ACI 2 «Буддийское Прибежище», занятие 7

Course II, Buddhist Refuge
Class Seven: Proof of Emptiness
Transcriber: ???

Proofread: May 2003



[cut]
part of trying to prove emptiness. So, {gakja} means …Kiley knows. We had it
once before. And the people from the first course, I hope, know it. Wait, treat
him lightly, {Dinwah}. This is {Dinwah}. Remember {gakja}?

[student, John Stillwell: I remember the word, [laughter] but not the meaning.]

[student: Tea?]

[student: [unclear]]

[student: …cold in Poland.]

[student: Well, you can drink it, cause [unclear]] [laughter]

That’s okay; that’s fine. So, {gak…gakja} means “the thing that we deny”. It
means the thing that we say doesn’t exist. It’s the thing that emptiness is empty
of. It’s a self-existent thing that doesn’t exist, anyway.

[student, Tom Kiley: That what ain’t]

[student: Can you even see the thing?]

{Gak} means “deny”, and you’ll see it often times …they’ll say refute. And, {ja}
means “to be”…object, object “to be.”
So, if I say, “{Gakja} means self-existent thing. {Gakja} means a thing which
exists by itself,” and there’s no such thing. So, {gakja}…when you say
emptiness…emptiness means “something’s missing.” Like today my Lama sent
me to take the garbage out, and I pick up the can, and it’s empty. So, I’m
expecting garbage, but it’s empty. So, that then the {gakja} in that case was
garbage. [laughter] So, {gakja} means the things that we say doesn’t exist…the
thing which we deny. {Gakja} means [unclear].
[student, Tom Kiley: Object to be negated?]

They can, they…you hear all sorts of different translations.

[student: And this is the first [unclear]]

I call it the object we deny. All right?

[student: I don’t get this.]

[student: Is that…is this the…]

It’s the thing we say doesn’t exist. It’s what…

[student: The thing who says?]

All Buddhists. It’s what emptiness is empty of.

[student: Self-nature]

Yeah. You can call it self-nature. We’re gonna go into it very deeply. I mean,
different schools call it different things.

[student: Okay.]

[student, Tom Kiley: The object of ignorance.]

Long story. Okay. Yeah.]

[student: This is]

They call it object to be refuted, object to be denied, object to be debated.

[student: And this is what there is between…among the schools.]

Oh, big differences between the schools.

[student: Right, but that’s, it’s the same word.]

Yeah. Sure. It’s, this word is the same, {gakja}. What we’re trying to deny, what
we’re trying to say doesn’t exist, is all…is different for each school. {Gakja}

[student: Are we still wearing the same hat?]

We’re wearing Svatantrika hat for this whole course. Okay. In here you get…
you’re gonna get…tonight you’re gonna get a good dose of Svatantrika. Okay.
That’s a…that’s a little bit different from

[student: As Svatantricks, do we agree with ourselves?]

[laughter]

Well, sure. You have to defend it. Yeah.

[student: Thank you.]

Okay? So, that’s {gakja}. {Gakja} is what emptiness is empty of. All right? And,
the very first section in studying {gakja} is, is identifying what is the {gakja}.
That’s the first part. We’ll…first of all you…before you can understand what,
you have to understand what the {gakja} is. What?

[student, John Stillwell: Could be…well, the self-existent nature is [unclear]]

You have to understand that before you can understand emptiness, because
emptiness means…

[student, John Stillwell: The absence of that]

The absence of that, so if you don’t know what it’s absent of, then you can’t
study emptiness. The book gives an example. It says, “If you want to study, if
you want to know if there’s a water pitcher in this room, you have to have a
mental picture of a water pitcher. If you don’t know what a water pitcher is, you
can’t realize its absence in this room.” And that’s the same thing. If you don’t
know what the {gakja} is, you’ll never understand emptiness. If you don’t know
what a self-existent thing, should I say, “is” or “is supposed to be” [laughs]
[laughter].

[student: What it would be like if it could be.]

Okay, what it would be like if it did exist, then, then you can’t understand
emptiness. You have to have a good idea of what a self-existent thing is.
Otherwise, you can’t…you’ll never understand its emptiness. And then they
always quote a…two lines from Shantideva. They’re in your handout, but they
say, {gahpe moonah mah rekpa deshe demun mentze mahyin}, which is very
famous…good way to start a debate in the monastery. {Gahpe moonah mah
rekpa}, if you…{gahpe moonah mah rekpa}…until you are able to find what it is
that you think exists, {demun mentze mahyin}, you will never be able to realize
that it doesn’t exist. So you have to…you have to understand what it is, what a
self-existent thing would look like if a self-existent thing existed. And that’s the…
that’s why you have to study {gakja} before you study the proofs for emptiness.
You have to study what they’re trying to deny. Okay?

[student: When you first start to study this don’t you get the feeling that it’s kind
of semantics? I mean…]

Ah, yeah, yeah, at first, and it’s a kind of blessing. It’s a kind of result of your
good deeds when it becomes very meaningful to you. They say in Tibetan
{kelwa-me}. If you think it’s…if it sound to you like semantics or if it sounds like
just arguing about words, you, you’re missing something. And it, and it does at
the beginning. [laughs] And before we study Madhyamika in the monastery,
before we study emptiness, we have to do all these practices. I mean, they stop
for six months or eight months and, and they just try to get enough goodness to,
to understand. They just pray for understanding emptiness. Rinpoche, our…my
Lama, you know, he went to some cave, and before he opened a book he did all
these meditations and prayers that he would have enough goodness to catch it.
[laughs] You know. And you find students that don’t. You know. Yeah?

[student: The sic of them that I really don’t understand between the hinayana
and the mahayana with respect to…]

We’ll get there.

[student: …understanding emptiness. Goodness, because it’s a different kind
merit that we’re accumulating.

Not really. Not really. I mean any kind of merit is quite fine [laughs] There’s
better ones and there’s more powerful ones and less powerful ones. But

[student: But they both work…
Giving the fruit to the Dalai…

[student: …as far as cognizing emptiness directly?]

Oh sure. Any good deed. Yeah. Any good deed helps at all. But it it’s there,
you know, there are, like we’re studying logic nowadays, and logic is…seems
very dry and very irrelevant. And, but if you have a {kelwa} if you have the
goodness in you, then when you study it, this stuff blows your mind. You
suddenly realize that you can prove past lives. You can prove the existence of
emptiness and things like that. So, it’s just some kind of a…the same…two
different people can go through the same subject and catch different thing…you
know. It’s like people look at artwork or music or things like that. Okay. So
that’s {gakja}. {Gakja}, if it existed, would exist in a way, which was opposite to
the way that things exist…what you call conventionally or what we call
deceptively. Okay? I’ll say that again. [laughs}

[student: Thank you.] [laughter]

If it existed, it would have to exist in a way that was the opposite of the way
things actually exist. And when I say “actually exists” I say “deceptively exists.”

[student: Tom Kiley, right, which is the way we see things.]

The way, the way that things conventionally exist. If…I’ll say it again. [laughs] If
the {gakja} did exist, it would exist in a way that was the opposite of the way that
things really do conventionally exist. So, first you have to study how do things
exist conventionally. I don’t like to call it conventionally. I prefer deceptively.
Cause that’s the word. Okay. They call it concep…ah…deceptively. Every…Did
I lose anybody? [laughs] You all right?

[student: uh, huh]

Okay. All right.

[student: It seems to be the opposite.]

Excuse me?

[student: No. I mean it. I mean. I mean it seems to be not…in other words
you, you’re trying to say…]
Right. If it existed, it would have to exist in a way that was the opposite of the
way that things…

[student: But I thought you were saying that what it is is a is a deceptive thing
and you’re saying if it existed then it…if this deceptive thing existed it would be
the opposite of a deceptive thing.]

No. All things around us are deceptive. And, if it existed, it would have to be
something that doesn’t exist deceptively. It doesn’t exist deceptively. It doesn’t
exist at all. The {gakja} doesn’t exist at all.

[student: Any more than anything else did.]

Oh, yeah…no…sure. All other things that you see exist deceptively. {Gakja}
doesn’t exist deceptively or ultimately. It just doesn’t exist.

[student: Oh, okay, okay.]

It’s a self-existent thing. It’s a boy with two heads. It’s an elephant in this room
right now. It’s a…I don’t want to say an honest politician, but…[laughs] I
shou…I don’t mean that. You know, it’s a…it’s just a thing that doesn’t exist.
But, but you better know what it looks like, cause supposedly you, you see
everything this way. Supposedly, you are often seeing {gakjas} when you are
angry or when you have desire. I would say…it’s very interesting. I would say
you can’t have an emotion that is negative unless you are focused on the {gakja}.
That’s pretty heavy.

[student: Why would a positive emotion be different?]

Well, I mean posi…like, ah, {migme ningje}…like the ultimate kind of
compassion understands the emptiness of its object. That’s what I’m saying. But
most, yeah, any normal, positive emotion also. But the emotions that get you
into trouble—desire, hatred, jealously—these…at, at the moment that you have
them, you must be focused on the {gakja}. You…and that’s why when you
understand that there is no {gakja}, you can reach nirvana. That’s why you can
become an arhat, a foe destroyer. What’s a foe destroyer? [laughter] [unclear]

[student: Backtrack] [laughter]
This is for last week. Sorry. “Foe destroyer” is the Tibetan translation of arhat.
And there are Sanskrit roots are…they can be related to “enemy”. So, the
Tibetans call arhat, “enemy destroyer”. The word in Sanskrit also means
“worthy one” “one who is worthy.” “Of” means “he who is worthy”. So,
sometimes if you’re reading a Tibetan trans…a translation of Tibetan and even a
Tibetan book, it’ll say, “Arhats are arhats because they are worthy of all the
world to bow down to them. And, and you don’t know why, so wha…why did
they come here? You know. In Tibetan the pun doesn’t come out. You see. In
Sanskrit it’s arhat is “ar” for, for the world to bow down to. And then the
Tibetans just translated it. You know. “Enemy killers are worthy” and then you
miss the…you miss the pun.

