck in (Vajrayogini)'s paradise, okay
(laughter)...you'd be forced to be seeing it, you know, twist my
arm. Right.

(student: Does the Buddha mind still project?)

He says, "Does the Buddha mind still project"? Yeah, sure. No
problem. But then they go around saying, "oh look, Buddha
paradise, body of light, omniscient mind...yeah, that's a cool
projection, I think I'll keep that up". (laughter) Okay. I
mean they understand it's an illusion in a way and they and they
like it, say okay, "let's keep doing it".

(student: (unclear)

Huh?
(student: How about the pen?)

How about the pen what?

(student: Yeah, I mean how would they see it...also light?)

Oh they would see this as...every detail of the pen would create
total ecstasy in them. I mean, they would touch it and get
ecstasy, they would look at it and get ecstasy, if they had got
blue ink of their finger it would cause them ecstasy...everything
causes them ecstasy.

(student: Do they see suffering?)

Do they see suffering? Diff...very difficult question. He keeps
asking me this question...now he's done it in public. He's
really bad (laughter). Okay. (laughs) I'll give you the
standard answer and I believe there's a higher answer. Okay.
I'll give you the standard answer. They perceive how you
suffer...they perceive you perceiving suffering, but they don't
perceive it the same way. Like they can see tha...they
unde...they perceive that you are perceiving this as something
harmful, for example, but they don't perceive it that way. Okay.
 I mean that's the standard answer, how's that? Okay. They
perceive that you perceive it that way. But they don't have any
personal experience of suffering, okay, 'cause they can't, okay.
But they can perceive that you are perceiving that, all right.
Does that hurt them? No. Does it make them sad? Yes. Is that a
kind of suffering? No. It's a kind of compassion and it feels
good, okay. All right. That's, I mean that's a standard answer.
Yeah?

(student: (unclear)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and that's a...and that's a sweet feeling, it's
a sort of a sweet-sad feeling, how's that, okay? All right. So
that's (kundzob denpa) and (dundam denpa). Yeah?

(student: I'm trying to get the Mind Only point of view as the
benefit of the (unclear), and it seems to be from the way you
described their point of view, that, if you take, if you take an
object and you remove everything that they would have named as a
(kun tak), they would say there's something that still exists or
something.)

You're correct. Yeah. He said...let me repeat it for the
microphone, okay. He said, "it seems to me that even in the Mind
Only School, if you took away the (kun tak), right...which is
sort of like the projection, then still there'd be some reality
out there of a pen, right?" And and they would sav...I think
they would say, I think generally the Mind Only School...remember
we said that there's the real pen and then there's this veil over
the pen which is your (kun tak) of it and then there's the mind
perceiving the pen and sometimes you get to the real pen but you
never really...sometimes you..most of the time you don't and
you're perceiving the the the the vision of the pen or something
like that.

(student: But my question is that once you've taken away all the
(kun taks) and then there's the real pen,)

Yeah

(student: They would also say the pen is a product of your own
karma.)

They would say that. He said, "would...you know, if you stripped
away the (kun taks), and just had "the real pen" out there, the
(shen wang) pen, by itself, and you're perceiving it, is that a
result of your karma...they'd say yes.

(student: So it's getting to a point that it's very close to...)

Oh, the sweet thing about...he said "it's getting very
close"...the sweet thing Mind Only and Madyamika is that they are
so close. And we're gonna get...later on tonight we're gonna get
real close. (laughter) You know (laughs), okay, and and it
makes you aware that Mind Only was an artifice of Lord Buddha to
push you up to Madyamika. You can start to get a real feeling of
how he's lifting you up and you...just a little ways to go and
you've slipped into Madyamika. See what I mean. It's a...he
invented it to get you really close to Madyamika. And it is.
Yeah.

(student: It it seems to me so far, from what I understand of it
the differences only have to do with the mechanizations of karma
and how they work with (unclear) characterized as working
(unclear).

So he said, "the main difference is how karma works or how the
how the mechan...how the how the process of karma works. Yeah.
That's true. That's partly true. There are like eight classic
differences between the Maydamika Prasangika and the others, and
you should study them sometime. It's one of them...it's similar.
Yeah? Okay.

(student: (unclear) when he said...maybe I'm just remembering
this but I I thought (unclear) that at one point Vasubandu had
argued (unclear) divisibility of matter to the point where you
keep on splitting and splitting and splitting until where
(unclear) emptiness anyway, right, within the Mind Only context
as well)

We're gonna get to that tonight. We're gonna get to just that
tonight. In fact we'll probably do it...I don't know, they
always put Subuti or that Bodhisattva out there to ask the
question to get us to the next subject. Okay. So that's the
difference between ultimate reality and...relative? Nah.
Deceptive reality, fake reality, okay, according to the? Middle
Way School, okay. How do you think...and if you get the right
answer you get refreshments, okay...(laughter)...how do you think
the Mind Only School would say the difference between ultimate
reality and deceptive reality is. It's pretty easy, actually.
Think of the three categories.

(student: (Yong drup), emptiness and (shen wangs))

Yeah. Let's say, (kun taks) are deceptive reality, okay, 'cause
they don't really exist, they're just made up with your mind,
okay. They don't have an existence from their own side or their
own identity. They are constructs. And the other two are
ultimate reality. Okay. Because they are not just made up in
your mind, okay. This pen is is, come on, pens is a pen, you
know, so they really divide it along lines of what?

(student: The (shenwangs))

Existing by:

(student: Definition)

Definition. So it's pretty simple in their school, okay.

(student: That's where's the difference, the (shen wangs) goes
in with the...that the (shen wang) is part of that, right...)

Right. (Shen wangs) exist by definition. And so does emptiness.
And those...and you know, you you believe that. You know, you
can say, you know, when I'm having some kind of bad day and I
just make up something in my mind, I understand that that doesn't
have reality. But my boss is there. He's a bad guy. I mean, he
has some ultimate reality. It's not I'm not just making that up.
 Okay. Three people in the office agree with me...that confirms
it. (laughter) You see what I mean? You believe that.
Especially when you get confirmation from somebody else in the
office. And those who don't agree with you? Something wrong
with them, okay? They didn't have a (tse ma) yet, they didn't
have a pramana (laughter) about your boss, okay. They didn't
have a correct (laughs) perception yet about your boss. They
but they will, as soon as you create enough gossip and rumors in
the in the office, you know, they'll come to believe you. Okay.
So so in their school it's pretty simple. That's the difference.
 Okay. There was one from...oh Mr. Middle Way okay,...it's Miss
Middle Way...another question for you. Let me see if I get this
straight. So you say nothing exists at all, right?

