ACI 2 «Буддийское Прибежище», занятие 8

Course 2: Buddhist Refuge
Class Eight

Transcriber: ???
Proofread: May 2003

[prayer: short mandala]
[prayer: refuge]

Okay, does anybody, does anybody wanna ask a specific question they have
about it? Do you have some …

[student: about the text]

[student: unclear]

It doesn’t say that, you know, its not referring to that, it’s not referring to
someone who [unclear] It’s not referring ta, I mean they don’t emphasize, they,
the example … you can’t find, the example doesn’t apply to everything going on
in the, in the show. You can’t find … just leave it with the, with the three states
of mind. Don’t try to figure out what [unclear] you know, if it doesn’t say … he
probably didn’t want us to worry about it. There’s an, there, there’re other
schools to explain this example differently. [unclear] All he … he’s not, he’s not
emphasizing that at all …he’s saying, after the spell is cast. … it’s, that’s what’s
going on. He doesn’t, he doesn’t emphasize that … I think what might, yeah,
you have a question?

[student M: yeah, I was gonna ask; the two bodhisattvas in the example, of the,
the last two … types … the magician and the spectator are both, in this case
bodhisattvas, right?]

[student M that’s right]

I don’t think tha ... the one whose the …

[student F late-comer? …. New-comer? …

[student M Well the definition in the text describes that the those bodhisattvas
[unclear]]
Yeah the newcomer didn’t, did he say bodhisattva?

[student M That a non-buddha, that a non-buddha]

Okay, just someone who has perceived emptiness directly, doesn’t have to be a
bodhisattva. I don’t see why it should have to be a bodhisattva [unclear] I don’t
think it has to be a bodhisattva

[student F Well why should the second one be?]

[student M Well it distinguishes that the second one is so presumably … ]

Well what I told Ariel was in my opinion it’s just over kill, he, he could have said
first to ten, but he said eighth to ten so you know it’s really …

[student M: Well that just gets, actually even closer to it then …in the … four
divisions that we learned a couple of weeks ago … the last two people in this.
Which of the four divisions do each of those last two … reside upon?]

One to ten …

[student M Ah, no, no! not the {{bumi’s}}, the four divisions]

Oh, it doesn’t apply because what I’m telling you is that, the person who comes
later … is any …any {arya}, after … following …

[student M both of them are an {arya} , two and, and three, the, the magician and
the spectator have to be {aryas} because the definition says, ‘between periods of
realizing emptiness directly’ for the second]

The magician, the [unclear] and the other person …

[student M they’re both {aryas}, that’s a given – but I’m saying, what
distinguishing between the two? Along the lines of the four levels that we
learned?]

No, it doesn’t apply to the four levels

[student F the late comer, the magician ..]
I mean …

[student M it has to apply to the four levels because ]

[student F it does …

[student M level two is an {arya}, so they both have to at least be level two]

But they don’t have to be {bodhisattvas}!

[student F2 but it’s not clear [unclear]]

[student M all right, well it says {bodhisattvas} specifically in the text]

As one example …

[student M right … but if they were {bodhisattvas}]

They were {bodhisattvas} …

[student M then, which of the …]



Second and third.

[student M Second, second and third respectively.]

Not necessarily …

[student M not necessarily …]

No. Second or third in that state of med … in the state of meditation? Or second
or third outside that state of meditation? How’s that?

Mmmm [many talking at once] [student F one is not in correct perception …

[student M It makes it sound like, that the, the magician – Okay - is the one, who
is on the second level; has sees emptiness directly; but while not in mediation
perceiving the emptiness, still sees things as self existent but doesn’t believe it
that way, whereas the third example]
All right that’s why I didn’t publish this thing, I didn’t publish this thing, it’s
probably incorrect on that point – probably the third person also – the third kind
of bodhisattva also sees things as self existent but doesn’t believe it.

[student M so what is it, …]

[student F the newcomer arriving ]

[student M what, what is it that distinguishes between …]

Ah, I’m still working on it. One thing I can tell you … co, correc… exact … you
know

[student F3 Wait a minute, if he’s in the state of mediation on emptiness, he
doesn’t see anything so it’s not even …]

Let me answer his question because he, you, we’re at a different place – what
distinguishes the last three from the first seven is apparently NOT … that, what I
said that, that ah, that they don’t, that things don’t appear to them as self existent
- it’s that … they don’t, they’ve gotten to such a high level in seeing emptiness
but they’ve abandoned … the … bad part - obstacles … but they haven’t
abandoned the … obstacles to omniscience.

[student M which means … that they still ]

That they still appear to them as [unclear]

[student M in two different ways …]

but very, very ,very subtly … that’s, that’s, that’s the only distinction. But I am
still studying it, still not sure, and that’s why I don’t …

[student M Now does that correlate to the, the three examples [unclear] the last
two? It seems to me that it did]

Yeah, I mean it helps, to know those examples but it would really not talking
necessarily about bodhisattvas

[student M well, right.]
[student F are we going to be marked off, [unclear] on the test]

Not at all because I think the author is trying to overkill, think he’s trying to say
…

[student M Keep your mind on the bodhisattva ball]

Much less, someone on the first seven levels, even somebody on the eight, ninth
and tenth levels [unclear]

[student F By excluding him [unclear] ]

Yeah, I don’t think it’s restricted to the last three levels, and that’s what confused
you. And it also confused you because I introduced it wrongly, the first time.
The Prasangika have a different idea about last two levels [unclear] … and I, you
know I went to play my thousand pages of, ah, text on disk, and ah … still not
very clear to me, so I’m still working at it. That’s why I didn’t publish that page.

[student M Well it’s nice to know that ]

I’ve gotten different explanations from different people and I’m not satisfied
with it so I’m gonna study it. And apparently Prasangika and {Svatantrikas}
disagree about it.

[student M Well, thank you for not marking me wrong on the homework and
test, even though, apparently I didn’t get it quite correct.]

All right, any other, ah … yeah, but

[student F The, reading, um, ]

Yeah I don’t expect you to digest all the reading, its good that you read it, and,
and its important that you read it, but if you have any questions, tell me …

[student F well, I mean I just don’t, I just don’t understand like the basic]

Yeah, I don’t think you

[student F Ideas, that are, that are in this paragraph and the basic ideas that are
well, I don’t know if I can even formulate questions, I mean, if you could explain
that paragraph which is [cut] page three of our reading, last week’s reading.]