[student: Oh, can we go back even further.        On the two, are the self-made
Buddhas also arhats when they reach…]

Yeah.

[student: So, they’re both, both those paths end in arhatship.]

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[student: And what are the [unclear]]

Ah, okay. I think we had four [unclear]. Okay, so number four is arhat. Okay?
Number four is arhat. These are the four results of the path. I did not teach you
last week. I was supposed to teach you last week.

[student: Four results.]

Four results of the path. You haven’t had this yet.

[student: Which path?]

The general Buddhist path. It’s a good question. I’m not talking the five paths;
I’m not talking the three paths.

[student: My gosh.]

I’m talking the general Buddhist practice. Normally path is a mental state, but
this time we talk of the the method. The result of that method is…the
[student: You start with number four, number one?]

I’ll start with number one. How’s that?

[student: Okay.]

Number one is called “stream enterer.”

[student: Ah, stream enter…]

[student: I’m sorry?]

Stream enterer. One who is entering the stream.

[student: What stream would that be?]

It’s the stream that…where the…

[student: Highway to heaven.]

You…that’s the stereotype. Yeah, you’re not…you’re no longer having…it’s it’s
it’s the stream…it’s the immediate…it’s the process at which you are on your
way out. You can call it “on your way out.” I almost prefer that. You you just
reach the first step of being on your way out of suffering. This is a person who
has perceived emptiness directly. So you could guess {downlam}. He’s…yeah…
once you…what hap…what else happens when you reach {thonglam}?

[student: The individual analysis of the four Aryan truths.]

But I mean the first instant of {thonglam}.

[student: Of what please?]

Of the path of seeing.

[student: And say that word again please.]

{Thonglam} You perc…you you become an arya, a rea...What we call realized
person. You reach the first bodhisattva buhmi.
[students: [unclear]] [laughter]

[laughs] Who knows. You get rid of forever your belief in existence, et cetera, et
cetera.

[student: There’s more than the one?]

This is what happens. Yeah. Yeah. When you…result number one…result of the
path is that you you become a stream enterer. You are on your way out. You’re
definitely on your way out.

[student: Which means you’ve seen emptiness directly, and it’s the first step…]

Right. And that’s what “stream enterer” means.

[student: Is that natural nirvana?]

You perceive natural nirvana.

[student: Out of what? Of samsara?]

Sure. Yeah. Suffering. The second one is called a “once returner.”

[student: Once? Like…]

Once return-er. Someone who’s going to come back one more time.

[student: Back to the earth? [unclear]]

This doesn’t mean what it sounds like. Okay? This means to the desire realm.
Okay. You you you will only have to take, at the most, one more birth in the
desire realm.

[student: In human form?]

Ah, no. It could be in a…in any of the six forms. But I assume he’s good enough
that he gonna be a human.

[student: Is that nirvana with something left over?]
No. No. Not according to our present school. Ye…Yes?

[student: Now. Is this…does this also mean it’s going to be the next birth; or
could there be several births in the form realm?

I believe normally it’s the next one. But, I, I…it’s in this book…it can tell you…

[student: You said the desire…the six desire realms. Were you talking about the
six…]

The six levels of the desire realm. The six different…

[student: You’re not talking about the six different realms.]

Well, the desire realm has all six births in it. The form and formless realm only
have the the [unclear], but that’s another story.

[student: So that just means samsara.]

No. It means he might take a lot of births in the form realm or the formless
realm, but he only has to come back to this realm one more time. This realm is
the lowest realm. This is the realm where we live in. It’s called “desire realm”
because if you have…you…your life is run by desire for food and sex. That’s the
way the first Dalai Lama…

[student: But you say it’s not the human realm.]

Humans live in the desire realm. But so do animals and hell-beings and [unclear]
and the lowest devas and the lowest pleasure beings live there also. But the
higher pleasure beings live in the form realm and the formless realm. So, this
realm has all six kinds of earth beings, but the other two realms only have one
kind of earth [unclear].

[student: And this is what you see when you perceive emptiness? You know?]

We weren’t talking about that. I don’t know how we got on that. Oh, you only
have to come back here one more time. It’s a matter of bad thoughts. It’s a
matter of afflictions. Mental afflictions. You, you, you can only be born in this
realm if you have a pretty heavy dose of bad thoughts in your…And, as you
perc…as you’re traveling along the path of habituation, you start to overcome
those bad thoughts, so that you don’t have to take birth here again…or only one
more time.

[student: I’ve don’t understood how you can achieve nirvana from the god
realms. They’re so awful.]

It’s…it’s pretty difficult.

[student: Well, why wouldn’t it be more desirable than to be [unclear?]]

I’m not sure you’ll have to take birth in the form realm. I’ll have to check it out.
It’s difficult from that realm to take a…to reach nirvana. It’s true, cause it’s so
pleasant.

[student: What’s an arya, again?]

Someone who’s perceived emptiness directly.

[student: No, not an arhat, an arya.]

Arya has perceived emptiness directly. We didn’t get to that one yet. Okay, so
that’s the first and second results. Right? Now we’re on number three. Right?
He’s called a “non-returner.” He will not have to take another birth in the desire
realm. That’s number three.

[student: I’m sorry. Can you just say…]

Yeah. Non-returner… not coming back again to this realm. The desire realm.
Yeah. Desire realm is supposed to be the best one for achieving enlightenment,
because it’s it’s it’s you’re you’re you’re intelligent…it’s not so much suffering
that you can’t think straight, which is the problem with the hell realms. But it’s
also not so much pleasure that you can’t think straight, which is the problem
with the higher realms. With the two higher realms. So, it’s supposed to be a
good mix of suffering and and and leisure. Of the time and the brains to to
think…in this realm. In the In the hells, you have a good dose of suffering, but…

[student: You mean in the human realm.]

Yeah, this…yeah.
[student: You said the desire realm.]

Well the human segment of the desire realm. Okay

[student: The middle part of the…upper middle.]

[student: What’d you start to say about the hell realm?]

They, they can’t achieve any “lams” normally because they…it’s so much pain
that they can’t think straight.      Their ability to think is impaired by their
tremendous pain. They can’t think straight, although there is a debate about
whether the Buddha ever…there is a story, there is a scripture that says that he
achieved bodhichitta in the hell realms, but the abhidharma says it wasn’t quite
like that, but that’s another story. So that’s a non-returner; and then the fourth
result is is arhat…is a foe destroyer; and the enemy is you bad thoughts and
their seeds. So, becoming an arhat, becoming a foe destroyer and reaching
nirvana are all the same.

[student: The enemy, the foe destroyer is your…]

Yeah. When you say foe destroyer…who who is it you…who’s the foe? The foe
is your bad thoughts and the seeds for those.

[student: It’s bad thoughts and the seeds…both?]

Right, right.

[student: Not the actions…just the thoughts.]

Right. But actually you can’t collect the actions…you can’t collect karma per se if
you don’t have those bad thoughts.

[student: What was that section on the the results of the three paths or the two
paths?]

This was it. I, I don’t remember the question. Let me see…

[student: Describe the three main parts of the method for reaching nirvana.]
Oh, that was something…

[student: No. That was a different question.]

[student: I’m sorry; I’m sorry. What’s the foe destroyer and what are the three
results of…What are the foe destroyer and what are the three results of the
path?]

Yeah. Right, right. And that…What is a foe destroyer? That’s result number
four, and what are the three results of the path that lead up to it? That was you
know…stream enterer, once-returner, non-returner. Stream enterer, once-
returner, and non-returner.

[student: So, could the results of these paths [unclear] in Buddhahood too?]

It’s not presented that way. It’s not…This is mainly talking [unclear].

[student: Are we only ever gonna be one only ever apply these labels and
categorizes things this way when one is talking about low vehicle practitioners,
right?]

Mainly.

[student: Although bodhisattvas…]

They apply to bodhisattvas too.

[student: They do.]

Yeah.

[student: So how do you know what…]

I don’t think it’s necessarily track specific. You know what I mean. That’s, I’ve
never seen a, it’s not, it is presented in it’s called {genden neshew} the twenty
lev…the twenty different divisions of practitioners. You study that maybe in
about two years. But it breaks it all down into, you know, arhats—hinayana
arhats, mahayana arhats. You get, you get twenty different divisions actually.
It’s called {genden neshew}.
[student: Cause usually you see these terms being used only in connections with
hinayana.]

Normally.    But it’s not, you know obviously you could have a [unclear]
bodhisattva. Okay. Back to the subject. {Gakja}

[student: Back to {gakja}.]

So, {gakja} is a non-existent thing. If it did exist, it would have to exist in the way
in an opposite way from the way all these things really do exist.

[student: Is that the rabbit with the…]

…deceptively. So, we have to…we want to know how do the Svatantrikas claim
how we see deceptive reality. How do they explain how we see the things
around. Because according to them and according to us too, the {gakja} should
exist the opposite way if it existed. You got that? That’s a little tricky.

[student: So they’re saying we see it as its ultimate nature.]

[student: No.]

They say, study how you see the things around you, because if if the {gakja}
existed, if a self-existent thing existed, it should exist in the opposite way from
the way you really see things around you. By the way, what do the, what do the
higher Madhyamika people say? How do we, how do things exist according to
them?

[student: Nominally.]

Yeah. Nominally. {nyingde shaksa}, just from your perception. And that’s what
you studied in your last course. Now you’re gonna get confused cause you’re
dropping down a school. Okay. [laughs] And it’s good. And that [unclear]
sharpened your knowledge [unclear].

[student: Not from just your perceptions. From your label…you know your
labeling.]

Well, th, the word perceptions…
[student: You make it sound like mind only.]

It is pretty much that. When they say label, they mean perceptions {nyingde
shaksa}. The word {da} “name” there means perceptions…conceptions, nother
story.