(student: No)

Oh oh you think something does exist?
(student: Yeah. Something exists nominally.)

Oh nominally, I see I see. And established to what state of
mind?

(student: Oh nominally, oh I guess)

To the direct perception of emptiness by an arya or everyone
else's kind of perception?...nominal things.

(students: uh uh)

I mean do you have to be an arya to se...to brush your teeth?

(students: No)

No. Okay. So what state of mind is it, pray tell, Miss Madyamika
who is which is perceiving everything else. Is it a (dundam)
state of mind or a (kundzob) state of mind?

(students: (Kundzob))

It's (kundzob). Right? Deceived state of mind, right? Deceived
state of mind. Right? Now. Does what it perceives exist
ultimately?

(students: No)

As we say it does. When when you're looking at your toothbrush

(student: No No)

does it exist ultimate like us Mind Only School people say it
does.

(student: No)

And and and is that state of mind correct or mistaken...is it
deceived or correct? (laughter)
(student: The mind that realizes that it doesn't exist
ultimately...)

I didn't say that. I...let's go back (laughter). Okay. Okay.
You perceive your toothbrush. Looking at your toothbrush.

(student: Which is a (unclear))

And and and what state of mind establishes the existence of this
toothbrush?

(student: (Kundzob)

Yeah, (kundzob). Which is...it means in English what, pray tell,
Venerable Sir (tse dang denpa).

(student: Deceptive)

A deceived state of mind. Okay.

(student: Right)

A deceived state of mind. And and that state of mind thinks what
about this toothbrush?

(student: That it...)

That it doesn't exist

(students: Ultimately. That it does...no wait...I said it
right.)

(laughs) Oh. does it does it believe

(students: The (kundzob) the (kundzob)

Does that state of mind believe this toothbrush exists?

(students: You're leaving out a word...(unclear)
Does that state of mind believe that this toothbrush exists?

(students: Yes)

Is it deceived?

(students: Yes)

(Tsa). So...

(student: Because you...)

You guys think nothing exists.

(students: No)

I just finally

(students: (unclear)

Finally I cornered you. (laughter). Finally you admitted it.
Finally you nihilists...now I'll go home, you know. Middle Way
people get out of here (laughter) you know. Okay. We'll go
through it again (laughter) we'll go through it again.

(student: Don't worry, we don't exist anyway)

Does the (kundzob) sta...does the deceiv...does. is this
toothbrush's existence established by your deceived state of
mind?

(students: Yes)

So if that's a wrong state of mind, then this toothbrush doesn't
exist. Right?

(student: Existence as existing from its own side)

Come on. I just caught you. (laughs) You finally admitted it,
you know. Nagarjuna, all you guys are nihilists (laughter), you
know. You think nothing exists. You probably deny karma too.
(laughter), you know. No, that's where they go from there. And
they say "you probably say that there's no morality. You
probably say you don't have to keep my book anymore," you
know...why? Because the state of mind that establishes the
existence of a toothbrush is deceived. And it thinks the
toothbrush exists, and since it's wrong, well then, the
toothbrush doesn't exist. And neither does karma, or
morality...you can do what we want now, okay?

(student: Wait..(unclear)

You didn't wai...you didn't say all that.

(student: (unclear))

I didn't ask you, I didn't ask you, did the (kundzob) state of
mind think that the toothbrush was self existent or not. I
didn't ask you that. I don't care. You guys are crazy already.
(laughter) Just just get down to the basics. Does the (kundzob)
state of mind, does the deceived state of mind think that this
toothbrush exists.

(students: Yes)

And is it mistaken? Is it a mistaken state of mind?

(students: yes)

Yeah, so then the toothbrush doesn't exist. You guys admitted
it...finally.

(students: Nominally)

You finally admitted it. Okay (laughs)

(students: The same way that you say (kun taks) don't
exist...it's the mind...Nagarjuna, back to that one...toothbrush)
By the way, this is what...the Mind School is like patting
themselves...Mind Only is like saying, "we finally did it", you
know, by the end of this section they're like "we finally proved
you guys wrong", okay? What's Middle Way gonna come back and
say, very simple...very simply?

(students: (unclear))

How is that state of mind mistaken? Why do we call it mistaken?

(students: Existing in dependence of itself. Exist from their
own side)

Yeah, it's only mistaken about that angle.

(student: Of how it relates to that...)

About whether it exists by definition or not. About whether it
exists as a projection or not. It's only mistaken about that.
It's not mistaken about, is it white, is it blue, is it a pen, is
it a toothbrush, okay. When we say mistaken state of mind we're
only talking about from one angle, which is what? Mistaken about
its ultimate nature, okay, mistaken about that. Come on,
okay...we never said mistaken about everything. All right. Of
course there's a toothbrush there, that's why, you know, my teeth
aren't that yellow, you know (laughs) okay. It does something,
all right, okay. But but by the way, the Mind Only chooses to
stop the argument three minutes ago. "Aha, we finally got you."
You know, "you you do agree that everything doesn't exist because
you say the state of mind that thinks that those things exist is
mistaken." And then you can say what? (Cha ba ma chu)
(laughter) okay, okay, it ain't necessarily so, okay. Just
'cause that state of mind is mistaken with regard to one aspect doesn't mean it's
mistaken about the very existence of the
toothbrush, come on. Yeah?

(student: But if you ask the same question to the Mind Only
School might think this way, right? The ignorance that Mind Only
sees the (unclear) and (unclear) (kuntak) or (shenwang)?)
You asking me as...I'll be the...I'll be a Mind Only person.
It's...is it (kuntak) or (shen wang)? Since it's a state of mind
it's a (shen wang). It's an existing state of mind. Yeah. All
mental things are (shen wangs)...changing objects. Dependent
objects. It has constructs in it, it makes constructs, but it
itself is not a construct. You stupid Middle Way people would
say that. "Everything's a construct", you know. We don't say
that. It has its own true existence from its own side. It
ha...because it has its causes, okay.