[student: Top?]

Well, I’ll talk, I’ll talk about a couple things here

[student Top one …]

Um … in this school … what makes things deceptive reality is partly that they
are … perceived by a deceptive state of mind. They emphasize not so much that
there’s a discrepancy between the way things appears and the way the thing is –
is what we have been calling deceptive.

[student] right

But they say that state of mind is… is not … what – that state of mind is not
grasping to them as being self-existent, but it’s infected by that, by grasping to
self-existence, I call it colored.

[student] right

But they say that state of mind is … is not what – that state of mind is not
grasping to them as being self existent but its infected by the, by grasping to self
existence, I call it colored – it, its ah, it’s like a glass … and it’s seeing everything
as rose colored – I mean it’s got sun glasses on, sunglasses are self, grasping to
self existence … but the eyes, there’s nothing wrong with the eyes … the eyes
see flowers, the eyes see the lamp, that’s all correct, there’s no problem with that.
There’s some other thing in the back of your mind when you look at the lamp
that’s wrong, and that’s going on at the same time as the correct state of mind …
which is saying ‘this is a lamp’. That state of mind is called deceptive. So you
think of deceptive mind …

[student] [unclear] just says this is a lamp

Yeah

[student Grasping]

Yeah, it, it happens to be infected by grasping and it, it’s always colored by
grasping but it itself is, is ah not … is not the grasping to self-existence.

[student] But it’s still more than mere appearance]

Yeah an, a, and… and that’s I think one key, an, and Ariel and I were, were
talking about in the car, we were reading the parts that I chalked out I didn’t
want to give you twenty pages … but … but the … it was an interesting thing in
the book it said, “Why do we say that both conditions have to be present? Why
does something have to be coming from that side although not uniquely,
although not by itself. And why is it that something has to come from my side?
Why, why are both things necessary?” And the book says you, [laughing] you
can help me if I don’t get it straight, ah, it has to be, something has to be
appearing to me from, from that side. It has to have a way of existing.



[student] right]

Of it’s own, although not a unique way of existing.

[student] is that where they say there has to be substance but then th…?]

There has to be something appearing to me.

[student yeah]

Because if there weren’t … ahhh,

[student] Then you wouldn’t be in deceptive reality ]

[student you would be self existent]

[laughing]

[student] Would be something to

[student] you’d be mind-only school

now don’t … [unclear]

[student] that’s the other
Yeah, if it were only from my side, and if I said, “pink elephant” and it exists! If I
believed in pink elephants, and if I made up the word ‘pink elephant’, and I had
an imagination, I had a fantasy of pink elephants; that would be enough for
them to exist. If we didn’t require the participation of the thing from its side,
then anything I chose to dream up would exist. So there must be something out
there for the, we, a [unclear] a fact, an existence – it has to be showing something
to me, to, for me to give the name. If it didn’t depend on my side, and this is the
important one in Svantantrika. if that thing could exist on its own, without my
participation, then a person who doesn’t know what a lamp is … and who
doesn’t know the word ‘lamp’ … and doesn’t have any concept of ‘lamp’ … the
minute he looked at that, he’d say, ‘Oh, that’s a lamp.” That thing itself would
suggest ‘lamp’ to everybody. Whether or not they were familiar with a lamp or
not, whether or not they knew the name, whether or not they were able to
discriminate this as a lamp. You know Eskimos see seventeen kinds of white,
seventeen shades of white in the snow, they have seventeen different words for
different kinds of snow which you can’t distinguish. If, if the snow didn’t require
my participation from my side, to be what it is, then in the minute I walked to
Alaska, you know I’m walked down the plane, I’d say, oh, that’s type number
fifteen! You know, because it would be appearing to me as type number fifteen
without my having to name it, or discriminate it, or distinguish it.

[student and that, but is that the grasping or the grasping, is it, ]

No, no no both of these are perf, are fine.

[student fine]

No problem with that. Otherwise we couldn’t live in the world. We couldn’t say
this is this, this is that. The deceptive state of mind in this school, is establishing
relative reality. It’s fine, it’s fine. But they say if you’re gonna tell me, that that
thing has some existence on its own without my participation, well, then, then
you get the seventeen types of snow, but …

[student F OK, but then it [unclear]

Then it would suggest itself to everyone in the same way.

[student Right]
If, if just by appearing, it could exist … if it didn’t require my participation in
finding out the things I, are not non [unclear] you know, delineating it.

[student okay]

That’s what self existence means to them. And that’s very important. Self
existence means to them the lower schools, and most people think that thing’s a
lamp by itself. And they think, that’s why you get into trouble at work. I mean,
that’s why the angry man is, and you swear, you feel great when other people
confirm your opinion of the guy. You say, you say, “he’s really bad” and they
say, “yeah, he’s bad, I’ve seen that too.” [laughing] You get really upset when
you say, “well he seems like a nice guy to me.” And you say, “well, you just
haven’t seen him when he’s bad.” [laughing] [unclear] “you don’t know what’s
going on, you didn’t see what he said to me.” You know ah, that’s, that’s the
root of problems. so that’s {gak-ja}. {Gak-ja} is a, a lamp that could be a lamp
without me knowing it was a lamp. I think that helps clear it up a lot. It does in
my mind, ‘cause I, I have trouble too, ‘n’ you’re the guinea pigs, I told you that
before, [laughing] second time I explain this it [laughs] pretty clear. [laughing]
third time it’s Okay, yeah.

[student] um, what is the flower bringing that makes it possible for me to
perceive it instead of my just saying, “oh! Flower!” So, but it brings something
to..]

Oh, yeah!

[student] and what is that?]

It is, um, … it’s appearing … to your own mind … as, a, as a flower. And if you,
if you, if the existence of a flower did not depend on any objective reality from
the other side … right? Then anything I could imagine would really exist. If it
were only coming from my side then anything I could imagine would really
exist.

[student] So then what is it? [unclear]

There must be something out there. But the normal mistake that people make
and the way you get up from the last school to, or from the lower schools to a
{svatantrika} is, is you graduate by saying, “hey it’s not out there by itself” the
way all of us take it to be. I mean, if I say, “is there flowers over there?” say,
“yes! of course there’s flowers over there.” Would there be flowers if you left?
Yes of course there’d be flowers over there. And they’re flowers out there?
Right! There are, are they, do they exist by themselves? Yes! They don’t require
any from me. They’re, they’re there!” You hold that, you really do hold that
and that’s the root of some problems.