[student: I thought we perceive things as deceptive reality and that’s the way in
which they do not exist. They do exist as ultimate reality, and therefore,…]

No. There’s things tha…you can say they’re dependent origination. We’re
gonna study their dependent origination. How is it that they really do exist.

[student: Is that what we’re…]

They have a…they have two kinds of existence. One is their ultimate existence,
which is totally, totally different. And you’ll perceive that when you, when you
reach {tomlam}, but then they also have a lower level of existence, which is their
dependent origination. That they really have.

[student: And we’re not trying to refute that.]

Not at all.

[student: Oh, I thought that’s what we’re trying…]

If, if the {gakja} existed, it would be opposite of that.   That’s the point.   Did
everybody catch that?

[student: No.] [laughter]

[laughs]

[student: I got it up to the very end, and now I’m lost.]

Things have two kinds of existence. Their ultimate existence and their deceptive
existence. But they’re both valid, and they’re both real.

[student: I don’t understand how this table or our bodies have any ultimate
existence, except as a mindstream. That’s all that I have understood so far.]
We will get to it. First we have to study what they do have. I mean. We’ll study
the lower existence that they have first. Their lower existence, their lower level
of existence is what we can dependent origination or deceptive reality. You can
call it that…deceptive…their deceptive reality…their apparent reality…the
reality that we see from day to day. We’re gonna study that.

[student: Are you gonna explain that?]

I’m gonna explain it right now. By the way, do you currently even perceive
that? Do you currently even understand how you see the things around you…
much less emptiness. Forget this higher reality. The normal reality around
you…Do you really understand what’s going on? No. You don’t even
understand its, its dependent origination. When you understand that, you’re,
you’re pretty high already. You’re like a [unclear].

[student: What do you mean you don’t really understand what’s going on?]

I’ll talk about it. When you really understand how you’re perceiving…forget
emptiness, which you can only perceive in deep meditation and…directly, okay.
Talking about this reality around you right now. You don’t even know what
you’re doing…you don’t even know how your mind is making this up right
now or how your mind is establishing these things right now. You don’t even
know that. You’re now even aware of what you’re doing.

[student: Wha…somebody will say the eye does that…the light.]

We’ll talk about it. We’re talking about it. We’re gonna talk about it. Yeah?

[student: You go so far as to say the reason we call deceptive reality deceptive
reality is because of the {gakja}]

Stop right there. Stop right there. Cause. I knew…we’re gonna get to that, and
the Svatantrikas have their special idea about it. They…just to anticipate myself,
okay, they call it deceptive reality because the mind, which establishes it, is
deceptive. And, they have a different…this is a different concept, [unclear] their
concept.

[student: In a sense, what I was leading to was that it’s the {gakja} which sort of
makes deceptive reality deceptive because far from believing that it’s the wrong
thing, we believe it’s the right thing.
Yeah. Different subject. We’re get…that’s a long way down the road and that’s
a…it’s not quite like that, but it’s close. Yeah?

[student: So, if I’m, I’m trying to see the distinction between deceptive reality
and {gakja}.]

Good, good, good.

[student: What is that?]

No, that’s fine. Deceptive reality is what’s really happening, once your mind is, is
really…the reality that your mind is actually seeing.

[student: So I see this vase. I see it as a vase. That’s deceptive reality?]

That’s, that’s not a {gakja}. Why?

[student: Cause it has, it has dependent origination.]

It exists. {schechu} Why? Cause I see it, and I’m not crazy. And that’s the proof
of something existing in Buddhism. If you see it, and you’re not sick or crazy or
hallucinating or drugged, that can’t be the {gakja}.

[student: So what would be the {gakjak} aspect of this vase?]

Ah, we’ll get to that.

[student: The way we think it is.]

No. That’s what I’m gonna talk about right now. To discuss, to discuss the
{gakja} aspect of the vase, vase, you have to understand how it really does exist
to you. Because the {gakja} would be the opposite.

[student: Which is not its ultimate nature.]

Okay? So in a sense, emptiness is the absence of the {gakja}. The {gakja} is
something that would exist in, in a way that was the opposite of the way this
vase really does exist.
[student: I was thinking emptiness was the opposite of deceptive reality.]

No, no, no. Deceptive reality is fine. Deceptive reality and ultimate reality are
good friends. They both get along with each other, and they both exist.
Everything has both. No problem. It’s deceptive, but it’s not non-existent.

[student: Deceptive reality and what are good friends?]

Ultimate reality.

[student: So the {gakja} is non-existent?]

Yeah. Forget it. He’s out of the picture. You know…deceptive reality and
ultimate reality are two friends, and {gakja} ain’t got no reality at all. [laughs]
{Gakja} doesn’t even exist. But there’s something in your mind that takes this
vase to be self-existent, and we want to identify what that…what’s that like.

[student: The self-existence, which is deceptive reality.]

No, no, no. Self-existence don’t exist.

[student: What do you mean by self-existence?]

We’re gonna talk about it.

[student: Well let’s talk about it.]

[laughter]

[student: Running in circles here.]

[student: So did you say deceptive reality means perceiving it as self-existent?]

No, no, no. We’ll talk about it. I’m gonna talk about it right now.

[student: Let him talk.]

[laughter]

[student: Yeah, really, I mean we’re going in circles. [unclear] gonna go in
circles.]

[laughter]

I got you warmed up for it. Say {lo}.

[students: {lo}]

{Numehla}

[students: {Numehla}

{Nahway}

[students: {nahway}]

{Lahnkey}

[students: {lahnkey}]

{Shaksahm}

[students: {shaksahm}]

This is how things exist around you. The lower level of reality. The what we call
deceptive reality. If it’s more comfortable, call it conventional reality. This is
how things exist around you. All right? {Lo} means mind. {Lo} means mind. By
the way, we’re in…don’t forget, we’re in svatantrika. {Nu} means hurt.

[student: Hurt?]

Hurt.

[student: h-u-r-t?]

Yeah. Hurt. {Meh} means not. So, what’s a {lo-nu-meh}?

[student: Painless mind.]

[laughs] You’d like that. It means unimpaired mind…unimpaired state of mind.
A state of mind, which is not messed up by drugs or illness or…Also, a mind can
be temporarily messed up by outside factors…inner factors are illness, drugs,
alcohol, anger…

[student: [unclear]]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then outer factors are like…in Tibetan they say when
you’re rowing in a boat across a lake, and it looks like the trees are moving on
the shore, but it’s you..y…you’re…What’d ya call it? Your perspective is
changing, but it…but you…you know…part ah your mind can be fooled
sometimes into thinking that the trees are moving.

[student: When you’re on the subway, the next train is leavin, and you think
you’re mov…]

Yeah…Yeah…Yeah…That’s a very good example. Same thing.

[student: [unclear]]

Yeah…Yeah…We’re talking about a mind that’s not impaired by those kind of
inner or outer factors.

[student: So an outer factor would be like an optical illusion?]

Yeah…Yeah…Not messed up by any outer affect…thing that would affect it.

[student: Which one are you referring to?]

{Nu-meh} {Nu-meh} means a mind literally a mind which is not hurt. Meaning a
mind which is not impaired by either an inner factor such as drugs, illness, or a
strong emotion or an outer factor such as, you know, the perspective of the of
where you are [unclear]. {Lo-nu-me-lam-no-wah} {No-wah} means “appears”.

[student: {La} to that mind?]

Yeah.

[student: Which one?]

[student: {La} means “to”?]
{La} means “to” t-o. {No-wah} means “appear”. {Wang} you know. What’s
{wang} mean?

[student: Empowerment?]

Yeah. Empowerment. But here it means “power”. Literally {wong} means
“power”. Okay? {Wong-key} means “by the power”. {Shaktsam} {Shak}
means “establish as existing”…established as existing and {tsam} means “just”.
What they say is that…th… the Svatantrikas, I mean, it’s a pretty nice system, of
course. They way this…this…these flowers exist, because two conditions are
present. A. They are appearing to me. B. I, what should we say, I establish them
with my mind. I…

[student: Posit [unclear]]

Posit is pretty good.

[student: Perceive]

“Perceive” is a little tough.

[student: [unclear]]

I’ll give you an example. And, this is important. This is a classical example. This
is actually…th…it helps. They say you have to take the example of a magic
show. A magic show…a magician putting on a show. And, in India, if you’ve
ever been there, there’s this…it’s called…it’s called a {shing-dew} in Tibetan; but
it’s a little stick like that. And the guy…if…if it’s a real, you know, a traditional
magician, he…he throws the stick on the ground, and he makes a spell. He says
some holy words or something, and then you see an elephant and some cows…
You see a…a horse…and all that’s there is a stick. But, because of his spell, you…
you see a horse.

[student: [unclear]]

[laughs]

But I mean, they used to do this sort of thing. You know…it can work. I’ve seen
similar things. I haven’t seen that exactly, but I’ve seen very similar things in
India. I mean, they’re very good at magicians. They can do a spell…they say
some magic words, and they have some kind of a powder or something…and
they throw the stick on the ground, and there’s the horse.

[student: And you saw a horse?]

I didn’t see exactly that, but I saw something similar. So…

[student: So bees what?]

It’s like this. It’s a kind of magic. I’ve seen them use this thing. I mean, I didn’t
see a horse running around. But, they say that two conditions have to be
present for that magic spell to work. The…

[student: You talking about B now Michael?]

What’s B?

[student: In order for the flowers to exist, first…]

Oh, no…I…no…I’m not talking about that. I’m trying to explain through a
metaphor, what they say. Basically, you have to have two things…the thing has
to be appearing, and you have to be perceiving it. How about if we say that?

[student: Okay.]

[student: Wh…What two things have to be present?]

The things has to be appearing to you, and you have to be perceiving it. Those
two conditions have to come together. It has to look like flowers, and I have to
see it as flowers. What would be the opposite of that? What they’re saying is
that for those flowers to exist…for those flowers to exist, they have to look like
flowers to me, they have to show a flower to me, and I have to see them as
flowers. I have to perceive them as flowers. What would be the opposite of
that? What…why do they go…make such a big deal about both things being
present?