(student: (unclear..ignorant state of mind, and that)

Yeah, ignorant state of mind, correct state of mind, wrong state
of mind, correct state of mind...it doesn't matter. State of
mind...is is a changing thing, okay, it's a functional thing.
It's a (shen wang). Now. Next question. They dig out some
books, you know, they...somebody digs out some books by...said to
be by Arya Asanga, it's called (b: The Great Commentary to the
Sutra in which the Buddha Explains His Other Sutras), okay. And
Je Tsongkapa says "come on. That's not by Arya Asanga", you
know,they 'cause they they wanna show that they're trying prove
their case with some more stuff, you know...they're trying to
shift...they're trying to say some weird things about the Mind
Only School that the Mind Only School never said. And he says,
"come on. That book wasn't even written by Arya Asanga". And
they say prove. And he says "didn't you notice he quotes
Dharmakirti?" (laughter) okay. Dharmakirti's like three hundred

(cut)

Mind Only School does believe in the existence of external
objects. Then...since it's so popular in the west to say that
the big thing about the Mind Only School is that this pen is part
of my mind. Okay. That's what Mind Only School means. We asked
Geshe Thubten Rinchen to to clarify that point and he
actually...he was like excited 'cause he said so many people even
in Tibet got it wrong, about what it means to exist "externally",
you know. Does Mind Only mean that this pen is part of your
mind? You know. That that he purposely went into this long
beautiful explanation about what do they mean in the Mind Only
School when they say "this pen doesn't exist externally". As an
external object, okay. And we're gonna cover that after
refreshments, okay, 'cause its beautiful, it's really beautiful,
and I think, you know...by the way, this is our last night on the
Mind Only School 'cause then we go to the lower Madyamika...in
class nine and then, so that we end the seven year suffering on a
good note (laughter) we go to Prasangika, highest Madyamika,
okay. So we're gonna wrap it up by explaining what the Mind Only
School doesn't believe. And and why all those Western scholars
are crazy when they say certain things about the Mind Only
School, okay. And then we'll we'll we'll back it up with
scripture and everything else, okay...after...take a...have a
nice externally existing cookie and come back, okay.

(break)

Okay, four great schools of Buddhism. Ancient Indian Buddhism,
okay. By the way, don't confuse them with the Tibetan
schools...I get people, they go home and they tell their friends,
"Michael Roach criticizes all the other schools". And (laughs)
these schools finished about, you know, a thousand years ago
(laughs) okay, so I figure its safe now (laughs) (laughter) okay.
 These are not the Kagyu, Sakya and Nyingma, okay, these
are...we're talking the four great school of ancient India, okay.
 What do they say about external objects. This is the way Geshe
Thubten Rinchen explained it. Very beautiful explanation. By
the way, nothing I say in these classes is my own, you know, it's
all from the pure holy Lamas that I taught...that I learned from,
okay. So, ninety-nine percent of all this seven years has come
from Khen Rinpoche Geshe Lobsang Tharchin, and everytime you get
a chance you should thank him, because without him you wouldn't
have one word of this stuff and then, you know, this tiny part at
the end came from Geshe Thubten Rinchen, okay, whose also
incredible. More than incredible. Okay. So here we go. Four
schools. What's the first one?

(student: Vaibhashika)

You can call it Vaibhashika. I I I like, you know, easy way you
can call it the Abhidharma Schools, okay. So I don't mind if you
say Abhidharma. In English you can say "detailists". Why are
they called "detailists"? Because they follow an ancient book
called (b: The Detailed Explanation). And that's all.
Detailists. You can think of them as the Abhidharma Schools,
okay. Hinayana or Mahayana?

(students: Hinayana)

Hinayana because?

(student: (unclear))

They explain emptiness in a certain way. Not because they come
from Burma or Thailand, and if you come from Thailand, you may be
Mahayana or Hinayana according to this way of looking at
it...it's just how do they think about emptiness, okay. Next
school.

(students: Sutras)

We call them the "Sutrists", okay. The Sutrist school, in
Sanskrit Sautranika, not to be mixed up with the Svatantrika
which come later, okay. Anyway, if you put "sutrists" on your
homework, that's fine. Okay. Why are they called Sutrists?
They love to quote sutra, okay. To them sutra is
everything...all right...certain sutra, okay (laughs) all right.
Hinayana or mahayana?

(students; Hinayana)

Hinayana. Okay. Again in their viewpoint about emptiness mainly.
 Okay. Not that they don't have compassion or something like
that. Of course they do. Okay.

(student: (unclear))

Next...sorry?

(student: Is that also called the logic school?)
Yeah, I call them sometimes the logic schools, and sometimes I
call them the "perception theory" schools, okay, 'cause that's
their big deal...logic and perceptual theory. Okay. that's the
first two. Now we split. Now the second two are Mahayana, okay.
  What's number three?

(students: Mind Only)

Mind Only. Mind Only also called the (nelnjor chupa) meaning
yogachara, okay, so yogachara means "followers of deep practice"
or something like..."those who follow deep practice". You can
call them Mind Only or deep practice school, okay. (Nelnjor
chupa).

(student: (Nelnjor))

Mind Only is chittamatra and (nelnjor chupa) means "those who
practice deep meditation, or something like that, deep
practice...deep practice school. You can call them either thing.
Okay. School number three can either be called Mind Only School
or Deep Practice School. How's that? Which incorporates the
word "yoga"..."yogachara", okay. Yogachara. Okay. Okay. So
Yogachara and Chittmatra mean the same thing. Deep practice or
Mind Only School, same thing, okay? Last school is?

(student: Madyamika)

Madyamika. Middle Way School. Which of the schools believes
that external things exist and which schools says they don't,
okay? The first two schools, the two lower ones, they say
exactly the same thing, exactly the same thing. External objects
do exist, okay. They say exactly the same thing. And the way
they describe the existence of external objects is exactly the
same, okay? And we're gonna get into it, all right. Now
interestingly, part of school number four, meaning the?

(students: Middle Way)

Middle Way School...you can split the Middle Way School into two
parts. The upper part is called (Prasangika...Prasangika) is
actually a kind of logical statement called a (teln gyur) and
(telngyur) means, you know, if if somebody there says...every
fruit is red, you know, so I, you know..go ahead...say "every
fruit is red".

(student: Every fruit is red)

Yeah, so I say, "oh, so I guess oranges are red too, huh?" That's
a (teln gyur)...that's a (prasangika). (Prasangika) is a is a
like a sarcastic statement, okay. (Teln gyur) in Tibetan;
(Prasangika) in Sanskrit. And the upper half of the Madyamika
School is called Prasangika 'cause they like to use them. They
think that another person can gain a correct understanding of
emptiness solely through a sarcastic reply like that (laughter),
you know, okay. That's why they're called "Prasangika".