[student] But my question is: ]

Yeah,

[laughing]

No, fine, I mean – question. ‘Cause if you’re still confused I need something

[student] the question is: they bring something with their little purported selves
that make us able to perceive them. I mean they bring their half. Now what is
it, that they are bringing, please?]

You could say, you want this school?

[student] ah, [unclear]

No, ah, No, No they’re bringing [laughs] [laughing] no, they’re bringing a way,
they’re bringing an appearance of flowers. Okay, but not a unique appearance
of flowers. Not such a … not such a … concrete appearance of flowers that
anyone who walked in here would say, “oh daisies, ah, white carnations” ah,
even some African who didn’t know English would, you know, if they had that
strong of an… of an identity, ah, as, as, as you actually … instinctively think they
do, then they would be flowers to everybody. Exactly the same way.

[student] [unclear] telling me but it’s not]

What they bring to you is, a, suggestion of flowers … to the mind … which has
been taught to discriminate flowers.

[student] maybe we could get ]

You wanted to have, you’re asking me – divorce it from my mind, what is it
brining to the situation? And I say you can’t divorce it from you mind.
[student] I don’t even know what the ‘it’ it is that’s bringing the [unclear] but
[laughs]

You want me to say, “Oh the flowers bring their color and shape to the
situation” and then you bring the name and the discrimination of it as flowers.
The point is that they can’t be divorced. They have a way of being which they
are showing to you. But it’s not inherent in them, or unique to them. It’s not so
unique that anyone that came in would, would see them the same way that you
do. And that’s what this, that’s

[student] They have a way that you can]

They are, they do exist - out there …

[student] wha, I don’t wanna take up everybody’s time

[unclear] I wanna clear it because I felt the, the ah, uncertainty, and I had the
uncertainty, and went and studied it.

[student] You’re just saying they have a way of existing …]

Have a way of being …

[student] it would be …]

… from their side. Yeah.

[student] Well, the, they perceive us, too, right?]

They have an appearance. No. [unclear] They are appearing to you, is what I am
saying. It’s not that you were making them up. That’s what I’m trying to say.
On one extreme it’s not that you are making them up, on the other extreme its
not that anyone who walked in here would recognize them to be exactly what
you would recognize them to be. So there’s fifty-fifty – there’s something
coming from their side and something coming from your side – otherwise they
can’t be what they are and that’s what, that’s what they say. And they are
rejecting, primarily - lower schools, and all human beings who wouldn’t, if you
said to the guy on the street the flowers exist over there, do they have their own
existence? Of course! If a guy walked in here who was from some other planet
and never seen flowers before; didn’t know what a flower was; had no name for
a flower – would he s, would there still flowers there? If you say yes, the you
have {gak-ja} What a

[student] do we, do we all bring the same …]

[student M If we say yes? … there’s something there which we designate as
flowers, they would say some, “oh, interesting – something I’ve never seen
before.”]

I don’t think they would even see the, you see they might not even distinguish
those pieces of color from the wall [unclear]

[student M So then there are things in front of us right now that we haven’t seen
before because they’ve come from other planets.]

[unclear] … there’s a white rectangle and there’s some yellow [unclear]

[student M common! They’re not, if they’re myopic and they see in three
dimensions maybe .. [laughing]

[student F [unclear] … come back to your cultural anthropology example they’re
much easier – ‘cause it has to do with culturally determined perceptions like color
and distinguishing types of snow

Even color, even color …

[student F Yeah, I know. But it’s easier than making up people from outer space.

Okay [laughing]

[student 1] What if, what if they, if you were psychic? If you, if you a, could see
something that was actually there but most people around you were not
perceptive enough to see it, you’re not hallucinating – it really is coming to you
but only you could perceive it, how …

that’s acceptable [unclear] that’s acceptable

[student] But then you have to take that person’s word for it that they’re not

well then they, I don’t say that they can communicate with you, but [unclear]
but that [unclear]

Yeah, actually you know you’re not allowed to talk about those things normally
in Buddhism for that reason because there’s no way to prove it to somebody,
they don’t know, there’s no way to prove you’re not lying … you know ….
There’s no way to communicate it to someone else … So they, they discourage
you, you know they say if a monk can perform miracles but he shouldn’t do it
very much because … it, it won’t help other people … It’s, it’s not really any
benefit to the person’s mind, he might have a short … period or phase because
this something amazing happened then he has to go back to his normal state of
mind. Education is better.

[student] [laughs] keep you in school that way [laughs]

[student] let’s say that you, that you … believe this, then how does that help you,
um, get rid of your, [unclear]?

I think, this is a, in my opinion, this is not very clear oftentimes – you know I
mean, when I discovered ah, what Tsongkapa is saying – you know, when I
finally understood what he’s trying to say, ah, I could see how it related to not
getting angry to the guy at work [unclear] I think that’s, that’s the way.
Absolutely. You just realize that … that it’s partly coming from you. Even in
this school, that you are participating – that without you he wouldn’t be an
angry man ….that’s your fault … not his fault. You know, if you’re gonna get
angry get, not angry but get regretful, get sad, that you did something that you,
that you are discriminating him in this way …

[student] Okay but let’s say that you, you can kinda re, Okay I think kinda
understand and accept the example of flowers are objects in an abstract logical
way – but how does that help, when you’re – ah – say somebody is getting
angry …

right

[student] … at me – I’m not particularly angry that I don’t really enjoy this, that I
really do believe that they are inherently angry and that, and that it is really
happening – how does – how would I use this same argument in that and then
how would that help me get rid of …
I uh, many times I’ve explained it before and it’s and it’s, I, I hope that I don’t
explain it so many times that you stop thinking about it someday – but I’ll say it
one more time. He, if he were inherently a bad person, or angry, ah if he were
inherently unpleasant - do you agree that there’s people in the room, and it often
happens in an office environment, who are actually enjoying him being angry at
you? … You see? I mean you’ve had this sick thought yourself … we [laughs]
all do. You know? I mean, you’re not quite sorry that he’s mad. [laughing]
[unclear] yelling at the lady you don’t like so much, you know it’s not an evil
thought but it’s a bad thought. And it must be a common thought, it’s actually
thought number, ah, [laughing] …

[student] thought number [laughs]

nine ... ah, eight …

[student] anger, er …

ah, no it’s bad deed number…. lemme see, oh, I’m sorry number nine. It’s
actually, the, n, the, it’s, it’s, it’s actually in the top ten bad deeds and it’s precisely
that. And so we must have it, it must, out of the eighty-four thousand bad
thoughts you can have – it’s, it’s in the top ten.