[student: Well, if they’re not there, and you don’t see them as being there, that’s
the opposite.]
Well, the opposite would be a lower kind of idea. What do normal people in the
world see? How do those flowers exist? If I walk out of the room, do those
flowers exist? According to svatantrika, “no”.

[student: Well, what about the Buddhas?]

That’s another story. But what I’m saying is that the tree in the forest question…
according to svatantrikas, if I’m not perceiving it, it doesn’t exist. And, and most
westerners, I mean, most normal people would say, the flowers are there, I
mean, when I’m here or not…whether anyone’s perceiving them or not…
whether there’s any perception of them or not…the flowers are there.

[student: Nothing exists…there are no appearances without a perceiver.]

Say again?

[student: So, it’s not referring to you. They’re not saying they don’t exist…]

To you.

[student: They don’t exist at all.]

Well, it’s

[student: Not [unclear] but at all]

No, not, not that. They don’t say that. If there were no-one to perceive them…if
there were no-one perceiving them, they couldn’t be established as a [unclear].

[student: by any of those people or for any of those people that weren’t there
perceiving it]

Yeah, well, meaning everybody.

[student: At all…there wouldn’t be…at all…nobody]

[student: I thought this the position of the…of the]

Mind only.
[student: Yeah. I thought this was the position of the…]

Well let’s…I…I enjoy it if you ask me “Well, what’s the difference between them
and the {prasengykas}.” We…we have to think about it. We have to talk about
it. But, but they’re saying is…two things have to be present—flowers have to be
appearing as flowers, and I have to be seeing them as flowers.

[student: Why would you even need them to exist at all?]

Because, according to…according to other…according to your normal instincts,
and according to your wrong state of mind—your {denzin}…your, your
tendency to grasp things as self-existent—there’s a part of your mind that exists
in your mind all the time, which truly believes that those flowers exist out there
independent of me perceiving them. You believe they exist over there. There’s
a part of your mind that, that truly believes that they are out there.

[student: But the first part of these…this thing says that they are appearing to
me meaning they are there.]

Now, they say this…they say something very interesting. They say they do
exist out there, but they don’t exist out there on their own. There’s a difference.
They call it the unique way of being and the way of being. They have a way of
being on their own. Yeah. Those flowers have a way of being on their own. But
its, it is not unique. They don’t exist out there on their own. They do exist out
there. Otherwise, they couldn’t appear to you. They have some existence out
there. But it’s not out there…What? On their own.

[student: What does on their own…]

[student: Independently.]

Independent of me…providing my half of seeing them.

[student: And so when you don’t see them, they don’t vanish. They’re still
there.]

No. They have no existence. They disappear.

[student: So, every time you walk out of a room, the house disappears?]
Beyond their appearing to me.

[student: That’s crazy.]

No, well, they say well Buddha perceives that house. Or you perceive that house
with your memory.

[student: Oh, then it’s just mem…a function of memory.]

And other people [unclear] around the house see it too. You don’t have to see
things directly. You can use your memory. You can perceive them with
deduction.

[student: So, is the presence [unclear]]

[student: That’s, that’s valid for them?]

Yeah. By the way the Buddha perceives all that is around you.

[student: Is that valid for them? As a…]

Yeah. They would say that.

[student: Perception.]

Yeah. We’re studying the…the book we’re studying is the study of omniscience.

[student: So, so it seems very important to me the definition always qualify it…
that they…if you’re…you]

Yeah. What would be the opposite? I mean, would be the thing for the thing to
exist on its own. It does have its own existence. But that’s not on its own. It’s
not in and of itself. It’s not out there by itself. I…it requires my participation for
it to exist. That’s the difference.

[student: What would you say would happen if, for instance, you woke up in the
middle of the night…you were a little groggy…the flowers were there…the light
was out, and you didn’t perceive them as flowers; you perceived them as some
other object…]
Beautiful question, beautiful question…{lo-nu-me} {lo-nu-me}. The grogginess is
an internal factor.

[student: So, that would be an impairment.]

Good question.

[student: Okay]

That’s a good question.

[student: So the {madhyamika prasengyka} position says that the way in which
we perceive th…the nature of things dependent upon the way in which we
perceive it in labeling.]

Are we talking {svatantrika} or {prasengyka}?

[student: Well, I’m…I’m asking the difference.]

Oh, I was afraid somebody’d start that. [laughs]

[student: It seems to me they’re the same; they’re supposed to be different.]

Yeah. Yeah, they are different. Don’t…I don’t wanna get into it too much, and
Rinpoche also told me don’t confuse ‘em [unclear] This is natural. Very similar
in many ways, but remember that in {prasengyka} the emphasis was on a…a
suitable collection of parts and a…and a…a state of mind, which was also
suitable…giving it the name of that thing and the concept of that thing. It’s a
little bit different. It was very useful, and you can see how all the lower schools’
ideas of how things exist around you are very useful and how they’re leading up
to {prasengyka}.         They’re…they’re almost not like…technically they are
contradictory, but they’re almost like flowing into {madhyamika}. You know,
they may be ultimately wrong, but they certainly are a nice way to get into the
{prasengyka} viewpoint. And, and, also, I think the {novachara}, the mind-only
school, is very, very interesting and very close to setting your mind into the
right mood of seeing the real position. But, but this is…I, I like this position. The
other part of this, which I’m not gonna write here, is [unclear] That’s the whole
thing, but I can’t, I can’t overload you. But, but the second part is…it exists…The
first part is…it, it exists through appearing to you, and your mind…not, not
affected…perceiving it. It exists through those two things. It does not exist
through some way of being out there on its own. That’s the second part of what
they say. What they are denying, we can say it, okay. It is not…

[student: Is this the…would you say the translation for {la-nang-way-gi}?]

[student: No.]

[student: No.]

I mean, to put it into plain English…simple English. They say, it does exist out
there or else it couldn’t fulfill the requirement of a appearing to you.

[student: Is that its dependent origination?]

Yeah. It, no, it’s dependent origination is that those two things are present. It,
it’s appearing to me as flowers, and I’m seeing it as flowers. Those two
conditions have met. Therefore, there are flowers. But, it doesn’t exist out…on
its own, but it does exist out there.

[student: Dependence on those two things.]

Well, almost it’s the first thing…existing out there…is its appearing to me. Its
existing out there is part of that component of it appearing to me. Okay?
[laughs] If it didn’t exist out there, there wouldn’t be anything to appear to me
in the first half of the…of the two components.

[student: Aren’t you then inferring that it does exist out there?]

It does exist out there. I’m saying, it does exist out there according to…

[student: [unclear] of your perception]

But not on its own. No…no.

[student: Can you explain like…like a wave and a radio receiver and the wave
that go to the radio…then its come up the…]

Yeah, you can say that. The wave is a appearing to the...the receptor, and the
receptors have to be [unclear]. Yeah, I like that. That’s okay. That’s a nice
[unclear]. So, so what is it in their school for something to exist self-existently? If
it exists out there on its own, without depending on these two things happening
—appearing to me and me seeing them…anything that could exist the opposite
way of that would be what?

[student: the {gakja}]

Self-existent {gakja}. That’s {gakja}. The…I’ll say it again. [laughs] [laughter]
Cause, like two people got it. [laughs] The way it really does exist deceptively,
conventionally, is that it appears to me, and I see it. The way it doesn’t exist, is
out there on its own. And, that’s its…that’s the {gakja}. Anything that could
exist out there on its own is a {gakja}…that’s a self-existent thing.

[student: Which is the way we see most things.]

Which is the way your…we’re gonna get to that.

[student: Is there anything that is {gakja}?]

{Gakja} doesn’t exist, but if it did exist, it would be a tissue that exists out there on
its own independent of my perceptions.

[student: What about emptiness?]

That’s a different thing. Emptiness is the absence of the {gakja}. Emptiness is the
fact that nothing exists out there on its own.

[student: But isn’t there an existence of emptiness?]

Sure. The fact that nothing exists out there on its own is…exists. The fact that
there’s no elephant in this room exists.

[student: But that’s not a {gakja}.]

Not at all.

[student: That negation is not…]

Right, right.

[student: Speaking of material things, nothing exists then.]
Wooooooooooooo…

[student: No. Everything exists.]

[laughter]

[student: It’s sort of a definition on tautology in there, where…not to waste
your time, anyway]

But, but the thing is…so, you, you perceive those things around you. That’s fine.
That’s not…we’re not negating that. We’re not negating that the thing…the
flower appears to you, and you see it. That’s fine. That’s the way the flower
exists…conventionally. Okay? You see that. But, if I ask you…by, by the way,
that’s what’s really goin on, but if I ask you what’s going on, you would say,
“Oh, yeah, the flower’s out there…the flower’s out there. It’s not part of my eye
or part of my brain or whate…it’s, it’s out there on its own.”

[student: Are you saying it’s out there independent, not dependent on my
perceiving…]

Yeah. On its own. Yeah independent of me. It’s out there. It exists over there…
independent of my perceptions. Independent of my mind…independent of my
mental images. It, it exists over there…out there on its own. That’s grasping to
self-existence…that’s ignorance. You don’t always think that. You don’t get up
in the morning and drink your coffee and sit there and look at the coffee and
think, “Gee, the coffee’s out there on its own. But, it’s always assumed. It’s
always in your mind. It’s always in the back of your mind. So, I ask you…oh.
So the state of mind, which is holding the coffee cup, is that wrong? Is there a
coffee cup?

[student: no…yes…yes]

But we didn’t get there yet. [laughs] Okay.

[student: But Michael, let’s say that there’s a planet that nobody’s discovered
yet…that nobody has any concept of. Does it exist by their definition?]