(student: They don't...)

Oh, so, I guess a a dog would see it as a pen? (laughter)

(student: Is that were debate comes from?)

You see, and from that, they believe that a person can get an
understanding of emptiness, just from that. I don't have to say,
"look, it's empty, I can prove it", you know. You just, you just
say "oh, oh"...you say "does this pen come from its own side",
okay? "I think the pen comes from its own side". So I don't
argue emptiness with you...blah blah blah blah blah. I just say,
"oh, so I guess a dog would see it as a as a pen also, right"?
And that's a (teln gyur), that a prasangika. And they believe
that prasangikas...that that logical method called "an absurd
consequence" would give you an understanding of emptiness. So
they're called "Consequence School"...I I like to call them
"Consequence School". Okay. The lower half of Madyamika is
called the (rang gyurpa) in Tibetan and that means "independent
school", okay. Independent. Why do they...why are they called
"Independent School"? They believe in a kind of reasoning that
has some kind of independent existence or independent
effectiveness that the higher Madyamika school doesn't believe.
So it's it's how they view the process of logic as somehow being
independently functional or something like that...okay, it's a
long story and I don't want to go into it, okay...so how many
schools you got? Now you got two inside of the Madyamika School.
 Lower Madyamika being the Independent School. Higher Madyamika
being the Consequence School. Which one is Nagarjuna?

(students: Consequence)

Consequence. Okay. Which one is Je Tsongkapa?

(students: Consequence)

Which one is Arya Asanga?

(students: Consequence)

Consequence in Mind Only sheeps clothing (laughter) (laughs),
okay, all right, all right, got it? Vasubandu?

(students: (unclear))

Consequence. In...he, I mean he's not even Vaibhashika clothing.
 He admits he doesn't believe in the Vaibh...at the end of the
(b: Abhidharmakosha) he says, "hey, I'm just reporting what they
say". Okay. All right. So all these guys...you know, if you
see emptiness you're automatically prasangika anyway. Okay. If
you understand emtpiness you're already Madyamika Prasangika.
Okay. Like that. In it's correct version, okay. So the upper
half of the Madyamika School also says external objects exist.
That's kind of weird. You got the two lowest schools and the
highest half of the highest school agreeing on something. What
am I gonna say next?

(students: But in a different way.)

(laughs) But in a totally different way. (laughs) Okay. All
right. Got that? Okay. If you ask some guy from the Abhidharma
School, you know...Vaibhashikas...detailist, do you believe in
ex...do you believe this thing is exists as an external object?
They say "of course". If you ask a Sutrist guy, "does this exist
as an external object", say, "sure. Same...I I agree with
exactly what he says." And then you go to a Madyamika Prasangika
and you say, "Does this exist as an external object, and they
say, "sure it does". "Well, do you agree with them?" "Oh no, no
way (laughs), you know. What they mean when they say external
and what I mean when I say external...completely different
things. Come on...you think I'd agree with those guys?" All
right. So we gotta find out what's the difference between those
two. Now we got how many schools left.

(students: Two. One and a half.)

One and a half. Good answer, okay. One and a half. Let's go to
the Mind Only School. Do they sa...do they, would...if you say,
"does this exist as an external object", would they say yes or
no?

(student: Yes. No. The upper one. Upper Half).

Mind Only. Mind Only.

(student: Mind Only. Yes. Yes)

No, they'd say "no way". No way, okay. That's not an external
object. Does that mean that they believe that this pen is
somehow part of my mind, and is that why they're called Mind
Only? Not at all. And we're gonna talk about it later today.
We're gonna talk about it later. Okay. And...ninety-nine
percent of the people who hear the word Mind Only and one hundred
percent of the people who hear that Mind Only School doesn't
accept external objects, believes...they're totally wrong, they
think they don't think this thing exists outside of me, or that
it's part of my mind, okay, and that's not what they believe at
all. Okay. And this is what's cool about this
clarification...this is the last thing you're ever gonna learn
about the Mind Only School..it's kinda cool. By the way, you've
covered most of the main points of the Mind Only School okay.
You've covered in the (b: Diamond Cutter) you had (kun chi),
alayavishyana, and so you had a good presentation on that. Okay.
 Anyway. We still got half a school left. Who's that?
(students: Independents)

Independents, which is the lower half of the Middle Way School,
okay. Okay. You can split them into two, okay. There's a (neln
jor chupay ou ma rang gyurpa) and a (dode chupa ou ma rang
gyurpa). Okay. And it was on the dis..transparency and whoever
didn't bring a bulb tonight saved you fifteen minutes. 'Cause
they're really long names, okay. (laughs). So Thomas, you can't
mark 'em wrong. Okay. But you can mark 'em extra wrong on
something else. Okay. (laughter) All right. (laughs). So we
can split the Independents into two parts: those who kinda lean
towards the Sutrists, and those who kinda lean toward the Mind
Only. Okay. Those who kinda lean towards school number two, and
those who kinda lean towards school number three. Now what do
you think the the guys that kinda learn towards the school number
two say about external objects?

(student: That they do exist)

That they do exist. Okay. 'Cause that's what school number two
thinks. Okay. So the part of the Independent School which is
called "Those Who Lean Towards the Sutrists", say that external
objects?

(students: Do exist).

Do exist, okay. Would you guess that they think that they exist
in the same way?

(students: No)

No, 'cause they're much smarter, right...careful...this is a
lower Madyamika School, okay...How about...by the way, when I
talk normally about Madyamika School, I'm usually talking about
Prasangika. Okay. When I normally say "Madyamika"...in these
arguments...we've been speaking mostly from the point of view of
Prasangika. Yeah?

(student; So when you say "which school", sometimes I say
mahayana and then other times I say Prasangika...what should you
really say?)

Middle Middle Way's okay. Madyamika's okay. Mahayana means
"Mind Only and Mahayana...I mean Middle Way.

(student: Madyamika (unclear))

Yeah, Madyamika's dan...no, to say...yeah, to say Mahayana's a
danger answer 'cause you're covering Mind Only and Middle Way.
Okay. Yeah.

(student: Can just say Middle Way)

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because not only...not all Mahayana's are
Middle Way...there's Mind Only

(student: Define Madyamika or anything?)