[student] Eighty-four thousand, why, you counted them?

And they had, and Buddha [laughing] So, ah, [laughs] so what I mean is, it’s, it’s
among, it’s apparently very inherent in human nature to not be that upset when
someone else is having a problem.

[student] right …

Um, and even to take a little bit of plea…, it’s weird you know, I’ve been in work
situations where my, my supervisor … would rather see something screw up to
take the pleasure out of it, out of the, the subordinate’s screwing up; than, than
worry about the [laughs] money [laughs] being lost by the screw up, you know
it’s weird! It’s like a kind of illness, you know? Ahhh, then that’s, that’s, so what
I’m saying is in one room there’s one man who is yelling at you … he’s
unpleasant to you, and he’s pleasant to the other person – one – thing - cannot
be both. We’re gonna talk about, that’s the subject tonight actually – one object,
cannot be both. Cannot be good and bad at the same time. It’s impossible.
[student] but why can’t, why can’t we carry like, he, he’s certainly correctly
deceptive- reality wise angry – everybody can see he’s angry. It’s just that his
anger doesn’t exist self-existent-ly. Wh, why is it that we suddenly have to drop
the same thing we’ve been talking about all night when it comes to a person’s
anger? Sure the person’s angry, every body can see the person’s angry- it that
person angry self-existent-ly? No!

No, some people might not take it as angry. I’m talking about him being good
or bad because he’s angry, I’m just [cut]

[student] Let’s just say we have the term flowers, because there’s these things
that appear to everybody and everybody recognizes them as flowers …

I didn’t say that

[student] … do they exist self existent-ly?

I didn’t say that

Well, the definition says, wh, when it appears to the mind … [cut, many talking
at once]

[student] One at a time

[student] yes, but no-no, we’re talking about deceptive reality, Okay? Which
means that something that has flower-ness, or whatever the words you were
using, appears to … ah, minds that are not drunk or what-have-you, the same
way. Okay?

[cut]

[student 2] … try to discriminate flowers

and also why …

If they know the name and the [unclear]

[student 4] [cut] … one or the other? Why can’t you [unclear] bodies made of
legs?
[student] but we can’t call this an elephant over here, we call them flowers, we’d
be crazy if we called them an elephant.

Right, because they have no suggestion of elephant.

[student] That’s right, so – the, when the person is screaming at you, and they’re
turning red in the face - okay …

Yeah,

[student] why does your example break down there?

I gue, I didn’t say he wasn’t angry I said some people see him as bad and some
people see him as good.

[student] no-no but that anger

[student 2] that’s taking it a step further

[cut, many talking – unclear] [student]       value judgment on the anger! You’re
trying to say he’s not angry

[student 2] [cut] … anger or bad it’s just there’s, y, y when you talk about the
flower example you’re distinguishing between a person you says ok they exist
out there – and I don’t, and

Do some people see them as weapons? For killing people?

[student 2] uh, unless they have an impaired mind I would think …

[unclear] …Not at all, you know, a, certain kinds of beings, if they walked in,
they would see these as weapons, dangerous weapons.

[student 2] ahhuh, now you’re getting into the part that’s like, I just accept that
as theory [laughing] Okay … there’s the theoretical part, but I’m saying, ah, eh,
how do, yeh, ah how can we take this example which is, I mean …

Well, I’m trying to get there. Well, see, lemme finish and if you, if you think it’s,
if, if you, if at, if at any point I say something which is not correct, stop me.
Okay. Some people are enjoying him yelling at you. Some people think he’s a
good man. And you at the same moment think he’s a bad man. [phone ringing]

[student] There’s nothing …

Don’t answer that. [laughing] Did I say anything wrong?

[student] Yes. You, you, you’re taking the example one step further, before we
go that far … can we, can we stop the value judgment on the anger …

No, I don’t …

[student] … and let’s discuss whether the anger exists or not.

No, no. Because he’s asking me …

[student 2] No, no really …

How does it apply to your daily life, how will it help you remove your [unclear]

[student] well, you’re saying it doesn’t exist!

What?

[student] The anger.

I didn’t say that.

[student] Sure! Sure! It doesn’t exist because, …

When did I say that?

[student] … because you’re perceiving it as anger and another person can
perceive it as being happy, so therefore it doesn’t exist.

No I didn’t say that. Oh yeah the anger is, is absent – the anger is empty of
being either good or bad. I did say that. I did …

[student] Sure! Sure! But it’s still ang … that’s not [unclear] you’re talking about
the existence of the anger, you’re saying the anger doesn’t exist.
I didn’t, I said the anger is blank, I didn’t say the anger didn’t exist.

[student] Well when you see somebody as angry, then there’s two ways to see
them as angry; correctly and incorrectly.

Ah, I, you can say the man or the man’s anger, I don’t mind either one. You’re
judging the man’s anger … [unclear]

[student 2] [unclear] … say the man’s blank, you’re [unclear] I mean, I took that
to mean he’s not angry …

[student] That’s right! That’s right!

Okay, I say, I don’t mean that. I say the angry man is blank. How’s that?

[student 2] Okay, that’s …

He’s neither good nor bad.

[student 2] … entirely different …

If he were …

[student 2] … entirely different …

[student 3] Okay but what’s the analogous, ah, statement about the flowers
then? Because now I’m, ‘cause I heard your example about the man not being
good or bad for a long time, I mean, I’m sorry but, you know now I’m [cut]
[laughing] Now this one makes me think in a different way and I’m trying to
apply that back to the, the angry man example and I’m having difficulty making
that connection. You know …

So you want to explain, do you want to talk about how the angry man is, is
blank as being a man or not? Or do you want to talk about it relating to your,
removing your bad thought?

[student 3] Both. I want to find out how that connection – ‘cause I feel like one
end is this and the other end is that, ‘nd I’m tryin’ to find out where they meet in
the middle.
Okay. Since, since all the … how many five hea, how many heaps are there?

[student] How many five heaps are there? [laughing]

Why don’t they just say two heaps? Why don’t they just say mental heap or
physical heap?

[laughing]

[student] Because they are apparently so important that ..