According to Buddhism, the definition of existence…and this is off the subject,
okay. You don’t have to write this down…is that which is perceived by a mind
that is not messed up. If any state of mind or any consciousness can be aware of
the thing, and any method, don’t forget…deduction…then the thing exists.

[student: Let’s say nobody’s even [unclear]]

The Buddha is omniscient.

[student: Oh, so…]

The Buddha perceives all these things.

[student: Because there’s, because there’s so many Buddhas. They’re always
there…]

It doesn’t take so many. It just takes one. [laughs]

[student: But there’s at least one.]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[student: Who’s always perceiving everything.]

He’s {namke}. He’s omniscient. Yeah. At every second he’s perceiving
everything…past, future, present. All, all universes he perceives at one moment.
Therefore, those things exist.

[student: But if you say that…]

Even things which no other being is aware of…

[student: If the coffee cup doesn’t exist without me perceiving it, isn’t that
very…It sounds very selfish to me that nothing can exist that I can’t see. It
seems like the opposite. That seems [unclear] asking.

No. All they’re saying is that the coffee cup exi…you are contributing to the
existence of the cup.

[student: But if, if everybody else was in the room and the coffee cup was here,
and I left, I’m saying because I leave the coffee cup doesn’t exist. That sounds…]
[student: No, No, No…we already] [laughter]

We didn’t say that. The coffee cup’s still [unclear]. Someone is still seeing the
coffee cup.

[student: Oh, it doesn’t have to be you.]

No, no, no.

[student: Anybody.]

No, no. That’s our question, because there are Buddhas in the universe…
perceives all things that exist. Therefore, those things exist.

[student: What you’re saying though, right…]

Things that no man will ever see. You know. A little dirt cloud on the other
hal…side of Pluto. You know. It’s there, because the Buddha perceives it.

[student: But what you’re saying, if I understand it correctly, is that coffee cup
no longer exists for her, cause she’s left the room…she’s not thinking about it…
she’s not seeing it..]

No. She has a remembrance of it. She has a…that, that is also a kind of {la-nu-
mey}. Her memory of it…

[student: So once you perceive…]

[student: So all our mental functions are…I mean all our thinkings are part of it]

Don’t think that direct perception is the only way to perceive something. We’re
gonna study that a lot…you know…deduction, belief of a, of a, of a authoritative
process…Those are all ways to perceive something. So, I ask you again…so I’ll
go around the room and check.

[laughter]

So, [laughs]

[student: The answer is yes.]
[laughter]

I always start on the left. According to the svatantrikas, what are the two things
that have to be present for me to perceive those flowers?

[student: That I have to se…perceive it and the one before that I blanked.]

And they have to appear to you.

[student: And they have to appear.]

Their job is to appear to me. My job is to see them. If both of us are doing our
job, they exist.

[student: Why do we have to say, “We” or “I”, wouldn’t it be better is [unclear]]

Everybody…okay…somebody.

[student: That’s what’s confusing everybody here.] [laughter]

Okay. So, Nina, if I, if I’m being very insistent, and I’m saying, “There must be
two things there.” It has to be appearing to me, and I have to be seeing it for it
to exist. Why am I…Who am I trying to argue with? What do other people
think? What do people think who never heard about all this? If I say how does
that… those flowers exist?

[student: Think they’re crazy.]

[laughs] [laughter]

They, they would say they exist, what…

[student: What is your…]

[student: They, they exist on their own.]

[student: Independently of you, on their own]

Yeah. Out there on their own. Okay?
[student: Self-existent.]

Yeah. Okay? That’s what we’re trying to deny. That is {gakja}. Anything that
could exist out there on it’s own is what we deny in this school.

[student: I guess a really strong {gakja} is growing here.

[laughter]

[student: My mind keeps saying, “Well, they’re in the field; they’re growing.
I’ve never seen them. Certainly they’re growing…]

The Buddha sees them.         And you, and you’re seeing them right now by
deduction. You’re…

[student: At this point…]

By…No. Right now you’re seeing by deduction, a field from which flowers,
these flowers came, which you deduced, probably correctly, that they are other
similar flowers growing there. And you have a, you have a mental picture of
this field with the flowers, and there’s a little one-foot hole in there because
someone pulled out these flowers. That’s a perception. That’s fine.

[student: My point is that that past doesn’t spring to reality just because I all of a
sudden deduced it at this moment in time.]

Yeah it does if your deduction is, is, is airtight, which it’s not. If it were airtight,
you, you could say that, that they really do exist. But, but you know, we don’t
really know. Maybe this was gone, maybe they plowed it under. You know
maybe these were grown in a, in a greenhouse. You’re deduction is, is not
airtight. I mean, your perception right now…of the field from which these
flowers grew is, is probably slightly faulty because you’re making so…They’re
so many…

[student: Assumptions}

What you call it? They’re so many variables in this picture that we can’t really be
sure what, what, what the place looked like when we have our school from
[unclear]. But you…but we can be sure with airtight deduction that there was
some kind of earth that was watered and then some heat. You can deduce that
perfectly, correctly. There was those things. There was a place like that.
We’re…and you are perceiving it, and it is appearing to you, and therefore it
exists.

[student: My point is I just deduced it at this moment in time, and so, but it just
didn’t spring to reality and happen just because I deduced it at this moment in
time.]

[student: Get away from the “I”. Somebody has. The Buddha has.]

The person who grew the flowers did. Right? Then it existed. It exists.

[student: As long as anybody [unclear].]

Yeah. That’s a good point.

[student: What is the “deduct?”]

“Deduct” means, I hear the dog barking. I think that man must have walked
outside. I can’t see the man, but the dogs are barking, so I can, I can think, “Oh,
the dogs are barking, so the guy must be outside. There must be some guy
there. So, I am seeing that guy, but only by deduction. I’m not seeing him with
my eyes. I’m seeing him with my mind. And it’s dangerous. Deductions are
more dangerous than direct perception. [laughs] ‘Cause maybe he’s not there;
maybe something else happened. Maybe [unclear]

[student: …come out with a gun and shoot somebody who’s coming into your
park…]

[student: You mean imagine? Deduction? Which is thinking…]

Deduction means perceiving something because you have a good reason.
Perceiving something with your mind because you have a good reason. The
good reason is what? The dog is barking. And what do I see? I see some man
walking around…

[student: It’s an educated guess.]

[laughs]
Okay…awful quiet…Maybe you need to take a break.

[laughter]

Take a break and then, and then we’ll…And then what, what he’s going to do is
what the book does is they, they give a common example. They give a
metaphor. They’re gonna talk about a magic show and how the thing happens.
And that’ll help, that’ll help a lot for you to understand what it’s talking about. I
remember wha…

[student: Everybody uses the magic show example.]

[student: It’s a clear one.]

Yeah. Well it appears in a sut…in a, in a, it comes from a scriptural source.
That’s why [unclear]. Different people explain it differently. Okay. Take a
break. Have some cookies.

[student: Have some non-existent cookies.]

[laughter]

[student: Do you say the old traditional magic, which probably no-one’s seen in
a long time…]

Yeah though this is real magic.

[student: [laughter] [unclear] …we know of]

Okay. So that’s, so they say there has to be two things going on. What are they?

[student: There has to be an audience.]

No. For the horse, for the horse, for the appearance of the horse to be there.
What has to be going on? For you to see a horse, what has to be goin?

[student: The spell?]

The wood has to appear as a horse, and you have to see it as a horse.
[student: So you’re sayin the basis and the perceiv…]

There has to be something appearing as a horse, and then there has to be a state
of mind that thinks it sees a horse.

[student: But that appearing, I thought you said that that existed, but…]

Now, wait. Let me go one more step, and then if…see if it answers what you’re
saying. They say, if the…the svatantrikas, right, in their example, they say, if the
thing were not appearing as a horse, then what? [laughs]

[laughter]

[student: You wouldn’t see it.]

What was it? Then everything could appear as a horse.

[student: What?]

If it didn’t take…if it didn’t take the piece of wood to, t…If the piece of wood
didn’t have to be there, to appear as a horse, then, then you’d, then you would
see horses everywhere where there wasn’t any piece of wood also.

[student: Say that again.]

If seeing this horse didn’t depend on this looking like a horse, then everything
you looked at would look like a horse to you. Therefore, they say the first
component is very necessary. It’s necessary for the flowers to appear as flowers.
If me seeing flowers didn’t depend on those flowers appearing as flowers, then
everything I looked at would seem to be flowers. So there must be something in
the object that looks like flowers. That’s what they’re…I guess let’s boil it down
to that. There has to be something out there that is appearing as a flower.
Otherwise everything would appear as a flower to you.

[student: Or everything could appear like a flower.]]

Should appear. Why not? If it didn’t take any flowerness out there for a thing to
appear as a flower, then everything you look at would be a flower.
[student: So then you derive that something in there has to look like a flower for
it to look like a flower?]

Right. They say there must be something flower about it out there, or else
everything would appear like a flower.

[student: Assuming that you have an unimpaired that the perceiver has an
unimpaired consciousness.]

[student: And so it exists but not of its own…]

Right. Right. What they’re saying…they keep saying there have to be two
conditions going on [unclear]. There has to be something flower out there. If, if,
if something…if I could see flowers without anything flowerish out there, then I
could see flowers everywhere. Who said [unclear]?

[student: Ariel]

Why? Why do you say…?

[student: Well, because you may just mistake the object.]

We’re talking {nu-mey}.

[student: Correct perceptions.]

[student: [unclear] consciousness]

[unclear] I want to make sure I’ve got this right. You’re the first class I teach
about this.

[laughter]

SIDE 2

Yeah. Good. Are you all right? If it didn’t…If I didn’t need the appearance of
the piece of wood to see a horse…if there didn’t have to be a stick there to
appear as a horse, everything I look at could appear as a horse.

[student: That example seems more confusing than not.]
It’s a very tough example…

[student: But it’s good though.]

Cause there’s a lot of other things going on.

[student: Cause there’s the magic.]

There’s no horse.