That's a long story. That's a long story. Okay. What do you
think the Independent School inside the Middle Way School, those
guys who are leaning toward the Mind Only School say about
external objects?

(student: Don't exist)

Don't exist. Okay. So in essence we have one and a quarter
schools say? (laughter)...huh?

(students: That they don't exist)

That they don't exist, and you have two and three quarters
schools saying?

(student: They do exist)

They do exist. Okay. No problem. Right. I'm setting you up for
that, okay, so no problem. Now, what do we have to do? Where do
we have to go from here?
(students: (unclear)

Yeah, figure out when they all mean when they say it does or it
doesn't exist as an external object. Okay. Lower two schools
say...that a thing..this is Abhidharma and Sutrists,
okay...Detailists and Sutrists...Detailists and Sutrists...they
say something exists as an external object if its made of
partless atomic particles. Atomic particles which are so small
that they cannot be divided further. They're so small...this is
the first two schools say that external objects do exist and the
test of an external object is anything which consists of atomic
particles, the basic building blocks of all matter, okay.
Physical objects which exist, which are composites, or which are
big bunches of atomic particles, and those atomic particles are
so small that they don't have a left and a right side. (laughter)
They don't...they are...they don't have any width, okay? All
right. They're so small that they don't...they're called (cho
ke) they're called (cha me pa- du ten cha me pa)...(du ten) means
"atomic particle"...what do they call an atomic bomb in modern
Tibetan? "(Du ten gyi) bomb". (laughter) (laughs) Okay. (Du ten
gyi) bomb. Okay. And (du ten) means "an atom", and then (cha
me) means "partless...meaning there's no sides", you couldn't
divide it further, okay. And when you think of it, you know,
think of it...it's totally infinitely small, like even in your
mind, if you tried to picture it, it wouldn't have a left and a
right side. And how long would it last? You see...it would be
like infinitely short in duration also, so it's like this idea
that there is...by the way, get this, and I'm not, this is not
what I'm teaching tonight, but, the Abhidharma School says this
is ultimate reality. Ultimate reality. Yeah...anythi...that's
ultimate, you know, something that even mentally you could no
longer divide further. So that's kinda...that's their idea, "now
this thing really exists". You know, this is this is the stuff
that all, that that everything in the universe is made of, you
know. Sound familiar? You know. That's how we have to
manipulate our universe, go down to those molecules, shift them
around, make new chemicals...this will solve problems of
humanity, you know what I mean? Okay, I mean their idea's like,
if you could like manipulate these smallest particles in the
right way everything's be all right and that's real. If
something had those particles, that's real, you can touch it you
can smell it you can break it, you know, that's reality, okay?
Sound familiar? (laughter) (laughs) Okay. All right. But I
mean in Buddhism that's considered the the (laughs) dumbest
system, okay. All right. Okay. I mean, forget projection, or
karma or, you know, you know...something's real when I can break
it, chew it, touch it, you know, it has particles...okay...atoms,
okay. Now, it's very interesting. What's the next school up?

(students: Oh up...third...Mind Only)

Yeah, Mind Only School. And what do they say?

(student: External objects don't exist).

External objects don't exist. All they mean is this...I wish to
god somebody would have put it in the word, right. They don't
exist the way those other two guys think. Simple. (laughter)
Okay. Does that mean this...the Mind Only School thinks that
this pen is part of your hand? Nothing to do with that, okay.
Now you can quiz your friends...your Buddhist friends. Heh heh.
Does Mind Only School think external objects exist? No. Well,
so they think it's mind, everything's mind, right? And they'll
say yes. And you'll say, "no stupid, Abhidharma and
Sutra...sorry...yeah, Sutrists and Detailists think that stuff is
made from tiny particles that have no parts and all the Mind Only
School is saying, get it?...there's no such thing...how could you
have a particle that had no sides, I mean, how could you have a
physical thing that didn't have a left side and a right side?
That's all. They just reject the idea of a? Partless atom. And
therefore, they say, your idea of what an external object is
doesn't exist so external objects, as defined by those two lower
schools, don't exist, and I wish they would have put that in the
Mind Only descriptions, right? So does the Mind Only School say
that external objects don't exist? Yeah. What do they mean?
External objects don't exist the way those other two guys
thought. You know. That's all. That's all. Okay. Now you can
impress your friends at Jaffa Coffee Shop in the morning
(laughter)...what does school number (laughs)...first quarter of
number four think? Who do they side with?
(students: First quarter...who's first quarter?)

They side with the Sutrists, but when we say side with we're kind
of saying they're a little bit different, right. What they say
is, we don't agree with your idea that external objects means a
physical thing without, you know, that's made of atoms that don't
have parts. Why don't you say, a physical thing that's made of
atoms that don't have any identifiable parts, I mean, they're so
small that we can't identify left and right. See there's a big
difference there. They're saying they do have width, they do
have sides, they're just so small you can't tell they have sides.
 That's a big difference. Is that easier to accept? That's more
of Western scientists, I think. If you went up to Western
scientists and said "do a do do the tiniest particles that have a
(unclear) width measurable nanosecond width, they say, yeah they
have some width, you know, they have some somekind of stuff like
that. And and that's about the viewpoint of the...Sutrist
leaning Independent part of the Middle Way School. Got it?
Okay. I'll say it again. You can divide the Middle Way into two
schools. I'm sorry, let's call it two groups. And the lower
group is called Independent. And the lower part of the lower
group, which is called "Those Guys who are Leaning Towards the
Sutrists", which is school number two, say "we kind of agree with
the Sutrists, yeah, external object means any physical thing
that's made of atoms, but we don't call them "partless
atoms"...we're not that stupid, okay? We think they're atoms
that don't have any sides that you could recognize or discern,
but they are there. Okay. That's all. What do you think Mind
Only School would say to these guys?

(students: Mind Only...(unclear)

They also say, "no we don't accept that".

(student: (unclear) but then you do think they exist)

Oh, by the way, do you think Mind Only School has a problem with
the idea that that things are made with basic building blocks of
atoms?
(students: No)

They don't have a problem with that. Okay. They just say,
that's that's not the ultimate thing, okay, that's all right.
Now we go to school number (laughs)...what do you think the Mind
Only-Leaning School would say...the Independents who are leaning
towards the Mind Only? They say external objects?