Why are two, why are two so important that they get status to be their own
heap? Out of forty-four or fifty-two or whatever …

[unclear] [student] The emotion … [unclear]

Why would it talk about the object of those? Which is, which is something you
feel good about or something you feel bad about? Someone who irritates you,
or someone who makes you happy?

[student] Well, okay, but how does that tie to the fir, because it seems that
you’re talking about this perception at a much subtler level.

Well, what I’m tryin’ to say is … I am! But I’ve never done that before, I’ve
always stayed on the simple, ahhh

[student] right! And that’s what I’m tryin’ to get

… level object. Yeah. Will it help you as … What will help you in your life? And
what truly will help you in your life, and what you should apply tomorrow or
even tonight, is that the man is not bad, or the man is not, ah, something painful
- by nature. He’s, he has no nature. Because of being painful or pleasant because
if he, if he did he would be equally painful to those fellow employees of you,
who see him as quite pleasant at the moment, who get pleasure out of what he is
saying to you at that moment. Therefore in that level, on that level and in that
sense, he’s empty of either quality because he can’t have both qualities at once
because no one thing can be bad and good at the same time. Period.

[student] Why can’t they? Why …
Give me one. Well, lemme finish with her first. Lemme finish with her. So on
that level of discussion, Okay? We can get into his eyebrows, too, later. Okay?

[student] His what?

Eyebrows. And then down to the atoms in his eyes, and things like that. You
know we can do that, but on that lev… that’s the practical level at which is will
benefit you. Ah, now where, assuming that, ev… everything else is, is correct so
far, that he is blank – that he has no nature of being inherently painful or else
your fellow employees would take him as painful; or pleasant, or else you would
find him pleasant, then … then where’s it coming from? Why do you find him
painful?

[student] because …
[student] it’s you …
[student] your perception …

Right, right

[student M wait a minute …
[student] because of my karma …
[student M … ‘cause of the rose colored glasses you were talkin’ about.

No.

[student M … not cause of the eyeball …

No.

[student M … because of the glass

No, no.

[students] [unclear] … isn’t karma the glass?
[student M Make up your mind!
[student] … have it directed at you instead of have it directed at …

[student M You said yes the guy is angry, but no you shouldn’t get upset about
it
[student] … the eye

[student M Which is it? Wh, is, is his anger something that the eye would see
whether the glass was there or not?

Yeah.

[student M Or, Okay! Good. And then the glass is [laughing] prescribing the
relative value judgment goodness or badness to it …

No I didn’t say that.

[student M … which shouldn’t be there.

I didn’t say that. The colored glass?

[student M The colored glass!

No, it’s whether he’s self existent or not.

[student M Well, that’s what we’re saying, whether his anger is self existent –
right?

[student F No but that’s different than saying is it self existent-ly good or bad.

[student M Michael’s saying that we put the value judgment on it because we
believe the anger’s self existent, that everyone

I didn’t say that.

[student F No …

[student M Sure!

I didn’t say that … [unclear]

[student M He’s saying he really is angry

Did I ever say that anger is self-existent?
[students] no …

[student M No, you said that our misperception to that it is self-existent is what
causes us to …

[student F no, no he said [students] [cut] [unclear]

[student] … anger … [unclear]

… I never denied that he was angry …

[student] [unclear] … he’s a bad person …

[student M Well, that’s what I mean by the value judgment. That he’s a bad
person.

Ok well, anyway … who, who’s forcing you to see him as, why, who’s forcing it
to be painful for you? Who’s forcing you to see it as painful?

[student] ah, the karma of my previous action.

Which were good or bad?

[student] Probably bad.

Yeah, if the pain was bad, then the karma was bad – that’s so simple. That it
[unclear] [cut] [many talking]

[student] What if I get, seem, angry, but you don’t get upset?

[student M Yeah, you, he’s saying you can’t do that!

[student] What if that do see a person angry, I mean, I mean I could see
somebody, I could see a person getting angry at somebody, and I say, well, this
person’s very angry

[student 2] He’s not talking about suffering, he’s talking about not upset, like
you don’t get angry …

[student] Well then anger, you see the person angry at another person – it’s not
affecting you though, like, the person is not, ah, ah is not [unclear]

[student] No, no we’re talking about cases where it does affect me directly –
‘cause I asked how I can get rid of my emotion …

[student] yeah, but it – how simple [cut] [many talking]

[student] … that’s simple to understand …

[student] … an example where I’m, I’m feeling a bad emotion, and I asked him
to explain how I could not feel the bad emotion. So it, we’re talking, eh, you
know, to begin with we’re talking about an example of where I am feeling a bad
emotion …

Oh! You know, you’ve gotta divide, you gotta divide. What I’m saying is: the
pain, the painfulness to you …if it were self existent I suppose you should get
angry about it, but since it’s not self existent, meaning that it comes from causes
and that it’s imputed on an otherwise blank person, by your karma … then you
should do something about it. Can you prevent it from being painful once the
result has already come out?

[student] No.
[student] No

…that contradicts all principles of causation accepted by science; accepted by
everyone in the universe; accepted by all farmers, you know …

[student] say it again

… no farmer expects that after the corn has grown already and it came out lousy
‘cause he didn’t put enough fertilizer, that he can now run and put fertilizer on it
and it’ll suddenly change. That’s - what is a big misconception about Buddhist
teaching – of people who say, “if I understood his emptiness, right now he
would stop being unpleasant to me.” - that’s incorrect! The result has come out.

[student] Yeah, well what about, Michael, what I said before
[student] yeah
[student] excuse me

It’s just ah, It’s just trying to say … well, you asked me to apply it to a situation
which will help you remove your conscience, and that’s what I’m saying, yeah

A relative to flowers over which you have no emotion, no feeling – you can’t get
desire about, you can’t get angry about – you can’t be hurt by them … [unclear]

[student] so, so

Yeah, irrelevant. Not talking about that, I mean, you, you asked me to, to give
you an example that would apply to your life.

[student] Well, what I’m really asking you to do, and I guess we should, I would
just ask you later but what I’m really trying to get you to do is to, this seems like
on a different level of, of emptiness … [cut] [many talking]

It is, it is and I’m, an I – but it doesn’t tell, but it doesn’t precl… I doesn’t directly
help your, your life. And you’re removing your suffering.

[student] this one doesn’t

No, not directly

[student] Oh, Okay!