[student: There’s no horse.]

Right. That’s tough.

[student: So then it’s the first part of that, of that thing.]

[laughs] [laughter]

[student: The first part of that then appearing to me doesn’t apply to that
situation, because there isn’t a thing that it has horseness or whatever it, it but…]

Right. You’re right.

[student: …it’s only, it’s only what you’ve been, it’s only what’s in your mind.]

[student: In that case your impaired mind.]

If it’s only what’s in your mind, then he wouldn’t need the stick. He’s made; he’s
turning the stick…he’s doing a spell on your eyes, and then the stick is appearing
as a horse. But it’s not only depending on…there has to be a stick out there to
appear as a horse. Yeah, you can say that it should have been appearing as a
stick. That’s a little confusing. The point is that there’s, there’s, there is
something out there to appear as a…

[student: But first it appears as a stick, and then he makes a spell, and then it
appears as a horse.]

Right, right. Okay? So. Suppose the second condition weren’t there. What’s the
second condition?
[student: You see that it’s a horse.]

You’re seeing. Yeah. You’re seeing it as a horse. What, well “why” we’ll get into
later. If that weren’t there, then what’s the problem?

[student: Then how would you know it was flowers?]

He says here…

[student: How would anybody know it was flowers?]

[laughter]

What, what you need is the state of mind under a spell to see the horse. What if
the state of mind under a spell wasn’t there? What would happen?

[student: You’d see a stick.]

You’d see a stick.

[student: In the state of mind…]

What happens when somebody else walks up later who wasn’t there when the
spell was cast? All these people are running away from this horse, and he’s
saying, “Well, what’s goin on? There’s just a stick there.” So, they say you need
the state of mind, which sees it also--which is under the spell.

[student: Excuse me. And how important is the stick in this, in this thing?]

The stick is fifty percent. The stick has to be appearing as a horse.

[student: It can’t just be…]

[student: “poof” there’s a horse without a stick. Right?]

No. No. This is the concept of, of the, of emanation in magic--is that you need to
work with some “thing,” that you, you make the thing…there, this is just a
principle of all Indian magic—that you got to have a “thing” that you cast a spell
on everybody, and they see the “thing” as a horse. There must be some “thing”
out there. Otherwise, you can’t cast a spell. What are…what’re they gonna see
as a horse?

[student: Yeah, but Michael, wasn’t it…what’s it, what’s it]

This is the idea of {truku} of emanation. There has to be something to appear as
a thing. You know. We could all wish as…tryin’ to show herself as a beautiful
lady, and because she has some spell…but there has to be the wick of a witch
there to start…

[student: But [unclear] just sit in meditation in a cave for enough years, you
create a {truku} without anything.]

No.

[student: Yeah, what about Milareypa?]

What are you talk…what are you… [laughs]

[laughter] [unclear]

I’m not talkin’ about religious [unclear] {truku}; I’m talking about when a person
can make himself appear as a bird, or a person can make himself appear as a fox.
That’s…that’s…there has to be a person to appear as a fox. So there has to be
some material that appears as the thing. So then we got three, three people
involved in this thing. Does the magician see the horse?

[student: No.]

[student: Yes, maybe.]

[unclear] He was there when the spell was cast.

[student: But he knows it’s not a horse.]

So he doesn’t believe it. Now, now we’re gettin a very distinct thing. Okay?
Now we’re to the interesting part.

[student: He sees it but he doesn’t believe it.]
We’re talkin about three different people here.     Let’s talk first about the
spectators, who were there when the spell was cast. That’s the first person we
want talk about. The people, who were there when the spell was cast. Do they
see a horse?

[student: Yes.]

Do they believe there’s a horse there?

[student: Yes.]

Yeah. Okay. They believe the stick is turned into a horse. They believe there’s a
horse there, and they see a horse there. Sound familiar?

[student: Yes.]

[student: So they wouldn’t be able to…they wouldn’t be able to have the horse
appear unless they believed it.]

[student: No.]

That’s not true, because the second person we’re gonna talk about is the
magician himself. Does he see a horse? Was he there when the spell was cast?

[student: He sees a horse, but he doesn’t believe…]

He sees it, but he knows there’s no such thing there. Okay. It’s an illusion. He
knows it’s an illusion. He cast the spell; he was there when the holy words were
spoken. We’re gonna talk about, by the way, how that’s suppose to be able to
work. [laughs] No, we will. It’s the last subject of this class—the mantra. It’s
actually “mantra.” The word “mantra” comes from those old days. He, he can
say some special words, and then everyone in the place will see a horse. How
can that happen? We’re gonna talk about it. So, he, he’s also heard the words,
and he also sees a horse. But he knows it’s not real. So now you’ve got two
kinds of people—one is the spectators who were there when the spell was cast…
they, they see a horse, and they believe the horse is there. Then you have the
magician. He was there when the spell was cast. He sees a horse, but he doesn’t
believe it’s real. Now what about Joe Blow, who walks up ten minutes later after
the spell was cast, and he sees all this big…in India it’s great…You see this big
ring of people, and you know what’s going on. There’s a magician in the middle
of the, of the crowd, you know, and we always try to get in to see [unclear], and,
so you get in later, and you look down there, and he’s going like this…and
there’s a stupid little stick on the ground…everybody’s going…you know.
That’s, that’s the third person. Does he see a horse?

[student: No.]

Does he believe in the horse?

[student: No.]

No. Okay. Now who do you think those three people correspond to?

[student: The spectator’s a regular sentient being. The magician is beings
who’ve perceived emptiness…yeah…who intellectually understand emptiness?]

Well. We’ll talk about it. The, the, the first peop…You’re right, are people who
have not perceived emptiness. The book doesn’t say “directly.” Okay. But you
can, you can explain it either way. But, basically, someone who has no idea of
emptiness. He sees things as self-existent, and he believes they are. I’m sorry,
the book does say…it does say {salsen kewa}—person who has not perceived
emptiness directly. He sees it as self-existent, and he believes it is self-existent.
He’s like the person who is there when the spell is cast—the spectator. Then, the
second one, the magician, is…the, the example they give in the book is someone
at the three last {bhumis}.

[student: [unclear] means ten?]

That’s the ninth, right?

[student: Eight to ten.]

Oh, that was in…kind of {bodhichitta}. No, we’re just talking eight, nine, ten.
Okay. {Bhumis}

[student: When he said b-o-o-m-e-s?]

B-h-u-m-i.

[student: Oh, dear.]
[laughs]

[student: b-h-…]

U-m-i. But don’t worry about it. They…According to the book, they see things
as self-existent, but they don’t believe it. That’s not what I told you.

[student: Right.]

But this is, this is {svatantrika}. I’m still…

[student: Would you fall into that category, Michael?]

I’m still researching what the {prasengykas} think. Huh?

[student: [unclear]]

{Svatantrikas.}

[student: …Would we fall into that category?]

[student: What they said.]

{Prasengykas}

[student: Oh.]

Yeah. But I, I adjust it now. I mean, this is clearly…the book clearly says that, at
this point, that those people on that stage…{bodhisattvas} on that last three
{bodhisattva} levels, see, but they don’t believe it…when they are not in
emptiness meditation.

[student: When they’re not…]

This is when they’re walking around after they’re…

[student: They don’t have any [unclear]]

We’re gonna talk about that. I’m saying people on the last three {bhumis}, who
are not in direct perception of emptiness, see things as self-existent, but don’t
believe it. They know they’re wrong.

[student: Michael. Can I ask you a question?]

Say one more time…

[student: Yes, thank you.]

[student: Would we fall into that category?]

Probably not if you haven’t seen emptiness directly.

[phone rings]

[student: You must have seen emptiness directly then.]

Sure. This is very high level—just, just before Buddhahood.

[student: Hello?]

Push the top, lefthand button.

[student: Hello? Hi.

[laughter]

Okay. So it’s those [unclear].

[student: So you’re…it’s someone who perceived emptiness in deep meditation
and comes out of it and knows that what they’re seeing…that’s the one who
cannot help himself…]

Right. Right. Despite himself he sees [unclear] but he doesn’t believe it. He’s
the? He’s the magician…magician, he, he knows there’s no horse there, but he
can’t help it. He sees a horse.

[student: And the newcomer…]

Now, how about the newcomer? What, what did I say last…
[student: Not the Buddha. The Buddha sees the stick…sees the stick and the
horse. See the way everything else…]

Good, good. You know, I was wondering why is wasn’t the Buddha, and that’s
pretty good reason why no. Yeah. He sees the stick and the horse.

[student: And the Buddha’s seeing it as a stick would not depend on them not
having been there…]

So who doesn’t see, who doesn’t see either? Who, who is it that doesn’t see
either? Who doesn’t…I’m sorry, who doesn’t believe there’s a horse and who
doesn’t see a horse either. Who is the guy who came later? All he sees is a big
crowd of…

[student: [unclear] emptiness meditation]

No. Exactly. Precisely. It’s a person who’s in the direct perception of emptiness.
And they say a non-Buddha who’s in the direct perception of emptiness.

[student: Yeah]

A non-, a non-Buddha sentient being…a non-Buddha living being, who’s
perceiving emptiness directly.

[student: But that’s not even necessary because the Buddha doesn’t have to go
into a state of meditation to perceive emptiness directly.]

That’s true. But they call it a state of meditation. [unclear] They are like the
spectator who came later. They don’t see things as self-existent, and they don’t
believe things are self-existent.

[student: So, [unclear] they are looking at the stick; they are perceiving actually
emptiness. Is that what you’re saying? It’s like perceiving emptiness [unclear].]

Well now we’re kinda; I don’t know. I don’t think you can, I don’t think you can
stretch the metaphor…

[student: I mean, is it like a parallel; it would be the same…]
Well, I don’t know; they don’t go farther than that; they just want to compare
those three people to those three people. They don’t talk about…

[student: The person in the crowd who sees both the stick and the…]

…the deception that’s going on. I believe, my, my feeling is that you could say
that the spell is our tendency to see things as self-existent maybe? What do you
think?