(students: Do not exist)

Don't exist. Right. And they're about saying the same thing as
the Mind Only School. Okay. Now we go to Prasangika. Not much
difference there. Not much difference there, okay. They don't
have a big difference. They disagree about what it is to be self-
existent or something like that. They disagree about what it
means to be emptiness or something like that. But they don't
have a big problem with the way they describe external objects.
Okay. Now how 'bout Prasangika, that's what you really want to
know. What did they say...external objects do or don't exist?

(students: Don't. Don't. Do. Yes. Do. Nominally)

Do exist. No, they do exist. How do they define an external
object? Okay. Obviously not as a thing that doesn't have any
sides, or something like that. It's very simple. They say, hey,
if it's outside of you it's an external object (laughs), okay.
(laughter) all right, they don't get too complicated about it.
Okay. Is this pen an external object? Yes. Why? Because it's
beyond the edge of my...of what we call (du kye du ba. Du kye du
ba) is a special expression, it's a little tricky, and it means "
 part of my being", okay, part of my immediate being. Is it
subsumed by my consciousness? No. Why? If you stick a pin in
this pen, I don't go "ouch". Okay. So it's external, that's
all. It's it's it's...that's all. Prove that external objects
exist. Hey, they're stuff out there and it's not part of me.
(laughter) That's all (laughs), okay. They don't get more
complicated than that, okay. So they obviously don't mean the
same thing that the lower two schools mean when they say,
"external objects exist". Okay? Got it. Geshe Thubten Rinchen
was careful to say that...last point...okay...we is talking about
physical matter, okay. How 'bout empty space, how 'bout
emptiness itself? Is it subsumed by your being? Do you say
"ouch" when they poke your empty space?

(students; No)

No, is is space an external object. No, we're talking physical
stuff, okay. Don't forget that. He was careful at the end of
the explanation, he said, "by the way, we're not talking about
anything that's external to yourself". We're talking about
chairs, trees, pillars, schools, you know, cupcakes (laughter)

(student: For the whole explanation?)

Yeah, for the whole...basically for the whole explanation, okay.
Basic...we're still talking about the object of the senses,
basically. (Su dra chi ro rig cha).

(student: How about (unclear)

Excuse me?

Not a debate about whether they exist outside of you or not. The
question is, that's all...they're just talking about physical
stuff that's either outside of you or inside of you, okay.
That's all. Okay. Last question. Why then do they call them
the Mind Only School? Okay. Why then do they call them the Mind
Only School. And and there's a beautiful explanation in Je
Tsongkapa...by the way, the Mind Only School says, "we take our
name from the (b: Sutra on the Tenth Bodhisattva Level." There's
a sutra called (b: Sa...sa chi be do, sa chi be do), the (b:
Sutra of the Tenth Bodhisattva Level) and in that sutra it says,
"All the three realms are nothing more than mind. (Sem
tsam...Chittamatra), okay, the the three realms, meaning the
whole world is just mind, is mind only, okay. That's what the
sutra says. Is mind only. Then in (b: Gom ba rab sa) which is
Je Tsongkapa's incredible explanation of emptiness which we'll do
after the three year retreat or something, okay, word by
word..that'd be nice...I'm not pro...kinda...okay (laughter),
yeah, let's do that. Anyway, he says, that's it doesn't mean
mind only. It doesn't mean that. And then he goes in, he quotes
a lot of other scriptures. They are talking about, now they're
talking about a scripture that says "who do you think made the
golden palaces in Vajrayogini's paradise and who do you think
made the hell realms, you know, all those machines that they use
to squash you, you know, did they have to hire a construction
company to go build these things, you know, do you really...did
you ever think about it, you know, did they hire a construction
company way back when to go down to hell and make all this stuff.
 You know, it was kinda hot...they probably got extra pay
(laughter), (laughs) you know what I mean? Okay. You say, no,
of course not. These are constructs of your mind. They are
they are created by your mind. Okay. And what does that mean?
it means that you created karma by being ignorant, you've hurt
other people or you've helped other people and now you're forced
to see these things. That's all. And that's what we mean by Mind
Only. So they should have said "Mainly Mind Only". Or Mind is
the main thing. Only Mind is the main thing. How's that. And
Je Tsongkapa says, "I wish they would have called this school
"Only Mind is the Main Thing School", okay, he says, "'cause even
the Tibetans got confused". A lot a lot of Tibetan Lamas a lot
of Tibetans throughout history said, "oh, they believe this pen is your mind".
Something like that, okay. They don't. They
don't believe that. Okay. They shuld have been called the
"Mainly Mind Only School" or Mind Only is the Main Thing.
What's the thing they're denying when they say "mind only is the
main thing"? There's a couple of things. First, physical causes
are not the main causes. Okay. If you talk about what made New
York City, it's not the asphalt and the concrete and everything
else. What mainly made mind...New York City, is only mental
things, you see, and that's what Mind Only means. Okay. What
mainly created New York City is only mind. Okay. The main thing
is only mind...meaning physical things help out but they're not
the main thing. The main thing is mind...only, alone, and the
word "alone" is meant to reject physical things, you see what I
mean, as not being the main cause. But of course they
contribute. Okay. That's that's one part. Also the word "Only"
in Mind Only was meant to reject the idea that this world was
created by some kind of person, as a creator, okay, you know that
had nothing to do on six days a week and you know, created this
world. They say, come on, mind only, meaning mind mainly only,
(laughs) okay. Mainly mind only. Meaning, forget this idea of
some dude with a long white beard who who slaps together the
world in six days, okay. We don't believe that. Okay. It's the
it's the mind, it's the process of collecting karma and then
projecting a world, okay. Even the sun coming up and down is a
projection, okay, of your past karma. Last thing. Then what
does the Mind School...Mind Only School mean when they say...what
is it...what's that expression..."everything is of the same
stuff", they say (dze chik, dze chik). (Suk dan sukdzin gyi
tsema dzeshek)...(suk) say (suk dan) (repeat)..you're lucky, all
the long Tibetan has been destroyed...(suk dan) (repeat)
(sukdzin) (repeat) (gyi tsema) (repeat) (dzeshek) (repeat). Say
(suk dan) (repeat) (sukdzin gyi) (repeat) (tsema) (repeat)
(dzeshek) (repeat). My tongue and my tongue consciousness...my
awareness of what I am tasting...and this tea (Geshe-la slurps
tea), okay, (suk) meaning "physical matter", (sukdzin gyi tsema)
meaning "the pramana or the correct perception of that physical
matter which grasps or hold onto that physical matter, okay. My
tongue consciousness and this tea (Geshe-la slurps his tea),
(dzechik), was the (dzechik) mean?...are the same stuff.
Na...now you should be objecting. "Oh, and then they say it's
mind only". They must be saying that the tea is mind only. We
don't have to worry about, you know, disposing of styrofoam, it's
just mind, okay...because the Mind Only School, their main idea
is that my my taste buds and my awareness of how it tastes, and
the thing I'm tasting (Geshe-la slurps tea) are (dzechik), are
the same stuff. Okay. Now, how do you answer that? What does
(dzechik) mean? Who said that? Yeah, they come from the same
karmic seed and that's all it means. "Same stuff" means "comes
from the same stuff"...that's all. So now you've got three parts
of the Mind Only School that we should rewrite while we're
thinking about it, okay. What? First we shouldn't call them the
Mind Only School, we should call them the?