[lauging]

[student M Michael, you [cut] [unclear] [many talking]

… spent many days, and most teachers do, I think, talking about the emptiness
of him. Whether or not he’s even there. And that’s a valid thing to discuss. But
it’s not gonna help you, I mean, so where do you go from there?

[student] so that doesn’t, so there is no connection there, if you say [unclear]

Not directly, it’s, it’s good as an example …

[student] yeah …

… then you apply it to your life. But, but most people, I think, if you’ve maybe
noticed that you’ve had teachings on emptiness many times, the person having
explained how a beautiful girl is really empty – but it didn’t help me for years.
You know [laughs] it’s a, [unclear], she looks great to me! [laughing] Okay,
[unclear] she has a different mode of being pretty than I thought she had.
[laughing] But it doesn’t change anything. You know Alex {{Pre-zin}} wrote this
long thing about how the girl is made up of atoms, you know, and therefore I
shouldn’t have any desire, I said, “fine! But I look at the [laughing] [unclear]
maybe she’s made of atoms, but I’m concentrating on the girl!” You know, it
doesn’t help me. It doesn’t help me stop my [unclear]

[student] .. I think … [cut] you’re saying …

I think most teachings break down at that point, you know, you say well, okay
she’s atoms, well what do I now, and they say, well … she’s empty; don’t have
desire. [laughing] [cut]

[student] … should see her as um, you know dissolving and rotting and …

No that’s, that is not her, an emptiness meditation, and it’s not

[student] No! It’s not! …

It’s not a medit… it’s not a medit… [cut]

[student] … gets rid of desire-ment

No it does not get rid of desire. It, it’s suppressed desire.

[student 2] I mean …

It cannot get rid of desire. That’s why the definition {navara} said what?
[unclear] comes from the individual analysis

[students] the individual analysis

[student] one by one

[cut] [unclear]

[student] Right. [cut]

Doesn’t say, coming from learning our little tricks to [cut]
[student] Yeah. Right. The trick. Yeah.

… desire for them.

[student] So, does that mean that all of these little tricks that we learn are really
just sort of …

They’re very virtuous and they’re very holy. And we should learn them.

[student] … yeah, we should try

[cut] [unclear]

… because until you understand emptiness what are you gonna do? [laughing]
[cut] … understand emptiness you use it. Shantideva didn’t waste the first eight
chapters of this [unclear] but when he got to the ninth he told you what to do.

[student] So, so when you do get to the point of having this intellectual
understanding then –what? Shift gears and leave those behind? And …

No, you, you, in practice you end up using those, ‘cause you’re not so pure or
good or your understanding of emptiness is not so great that [unclear] [cut] …
you know, [laughs] it doesn’t work … [laughing] … you’re not, you’re not near,
that’s why the path of habituation has so many divisions to it. It’s getting better
and better at applying your emptiness understanding to your practice. That’s
why the {clay-tious} have like, I don’t know, a hundred and twenty-eight ….
Shades that you’re getting rid of little bit, little bit, little bit, little bit, little bit, just
so you keep those other methods, those are called worldly methods. They’re
called {tse ten di long} and this method is called the one [unclear] [cut] …

[student] Michael?

[unclear] …

[student] Okay, so back to the example I said the last time …

Okay.

[student] … if you had somebody like a Hitler or a {Haussan} or a {Li Pang} …
Uhm, hmm

[student] … now from our normal perception these people did tremendous
evils, so you’re saying all these victims – um, they just had bad karma?

Yeah.

[student]    And Hitler’s blank? You can’t make any value judgment on
somebody that has done such massive destruction? It’s like, “oh, he’s Okay, he’s
a nice guy.” You know?

[student] No …
[student] … his true nature …
[cut] [unclear]
[student] I think …
[student] … true nature of evil, but everything he does isn’t evil, you know,
you’re saying that

I would say the opposite, you know, I have had people ask me that many times,
but I think that you should concentrate on the opposite … thing, which is bad.
He, conventionally speaking; apparently speaking; which is the world that we’re
living in; he’s hurting people. Now you can truly stop him, with love. You
know, if necessary, ah, the thing is called elimination, the practice is called
elimination, and, you do it. But, but, at that mo, when you do it – you’ll nev,
you’ll – you won’t have any anger, no hatred … I mean, what did the Dalai Lama
say about Saddam Hussein in the, the “New York Times” last February?

[student] He said he was a good guy … [cut] [many talking] [laughing]
[student] … except for against us instead of the Iranians or something like that
…
[student] no he said, he said, where are all the people who gave him the
weapons? They were [cut]

No, he said, my heart goes out to him - he was under certain conditions …

[student] He said he may be, he may be a bad man, but my heart goes out to
him.

But anyway, I, I’m not saying – don’t concentrate on it that way, concentrate –
it’s your duty, a {bodhisattva’s} duty to stop evil. If you see any kind of evil it’s
your duty, your absolute duty to stop it. To attempt to stop it

[student] But if you’re…

Ah but no, with no kind of anger or hatred.

[student] So the example you gave is a, Okay, if, if, a … when you keep using
the boss, that’s a very benign example because you know bosses …

[students] No … [cut] [laughing]

… It’s the, it’s the one place where I can collect the most bad karma quickly, in
my mind

[student M But, you have to be more clear on it, you can describing the boss,
and the, and the boss’s anger in an all or nothing kind of situation; vis-à-vis your
reaction to it. Vis-à-vis your being upset by it. Okay? You’re making it sound
like there is no anger, Okay?

I didn’t say that

[student 2] He is …
[student M Yeah!
[student 3] He never said that!
[Many students] [cut]

[student F You keep saying that, but I perceive what Michael’s saying differently
than you do [laughing]

I’m saying kindly, but he’s, he’s acting violently; he’s acting mad.

[student M Right!

And some people enjoy it, and some people, it’s painful.

[student M and, if I see that person acting that way toward me! Okay?

Right
[student M You’re making it sound like, the only way for me not to be angry by
that is to not see anger!

I didn’t say that. I, I said precisely the opposite, and that’s my dentist-drill
example. I say …

[student M If he was truly angry then dut, dut, dut, dut, dut, like that. Right?

No, if anger was innately painful, everyone else …

[student M Oooohhh! Okay!

…would find it painful.

[student M You’ve been saying if he truly was angry –then everyone would say,
“Yes! He’s angry! Look!” I see he’s angry, you’re right!

I’m, if I wanted to go to that level, that’s true also- but I’ve not, I’ve never gone
to that level with you, I have no interest in going to that level with you. I want
you to not collect bad karam. That’s all.