[student: Proceeds or something?]

It is {dongzin}. It is ignorance. It makes you think that something’s been, and
it’s not there. But, the perception is not ignorance. It’s seeing a horse. But, that’s
a, that’s another…

[student: …a little different]

[student: Seeing a horse but then the…taking it one step further and believing
that you’re really seeing a horse in two different things in this case. Right?]

So, we’ll recap. Does the flo…is, is the vase with the flower what we deny exists?
No. Because it ex…it ex…everything is okay. It’s appearing as flowers, and I’m
seeing it as flowers, and my mind is not messed up. I’m not drunk; I’m not
hallucinating…normal state of mind; and those flowers are appearing to me;
therefore, the flowers exist. If the flowers…any flower, which could exist out
there, on its own, without my participation, is…would be {gakja} because that’s
the opposite of the way it really exists.

[student: Without anyone [unclear]]

Right. Okay. Okay. Okay? That’s, that’s what they say the {gak…}…that’s
what {gakja} is. {Gakja} means “the thing we deny.” So, how does it apply to
your real life? I, I say that whenever you have an emotion, which would cause
you to do something wrong, it is aimed at a {gakja}. It is directed at a thing that
doesn’t even exist. And, and the proof of that is, you know, when someone
comes up to you and says, “So-and-so is bad. He’s a bad person.” And you say,
“Well, he’s, he’s, I kinda like him.” And then they say, “No, no. He’s bad. He’s,
he’s, his nature is bad.” Then I say, “Well, how could I like him. Could he, could
he, does he have a good nature and a bad nature at the same time, or am I not
see…” Normally, the person will say, “Oh, you don’t perceive the truth. He’s
really bad. And, you, you, you just haven’t seen what he’s done to me.” That’s,
that’s ignorance, and, and it’s only that state of mind that believes itself that can
have an anger, because if you understood that he’s what? Blank. He’s blank.
He’s a blank screen. If you understood that, then you can’t get angry at him,
because you know who’s projecting--who makes him bad. You are. Would you
want to shoot yourself in the toe, it’s okay. But, but don’t shoot him. It’s not his
fault; he’s blank.

[student: So you can still get angry, you just have to change the focus of the
anger to yourself.]

Well, if you’re gonna get anger, the only proper anger, which is called “regret”,
is sadness—thinking “Well, why did I do that?” You know.

[student: You’re pissed at yourself too…]

You’re pissed in a way that you kinda…to be pissed would be seeing yourself as
self-existent in a way. It’s just this kind of calm sadness about did I…I messed
up, therefore, I’m having to see this thing, and by goodness, now that I know…
understand Buddhism…I, I, I absolutely will not respond in the normal way,
because that’s exactly what would make me see him again…what would force
me to see him again.

[student: Just going with, just going with what you define though as the
dependence of this thing…you have the two components—the thing out there
and you perceiving them with an unimpaired mind—you could have the person
out there; you could be perceiving them as bad…two components are there.
You can still have that anger, badness, whatever—just from the vase definition it
seems [unclear]]

[unclear] I know what you’re saying. According to Svatantrika…]

[student: Yeah, and you’re per…so, adding on all the other stuff outside this
definition…]

He’s bad out there…no. I can’t…once I admit my participation, I can’t be angry.
I think.

[student: Well, you could, you could say, “I perceive him as bad.            It’s my
perception.”
Which I’ve, which I’ve caused.

[student: Well the aren’t you adding on to the definition with the…what the
cause of the definition is. That’s outside the definition.]

What’s making me see the flowers?

[student: What’s causing your perception.]

Of the flowers. Yeah. That’s why you have to throw in the {ovitara}. [laughs]

[laughter]

Which is accepted by the other schools. That part of the {ovitara} is accepted by
everybody. In a…the same seed is creating that appearance, and it’s creating my
perception. The same karmic seed is creating both. That’s their main point. So,
{gakja}, the, the, the benefit of {gakja} is that you can’t be angry anymore.
Because the thing you’re angry at…if…what I’m saying is very interesting…If
you can get anger, or if you can get desire, particularly to the point that you
would hurt somebody, to get away or to get something…You’re focused on a
thing that doesn’t even exist. Whatever you want or whatever you hate doesn’t
even exist. And, that’s the way that, that emptiness can help you. Not, not, it’s
not to believe that he doesn’t exist or anything else. Obviously, he exists. The
Buddha doesn’t say try to pretend that this asshole, excuse me, at work doesn’t
exist. You can pretend that all you want, and he’s still gonna be there the next
day. And that’s obvious, so why, why knock your head out over a…you know,
this idea of emptiness that says he doesn’t exist. Cause the next day when you
go to work, he’s still gonna be there. You know. And that’s not the point. He’s
blank; you’re cre…you’re forced by your past deeds to see him as the way you
do. And, if you don’t like it, then stop doing bad deeds. Don’t, don’t try to…
don’t try to hurt him.

[student: The way to identify the flowers is that it has a characteristic of being
about this large, and it has this pink color, and it doesn’t wiggle a lot and maybe
it’s a perfume. And the way I perceive your boss is that he’s about yea tall, and
he’s a little overweight, and he’s got this weird look on his face, and he keeps
yelling. Now what is it about him that doesn’t exist?]

Any yellingness or any ugliness to me, which is not coming about through my
own perception. And that’s exactly what Svatantrika’s trying to say.

[student: I’m sorry. I need you to say that again please.]

They’re trying to say he’s not independent of my perceptions of him.

[student: No, but, you said, you asserted that the flower exists, and we’ve
asserted that your boss exists.]

There, there is an existence of my boss out there, but it…]

[student: He’s also yelling.]

Right, and he’s yelling, but it can’t exist without my participation.

[student: Well…]

[student: So, if you weren’t there, he wouldn’t be yelling.]

[laughter]

Not at me.

[laughter]

[student: This is potentially a ray illusinating, and I think there’s a very slender
something here that we’re really illuminated on, I wish that you could pursue it,
because identify the flowers by characteristics that we…it’s, it’s, you know… the
sociologists call it a you know whatever…a conception type of…]

No. Right. No. It’s…that’s exactly how…

[student: So, we identify your boss by his disagreeable behavior even though
I’ve never met this person, I now understand that he makes everyone think he’s
disagreeable…]

No. There is no such person. I’m just using the example. In fact, there is not
such person in, in this particular…in my particular job, but, but, but anyway, I’m
just saying…
[student: The, the stick has an existence; the flower has an existence, and the
boss has an existence…]

Oh, no. He looks angry, and I see him as angry. That’s fine. And, he’s an angry
man. But, he’s not really angry; he’s a horse.

[laughter]

He appears to be a horse because of the spell, and I see him as a horse because of
the spell, but he’s [unclear].

[student: [unclear] a stick again [unclear]]

He’s not really an angry man by himself.

[student: When he becomes a stick, what is he?]

Then I stop getting angry, and then I don’t do any bad deeds, and then I reach
nirvana.

[student: And it doesn’t matter what he is.]

[student: And he stops yelling?]

[student: Is the answer.]

No. He, he yells.

[student: But what about like {le-pay} on trouble with, it’s all, it’s all not [unclear]
keep saying he’s blank. He’s not blank. There is something there. It may be
very subtle…]

Absolutely. There is a redness of his face. There is a loud volume…louder than
normal. Okay?

[laughter]

But that it’s an angry man…It, it can’t be that until I see it that way.

[student: Well, what is it that you have imputed to [unclear]
He could be singing a chorale, you know. If I had the karma to see it that way,
he would be.

[student: But don’t…Isn’t there this concept of there being some sort of a
consensus]

In fact, what I just said, what I just said is, is how I can change reality. It’s how I
can reach nirvana. If it weren’t the way I just described it, nirvana is impossible.
And in particular, secret Buddhism is impossible.

[student: That wouldn’t be possible [unclear] if you, if you, you saw somebody
angry, right…but it did not affect you, I mean like, your boss was yel…was
yelling at you, but it did not phase you, you know really, you really…]

His Holiness gave a good example. He said, “If you see…a guy comes up with
two fruits”…I read this in some article somewhere. He comes up with two fruits
and one is kinda moldy and one is really bright…and, and he takes the bright
and clean one, and he gives you the moldy one…he what he said was something
like, “You wouldn’t really perceive…you wouldn’t really have any sense of
injustice if you didn’t care about the fruit.” You know what I mean…if you
didn’t…if you weren’t attached to the…eating it, you might not even see the
difference.

[student: So then the relevance of the flowers…]

[student: If it’s attachment…]

[student: You would see the difference, but it wouldn’t matter…]

[student: Yeah, but, you may see somebody who’s angry…]

What I’m saying is…

[student: …but it’s not gonna affect you]

…if you, if you have a boss who screams at you, but it doesn’t push your
buttons, that’s your karma. You have the karma to see something a little bit
unpleasant, but you don’t have the karma to, to have a very bad experience all
day.
[student: So, is that person, is that person a nasty person?]

Of course he is. A slightly nasty person.

[student: So, you say he exists because you see it though.]

[student: Can you tell me the difference between…]

Sure.

[student: making a value judgment and…]

No. I mean, if you wanna get deeper, if you wanna get deeper, even the fact that
he’s there, which is not what I wanna get into right now, but even the fact that
he exists, even the fact that the redness and the loudness are there…see you go
down to each level.

[student: So is it true…]

One is he being…

[student: …that objects other than sentient beings have this same…]

Sure. Sure. This house, I mean, you can, you can think this is a very nasty area
or you can think it’s a great area, cause it has a dharma center here. It’s
emptiness…

[laughter]

[laughs]

[student: I need to hear one thing again. You said, “He’s blank. I’m forced by
my past deeds to see him this way. If I don’t like it, then…]

Be good…because you cannot change the current condition. It’s a result…that’s
a principle of Buddhism. You cannot change the result. You have to plant new
causes.