(students: Mainly Mind Only School)

Mainly Mind Only School (laughs), okay. Mainly Mind Alone
School, or something like that. As opposed to physical causes or
some god who made the world, okay? Then what're we gonna...what
was the other one?

(students: All the same stuff)

No no no, there was another one. There was another one.

(student: Reject the idea...)

No, we had Mind Only and then there was another one before that.

(student: (unclear)

Huh? No all before that. Huh?

(student: Physical matter is not (unclear)

Oh, external objects. Sorry. Okay. Let's rewrite this one.
Mind Only School doesn't accept the existence of external objects

(student: The way the lower two schools do)

The way the lower school two, the lower two schools do. How's
that? We're gonna rewrite that one, okay? From now on,
whenever...when any ACI student goes up to somebody in New York
City, which I'm sure you do frequently, and say "hey did you know
that external objects don't exist?" Now you have to say...oh,
the Mind Only School says that external objects don't exist.
You're gonna say, "the Mind Only School doesn't say that external
objects exist in the way that the lower two stupid schools thinks
so, and that quarter...maybe they can throw in the quarter of the
Madyamika or something like that, okay. I I don't...okay. So we
fixed two already. What's the third one we have to fix? My
con...my awareness of the tea and the tea itself consist of the
same stuff, meaning they come from one karmic seed, not meaning
that they are made of the same mental stuff or something like
that, okay. That's all. So now we've clarified the Mind Only
School. They don't believe that external objects don't exist,
meaning this cup doesn't exist out there. Of course they exist
out there. It's it's out...if you stick a pin in it, I don't go
"ouch". It's an external object, okay. All they're saying is
that it doesn't exist as an external object that's made of these
atoms that don't have any sides, they say, come on, such a thing
is impossible, okay. And then when they say...what was the
second one?

(students: (unclear)

Oh yeah, it's...I'm the Mind...I'm the Mind Only School, but all
that means is that I think mind is the main thing that creates
the world, or something like that. Okay. And and only mind and
not other things. Okay. And then in the third case they're gonna
say?

(student: It all has the same stuff)

Yeah, me and the cup are of the...you know, the experiencer and
the experiencer of the same stuff, but only meaning that we've
come from the same karmic event. Whatever brought me to stand
here with this cup in my hand, also brought the cup here.
Whatever action I did in the past to be standing here with the
cup in my hand, has also brought the cup to be in my hand so I
can experience it. Okay. Same stuff in that sense. Yeah.

(student: Is it defined as the cup has it's own karma separate
from me and it's your karma to be holding the cup (unclear)

No, not like that. Not so much that. We don't say cups have
karma. They can't experience anything. Okay. Yeah?

(student: Do these divisions go across all the sects of
Buddhism?)

You mean the Tibetan sects?

(student: Yeah, (unclear)

Or the four ancient Indian schools? Okay. Whi...

(student: Tibetan)
Oh, Bill asked, "how do the four Tibetan schools interpret...you
know, you've been talking about the four schools of ancient
India. How do the four Tibetan schools explain these things?"
They all accept the (kan gyur) and (ten gyur). All four Tibetan
schools accept that the that the word of the Buddha and the early
Indian commentaries are all correct and they accept all of them.
There are some details of the presentation of Je Tsongkapa that
the other schools don't agree with...and don't accept. And, for
example, we've had some of them in this class. The idea that
emptiness could be a positive thing, like some kind of light, or
something like that, that that's the meaning of emptiness.
There's a school that says that "emptiness consists of the
opposite of everything that's not emptiness". Okay. And that's
just...I mean, every Tibetan sch...every Buddhist school says
that that's how you perceive things, by cancelling everything
something is not, but that's not emptiness, come on. Okay. And
and and other, you know...we've had a Tibetan school that said
"all three turnings of the wheel are literal". You know, and
that the Buddha meant it when he said you had a self nature, and
that when he said you had a Buddha nature it means that there's a
Buddha inside and you just have to rub off the top like the
lottery things (laughs) (laughter) and, no, you'll get to
it...and there and there are schools that adamantly say that, and
and they have they have very persuasive proofs, you know, or very
persuasive arguments. They're not stupid. And maybe they are
enlightened beings presenting an idea to make it easier for
students that can't get a slightly more sophisticated idea, but
who would do that? (laughs) Okay. So no problem. Recognize
the...the incorrectness of their arguments but be careful not to
judge them. Okay. In which case you'd have to say Lord Buddha
was a dumbhead, because he said this Mind Only School stuff.
Okay. Be very careful not to judge them, or be very careful not
to to say they don't know anything, or something like that, that,
it may very well be that they are enlightened beings, probably
they are, who are making a certain presentation because certain
people respond well to that presentation, and it helps them get
higher, and and that's fine, and and so be very careful not to
criticize them or judge them or something like that. But debate
the hell out of them in public, okay. 'Cause then you thrash out
the real meaning, okay. And there's no problem with that.
Buddha wasn't embarassed to have the Bodhisattva ask him
questions, okay? Yeah.

(student: In the context of understanding the Mind Only School
(unclear) what did Shantideva mean when he said that the sword
can not be used against itself?)