[student] Jeffery Dahmer, Okay? I mean, maybe his mother likes him, but
[unclear] every victim, I’m sure wasn’t cause, no matter how pure their karma
was, to be killed by him!

Excuse me?

[student] how, how, it wasn’t pleasant to be killed by him. [cut]

I would say it was definitely unpleasant.

[student] Right it was unpleasant by anyone’s [unclear]

Certainly by, unpleasant to them.

[student] Right. So I would, I would …

… and certainly maybe was pleasant to him.

[student] It was pleasant to him …
The same event …

[student] But all the victims, no matter what their karma was like, I’m sure some
of the victims were nicer than others, and they all experienced it as unpleasant,
maybe …

Their karma was totally equal. Whatever deed they did in the past to be killed
was totally equal. The same. They did the …

[student] then how do we explain …?

… however they were in this life – you know, nice, bad, indifferent … this is why
good people get hurt. This is why injustice occurs. This is the explanation for it.

[student] Wait a minute Michael, what about the Dalai Lama that had to get out
of Tibet? Does, you, are you trying to tell us that he did something bad that he
had to be out of his country?

In a, in a non-high level explanation, yes. In the highest level explanation, that he
is truly a Buddha; he’s just trying to teach us something.

[student 2] And he is teaching us.

[student M and he could teach people better outside the country than he can
inside [laughs]

[student 3] … reaching a lot of people …

[student] Well, I agree with that, I think [laughing] [cut]

Frankly, it’s to say with certainty …

[student] … but …

… that you know, which one is true, is a lie. You know, you have to say it’s
quite possible {Avalokiteshvara} and he’s trying to teach me something? It’s
quite possible he’s a normal man who got kicked out of his country. I don’t
know. I really don’t know. I can use logic to try to establish one or the other …
and you’ll learn those methods, they’re learning them in New Jersey, right now.
[student] I think the [unclear] car accidents? How do you explain that?

but if you can say, from your, from your side, you know, Oh, he’s
{Avalokiteshvara}; he’s just trying to help us; he’s trying to show us something; –
you don’t have any proof.

[student] That’s [unclear] a lot of people

No you don’t have any proof, and that’s why it’s, it’s sometimes, it’s personally
irritating when I meet people who, that’s insisting to me that this is true and I’m,
and they don’t have any basis to say that.

[student]    They wear the robes and they have to be believed and honored
[unclear]

There are ways to establish logically he is {Avalokiteshvara} – and that he is
showing us this [unclear]

[student] What about Michael …

… he can’t give me those reasons, I want [laughing]

[student] what about the, but, what about the, Michael, the guy with that was
killed in a car accident [unclear]

[laughing]

… or else you’d be [laughs] [cut] [many talking] [laughing]

[student] …how do you explain that?

… but you feel better about the, about the [unclear] – I mean about the [unclear],
about what we learned? I mean, is it more clear? I think, keep your mind on the
fact that – if there wasn’t anything going on from it’s side, then what?

[student] then, then anything …

If it didn’t require anything from it’s side, then anything that I could imagine
would exist. If it didn’t require anything coming from the other side, then
anything I could imagine would exist. And if it didn’t require anything from my
side, then what?

[student] ah, sorry, sleepy, ah
[student] then anybody would see it the same way.

Exactly the same way. It would be the same thing to a person – example in the
book says, who doesn’t even know the word for flower, or have any idea of the
concept of flower – and that’s the {svatantrika} way. It’s not the highest
explanation. What’s interesting is, and we were talking about in the car,
although the explanation in this way, directly rejects the very lowest explanation,
that the thing exists out there on its own, it’s, it’s not totally inconsistent with the
highest explanation. The {Pabongka}. Tsongkapa says that. And so you gotta
cook that. Okay. All right. We’re gonna talk, we’re gonna start, by the way,
that whole thing last week, was supposed to be the first fifteen minutes of the
class- and ah, I read it and said, this is gonna to take a whole class, so ah, actually
I pushed my period back to one class. And ah, [laughs] and we covered all that in
one class.

[student] Michael, are you gonna, ah, trea, trea, ah page five and six of the ah,
and seven? [unclear] … go through or at least mention [unclear]

No I’m not going to.

[student] thank you.
[student] You’re not?

No. Basically, you just have to understand that – ah, for example to exist by
definition, is accepted by the {svatantrika}, lower {Madhyamika} , as something
that really exists. And the higher school, [unclear] look the same as being
suffering. But I’m, and then you have to say, well what do they mean when they
say, ‘exist by definition’ – what do we mean by the same thing, ‘exist by
definition’ – and if, is it possible that we’re thinking the same thing about that
word and they just don’t understand and I do, or, or do we really think different
things when we say that word and then maybe they’re not crazy after all. That’s
a whole ‘nother subject.

[student] [cut] there’s something that confused me down page three where
you’re [unclear] paragraph – ah – where you’re talking about – the – [unclear] …
existent phenomena [unclear] … uses the word pure there?
Yeah, pure means self-existent.     In, in, in {Madhyamika} – in the study of
emptiness, that would mean

[student] … opposite of the way …

Yeah, right …

[student] … most people when they read this

Jessica[?]

[student] [unclear] … Madhyamika?

Ahhhhh, hmmmmm ….

[student] [unclear] … one of that? On page one, of that, [unclear] third line …
[unclear] three of basic knowledge

Where is says [unclear]

[student] “… of all things that have no real nature of arising …”

We’re gonna talk about it.

[student] … meaning that their arising? [unclear]

Right. Okay? We’re gonna talk about it. Okay, tonight we start five different
arguments for emptiness. And it’s going to go into the next, ah

[student] Next, twenty. What are you talking about? [laughs]

It’s going to go into the next week also. But I wanna get through, I only wanna
get through the first one tonight. [laughing]

[student] With us? You’ll [unclear] hard time. [laughs] [laughing]

And it’s called {chik-du drel} All right. {chik} means one, {du} means many, and
{drel} means empty. It’s a different word for empty. And we’re gonna talk
about that tonight. It basically means that if something were self-existent you
would have to be a self-existent single thing or self existent plural thing – you’d
have to be either self-existent-ly one, or self-existent-ly many. Take us all night,
if we’re lucky – Okay? [laughs] All right?

[student] Single or plural?

Yeah, that’s easy! I mean we’ll talk about it. I’m not gonna go into them, I just
want you to know the five names. Which is on your homework. Okay?