[student: So, you’re good to avoid having this happen in the future.]
Right. Self-interested morality. But, but don’t think that Buddhism ever
[unclear]. Buddhism doesn’t say that once the sprout came out of the earth that
you can, you know, “Get back down there.”…you know…”Get back in
there.”…you know. It’s ridiculous. It’s, it’s…we will never happen. Once you’re
suffering, it’s too late…to do anything. All you can do is work about the future.
And that’s this big misconception that Buddhists, you know. If he’s a good
Buddhist, and he meditates real good, you know, and then the next time
something [unclear] at him, he can stay calm or something like that. It’s not the
point. I want a world where no one ever yells at me. So, I don’t have to stay
calm about it. And it will come. Cause I’m good.

[student: I have a question. How can you fight injustice, if you don’t perceive
evil? Okay, if you see, you see…]

Yeah. I have this. I have this. I have this.

[student: …and you say, oh, he’s all right, I’m not gonna let him get to me…so
he murdered six million people, he’s a communist…go, or like [unclear]…I
mean, if you’re so neutral to, and you don’t respond to anything with any anger,
how are you gonna fight anything?]

That’s what the idea of lower nirvana is. There’s a difference between that and
Buddhahood. Okay? So, in Buddhahood…the point is that once you reach
nirvana, even if you wanted to suffer, you couldn’t…okay? Whatever Lee Pins
or Hitlers there are in the universe, whatever they can do, remember [unclear].
They can never cause any suffering. Are you aware that they exist and that
they’re hurting other people, and that other people have the karma to have
Hitler kill them? Yes. And you fight against that, but you fight against it by
teaching him…morality.

[student: Now, you just cast Hitler as this evil character, and it’s all coming from
you. I mean, that’s the way you…]

No. No. The Buddha is aware of how sentient beings see…I read this…there’s
this biography out in that days about Hitler’s girlfriend who made movies, and
she loved him…

[student: Lindy Rafichdahl]
Yeah. I mean, come on.

[student: Well, there’re always a few…]

[laughs]

No. The Buddha is never affected by the Hitlers of the universe. He cannot be…
he cannot suffer. He perceives you perceiving them hurting you, yes. And he’ll
do whatever he can do that you don’t have to have them hurt you anymore.

[student: But he sees them as being equal to you.]

[student: He still sees them…if you couldn’t discriminate between things that
were harmful…]

I didn’t say that.

[student: …and things that weren’t]

I didn’t say that. They’ll never harm you.

[student: But, if you talk about an angry man, that angry man is potentially
harmful. Just because you don’t get angry back doesn’t make him less angry.]

Oh. Should you, should you take steps to restrain a person who is harmful? Of
course. That’s a good deed.

[student: But, then you have to acknowledge that he’s angry. That it’s not all
coming from your…Do you see what I mean? You have…]

If, if you can perceive that…you can perceive that he’s hurting someone else,
yes, you have to do something.

[student: Or intends to hurt you.]

But how can you really prevent him from hurting someone else?

It’s…

[student: Kill him.]
This is the [unclear].

[laughter]

Now I tell you again, and I’ll tell you many times before the five years are over,
and maybe after that. If I lie in a diamond negotiation, and the guy takes the
bait, and he sells it to me too cheap, what caused the profit?

[student: Something in your past lives.]

Yeah. I…good, good can never come from bad, period. You, you hear it a
thousand times, and one day it will dawn on you. You know. It’s impossible
that a bad action would ever create any good result. It’s impossible that a good
action can ever have a bad result.

[student: No. But the result…]

So. If this angry man that you talk about is harming someone else, I had to of
come about through some harm that that person did. So, is, is me killing him
going to stop the harm…to the other person? Is, is me killing that person…does
that stop the source of the harm to the other person?

[student: No.]

[student: It postpones it.]

[student: No. They’ll have it again; they’ll meet it again.]

Doesn’t necessarily postpone it. It could just happen the next second anyway.

[student: Well then why did this story about the…]

The, the ship captain. He killed him for his own benefit…for that guy’s…

[student: Right. Well, that, that’s the other question too in the same thing.
Wouldn’t it prevent them from accumulating that karma?

[student: If he’s got the karma to kill that many people, it was just being
postponed.]
[student: Then you’re just puttin it off, huh?]

No. They had the karma to have the Buddha kill the man before they died
because of him.

[student: Yeah, but the guy who was killed…]

[laughs]

[laughter]

He had the karma to be killed by the man.

[student: They were saved.]

[student: Going back to the example [unclear].]

[student: You can always, I mean, that’s sort of a…]

No. It’s the truth, and again, it’s one of those things [unclear].

[student: You can say if I ran out there and grabbed a child who was running
around out in the street…you might say, “Well, you didn’t save that child. It was
that child’s karma not to get run over.”]

In fact, it must be. It can never be anything else. Yes.

[student: So then what is the…]

The…if you say there’s any other…if you say there’s any other…well, why does
medicine work?

[student: Well, if it wasn’t you, it would have been someone else.]

Why does medicine work? Who was it? Somebody in this room…their uncle
was killed by a dentist.

[student: [unclear]]
No. I mean…he got too much of the stuff, and he died on the chair. Now the…
why does medicine work for some people and kill other people? You, you want
a self-existent goodness in the metaphor. It’s not, it’s not true.

[student: So how do we determine then that helping someone is of benefit? You
know, if we see this person who’s gonna go kill that person, we go to intervene,
and we could…]

[student: Your motivation is…]

[student: [unclear] by that person; therefore, why should I intervene?]

[student: Well, because we’re accumulating virtue for ourselves.]

Mainly…yeah.

[student: Well, that doesn’t sound very…]

It sounds selfish. Well, I’m sorry. I, I know…people have said that, but that’s the
way it works. You, you must help other people.

[student: For your own benefit.]

It, in fact, it’s only gonna…in fact, the main benefit is for you. This my Lama…if
you want to know what Rinpoche would say at this point…he’d say, “Look, the
helping is obviously a factor in the person being saved.” You know, your, your
presence and your making an effort is obviously contributing to the person’s
being saved. It’s not the main cause why the person was saved…because some
people you help get hurt, get hurt anyway, but some people you help get help.
Therefore, it’s not your helping that’s the main cause for them getting help.
Because if it were, every time you help somebody, it will come out good. It is a
factor certainly. It contributes obviously. And, if you didn’t do it, it wouldn’t
happen.

[student: And so in terms of helping them, we’re not really helping them to
benefit them, we’re helping them to benefit ourselves.]

[student: But we’re dedicating it.]

Well, the result is that it benefits you.
[student: But that’s, that essentially then is…]

What is the motivation? The motivation is this…I, I should help them…the main
reason is that I can become a Buddha, cause then I can really help people.
Because then I can read their minds; I can teach them exactly what they need. I
can appear any way, any time, without any effort, exactly the way they need.

[student: You still can’t change their karma.]

No. You can by, you can teach them…

[student: To change their future karma.]

Yeah.

[student: Yeah, but will they be actually learning it or will it just be their karma
to see you, and, and respond favorably? I mean that’s…]

They’re not contradictory.

[student: So then, when you see, when you see the boss, who’s the jerk,
[unclear] use your word. But when you see the boss who’s the jerk, okay…]

Well, if you ever met this person, you wouldn’t say that.

[student: …And you don’t respond negatively, you know, if you don’t get
angry yourself in return, is that free will takin advantage of what you’ve learned,
or is that just inevitable, you’ve got the karma to see this angry boss, but
simultaneously have the karma not to be angry, or is it both of those things at
the same time?]

You, you have the karma that the teachings affect you to the point where you do
the intelligent thing at that moment.

[student: So, it, it could have gone either way. It depends on whether you utilize
the teaching that you…]

Well, that’s what the Dalai Lama says.
[student: Well, free will does come in.]

[laughs]

[student: Well, he said something about Sadam Hussein also.]

Where does the free will come from?

[student: Karma.]

Yeah.

[student: He said Sadam Hussein was probably a bad man, but his heart went
out to him because we supplied him with all those arms. What were we doing?
What were we thinking?]

[student: Did he say tha…abortion…he can’t understand people killing…I mean
having abortion…How’d we understand that?]

I don’t…

[student: Under certain circumstances.]

I don’t think that’s…I don’t even think under certain circumstances. Frankly, I
don’t think so. I’ve never seen that in any magazines…

[student: So, so he talks about abor…I don’t know if you’ve read the arti…Did
you read the article, Michael?]

Yeah.

[student: It talks…it sounds like from what he…from what I read…talks about
abortion [unclear].]

[student: This is why I have a problem with this free will concept and karma,
you know, because ultimately the free will is, is [unclear] karma.]

We’ll study it. The abhidharmists say that there is a will [unclear].

[student: Then not, not everything is the result of karma.]
[student: So therefore, we got problems here.]

[student: …[unclear] or not or be purified or not]

I, I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you just one thing, and then we’ll stop, cause I
don’t like to run over. Your, your problem in conceptualizing it is, is hitting
exactly to the point of self-existence. You are, it’s, it’s, it’s insofar as you still have
a tendency to think things are self-existence, existent, you are having a problem
with this idea. And, I just say that. I don’t, you don’t, I just say that…the, the
thing that’s bugging everybody about this idea…in Tibetan they say, “It strikes
on…sooner or later it boils down to ignorance.” It’s a, it’s a misperception of, of
the real existence. Somewhere in there…the reason it seems to you to be a…
whad they call it…a paradox…is that, is that you still have some perception of
something there. Okay, all right.

[prayer: short mandala]

[prayer: dedication]

By the way, just a few announcements. I want to tell you when the last class will
be and then the final.

[student: Isn’t it exactly six weeks after we started more or less?]

[student: Not really.]

[student: He’s gonna tell us.]

The thirteenth of December, which is two weeks from tonight. There will be no
class. Monday the thirteenth of December, there’ll be no class.