So he said, "if the Mind Only School, you know, regarding how we
understand the word "mind only" when we say "Mind Only School",
why did Master Shantideva say, why did he refute the idea that a
sword could cut itself." He's refuting the concept of
aperception or the mind perceiving the mind in one moment, okay.
That the mind could be the object of the mind and the subject
which is perceiving that at the same moment. For example, when
you hear your thoughts, what's going on according to the other
Buddhist schools? Some Buddhist schools say your mind is
thinking and hearing the thoughts at the same time. The other
Buddhist schools say that you're always a millisecond behind.
That thought has occurred and now your awareness of it is is is
arising, and that happens a millisecond later, okay, and it's not
that it's happening at the same instant, and that's what he
meant. And it's one of the uni...I said there were eight unique
features of the higher half of the Madyamika school. One of them
is that they don't accept the idea that the mind can perceive
itself in one moment. So when you hear your thoughts, you're
actually hearing something that occurred a millisecond ago. It's
like the star...the light from stars left those stars a year ago
or something and it's only now just...I mean they could be gone
now for all we know. Right. Or a hundred years or whatever, I
don't know...yeah, millions of years, okay. And it's the same
idea, okay That's all. They they they debate that. And and the
debate has a very deep meaning, not only for perceptual theory
but for emptiness. And you can study ACI course number twelve if
you want to know more about it, 'cause we went through it over
and over again. Yeah?

(student: The Mind Only School says that (unclear)

Yeah
(student: How do they explain (unclear)

Yeah, no no contradiction. Because the principal cause and
condition is your mind. Okay (Laughs), no problem. Yeah. One
last question and then we'll go.

(student: Do these last three ideas, are they very close to the
Middle Way School?)

Which three ideas?

(student: The last that we (unclear)

Oh, you mean ways that we're rewriting those...

(student: Yeah)

Yeah. No they only refer to the Mind Only School. Now are they
accepted by the Middle Way School is a whole big question, you
know. Does the Middle Way School, for example, have a problem
with saying, that you and my eye which is perceiving you have
come from the same karma?

(students: No)

No problem at all. So does the Middle Way School agree with the
Mind Only School?

(students: No)

No. Okay. On what point...this is very cool, and it's a good
place to end the Mind Only School 'cause I...this was one of the
most important moments in my spiritual education, you know, I was
sitting there listening to this Geshe Thubten Rinchen explain
this idea that you being there and me being here, for me have
been created by certain actions that I did in the past. I've
created you to sit there, and I've created me to be here, and and
that's why I'm seeing you at this very moment. And I said, you
know, I I interrupted him...unheard of in a Tibetan Buddhist
class in the monastery, okay (laughter), and I said, "wait a
minute. I don't have a problem with that. You know, what's
wrong with that?" And he said, "there's nothing wrong with that.
 Middle Way School accepts that." And I was like "boom", you
know, like it was one of the most important thoughts I ever had
in my life, and I remember the place...he was sitting on his bed,
I was down there on the floor, you know, and he said "they accept
it", you know, so that was like "wow"...ten things became clear
at that moment, you know, but then he said, "but they think that
the seed for that has to reside in a seventh consciousness
(laughter) that's over here in the left side of your brain", you
know, or something like...they say there's this (kun shi num ba
shepa), this foundation or basis consciousness, and
that...storehouse consciousness, and and it's over here, and
that's where those seeds have to stay, and...that whole thing is
wrong. That they just made up. Who made it up? Lord Buddha.
Okay. To explain what? How to help people who can't accept the
idea that karmic seeds themselves are projections. They needed
those karmic seeds to be something that existed out there on
their own side, in their nice little dog house over there.
(laughter) Okay. In a place. You know. It was too much for
them to say, the potential that creates you and me is itself a
projection. It's just they couldn't handle that. So Lord
Buddha, "I'll make it easy for you, okay. There's a seventh part
of your brain beyond your eye, ear, nose, and that's where all
those little seeds stay, okay"? And they pop up every once in a
while and I see you in class. (laughter) (laughs). That's all.
Okay. It's very cool. It's very cool. Okay.

(student: Do they think that also that your mind is existing out
there or inside?)

Who?

(student: The Mind Only School. Or is that (unclear) also.
What about the storehouse itself?)

Oh, they would say that the storehouse consciousness itself is a
(shen wang), it's a mind...it's a state of mind so it's a (shen
wang), it has its own identity, it does exist from its own side.
Yeah. Last question?

(student: Is the part of (shen wangs) and (yong drups) that
exist from their own side with their own unique being their
karmic seed?)

Let me answer one more question, by the way. Do you think Middle
Way School has any problem with dividing everything into three
attributes?

(students: No)

No, they just don't explain them the same way. That's all.
Doesn't mean that's one important thing. And by the way, the
lower two schools can...you know...they'll say, "ok that's
cool...three attributes...sounds okay to me". But then they
don't agree with how they describe them, okay. All right? And
what was it...I didn't answer your question.

(student: Is the part of the (shen wang) and (yongdrup) that
exists from its own side with its own unique way of being that
karmic seed, is that)

Oh, she says, "is the identity of (shen wangs) and (yongdrups)
which exists from its own side, is that a karmic seed in itself.
They'd say no. Because karmic seed is a potential and and (shen
wangs) are something...you know, for example physical or
something like that, mental or something like that. So I I think
they would say no. The identity that they have? That's a tough
question. It's ei...it's gotta be either a (shenwang) or a maybe
a (kun tak), I don't know. I think they'd say it was a (shen
wang). The identity that they have.

(student: It has to be a (shen wang) because the (kun tak)
doesn't (unclear) exist (unclear)

No, (kun tak ya na me nye ma kyot), it's not true that all
(kuntaks) don't exist, right? There are (kun taks) that exist.
Let me think about that. That's a good question. The identity
that they have...yeah, I think it's gotta be.. either a (shen
wang) or a (kun tak) 'cause it's not a negative thing,
okay...and...I think though they might say it's a (kun tak), you
know. I think they might say it's a (kun tak). It's permanent.
It's unchanging. Let's say (kun tak). Okay. Try to prove me
wrong sometime.

(student: (unclear)

No, I mean it's the way you do it in the debate ground...let's do
it that way. Okay. Congratulations on graduating from Mind Only
Academy (laughter)...now forget everything, and we'll go to
Middle Way. Yeah?

(student: Do we have the next class (unclear)

Sorry?

(student: She want the Tibetan..)

Oh yeah, I'll put the Tibetan up at the beginning of the next
class for that, but you're not responsible for it on your
homework, okay? Okay. All right. Ready.

(prayer: short mandala)

(prayer: dedication)

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