[student] I’m – just lost …

You don’t even have to know what they are you

[student] You mean the five arguments?

The names of the five arguments.

[student] What are these five arguments? [unclear]



This is a, Dorje, you know what it means – what?

[student] Lord of stone.

Good. Diamond. And {sekma} means? Sliver.

[cut] [unclear]

Diamond, Diamond Cutter. … When you perceive emptiness directly one of the
realizations you have, has to deal with how close it is physic, in a physical, that
the closest … example in the world to emptiness, is a diamond. And ah, one of
the reasons for that is that every sliver of a piece of diamond, is pure diamond.
It, it’s totally the same as the whole piece of diamond. Any, any little shred,
shard? of diamond that you take off of the diamond is as pure a diamond as the
diamond.

[student] [unclear] … granite?

Especially true of diamond.
[student M Would it be true of a, a piece of holographic film?

[laughing]

No, don’t make fun; very holy; very important.

[student M I’m not making fun!
[student] uncut diamond?

[unclear]

This reasoning involves, proving that things can’t arise from themselves; can’t
arise from something else; can’t arise from both;

[student] From?

‘both’, I can spell it, and can’t arise without a cause. Four possibilities.

[student] Or something without a cause?

It can’t arise from ‘themselves’; they can’t arise from something ‘other’,
something else; they can’t arise from both themselves and something else; and
they can’t arise without a cause.

{yu} means what? you know?

[student] {yu}?

You need to exist. {Yu} means ‘exist’; {me} means ‘not exist’; {kye} means ‘to
arise’; and {gok} means ‘to deny’.

[student] {mu} means just ‘not’, though?

{me}

[student] I mean {me}

{me} means ‘does not’

[student] ‘not’
“not exist” actually. Different from ‘is not’

[student] Does the whole phrase mean not exist, or doest it, is it mean exist/not
exist?

Ahhh, we’ll talk about it. It’s denying … that a thing could grow … from
something which exists or something from, or from something which doesn’t
exist.

[student] You mean inherently exist?

I don’t know! … didn’t get there! Roughly; denying that a thing could grow
from a thing that exists or from a thing that doesn’t exist. Or both or neither.

[laughing]

Four possibilities. [silence]

[student] You say, ‘grow’ do you mean arise or like grow like from the ground
up?

Um, we’re talking, those reasons treat all changeable things – all things with
causes.

[student] … arise. Could be mental, could be physical …
[student] that’s a different [unclear]

I’m sorry [unclear] [silence]

[student] some spelling is before – g – o – g

Yeah, this part is the same.

[student] would [unclear] … when you say naw-aw, aw-baw

ah, denying that things can grow, or arise, from things which exist; or things
which don’t exist;

[student] and, and or both, or either, right?
Or [unclear]

The name of the reason doesn’t say that. The name of the reason only says,
denying that things can arise from something which exists, or doesn’t exist.
[silence]

[student] But how’s that differ from number two, number two says things can’t
arise from [unclear] and number three says that denying it can arise from da-da,
da-da, da-da …

Ah, number two is what? Denying that things can arise from themselves. The,
the, number two is emphasizing whether it’s from themselves or from
something other than themselves. Number three is emphasizing whether
they’re growing from something which does exist, or something which doesn’t
exist. And we’re not going to go into it, tonight. [unclear] We were just going to
try to cover number one, but I want you to know all five names.

Number four is denying {gok}, that things could grow. {Kye} or arise I should
say, through any of the four {shi}, possibilities {mu}

[student] Well that’s the {mu-shi – mu-che – mun-sun}

Yeah. Oh, good! … And what it means is, and you don’t have to know that yet, is
that it’s denying that multiple results can come from multiple causes,

[student] multiple …?

results could come from multiple causes. That’s the first. There’s gonna be four,
right? [silence] Number two: denying that single results could come from
multiple causes. Number three what do you get?

[student] Both or neither; multiple results, multiple causes

right, right, number three is that multiple results could come from single causes.
And you [unclear] and the other would be what?

[student] no results coming from …

no, that’s not one [unclear] [silence]
[student] single results come from single, single right?

Yeah, yeah. These are, I’ll write the English up here [silence]

The fifth one, we’re on {ten}, we’re on {ten} proof number five for emptiness –
Okay? I’m talking about this one.

[student] {ten} that’s the name for all together please?

No that’s the name for number all five, but I ran out of board down here … By
the way I warn you to, I warn you of one thing; the meaning this time is, is very
difficult. But don’t get frustrated, don’t go crazy about it. If you could
understand everything on the first shot, um, you’d be the first person in history.
Okay? That’s why most spend years on this thing. And it’s worth it, you know,
the pain is worth it. And if you don’t have the pain you’re not learning and

[student] it’s the karma [unclear]

No, it doesn’t, that’s the fact of it. It’s holy, it’s deep, and it’s hard. And, and you
need it. And it’s very good for your mind to struggle with these things. Ye, ye,
after a while you find your mind becomes sharper after it. Better able to handle
long thoughts you know long difficult [laughs] ideas. Ah, you’ll get some better
ability. Ah, {ten-drel gyi-rikpa} Okay? {Ten-drel} means ‘interdependent’ - it’s
what people call dependent origination.

[student] dependent’s origination?

Dependent origination.

[student] Same, same thing you mean? The same thing as interdependence you
mean, [unclear] …

I call it interdependence – for, for reasons which I’ll show you some day.

[student] Okay.

{Gyi} means, ‘of’ – O - F and {rikpa} means ‘reasoning’ – ten-drel means
[unclear]. This is basically where you say – things are not self existence, existent,
because they depend on other things. That’s the one you’re probably most
familiar with. [silence] It’s nick-name is {rik-pay gyalpo}. You should know that.
[cut] … the nick-name for the last reason, the fifth one, the one about
dependence, is {rik-pay gyalpo}. - the nick-name for the last reason, the fifth
one, the one about dependence, is {rik-pay gyalpo}.

[student] King of reasoning?

Yeah, king of reasoning, {gyalpo} means king, this is the ultimate one – this is the
most powerful one, all the other ones boil down to number five. That’s why
you’ve always heard number five. A lama doesn’t have more than twenty-four
hours to go through this [laughs] many, so he’ll say, I’m teaching number five.

[student] What does it mean, I’m sorry [unclear]

{rik-pa, rik-pay} means ‘of reasoning’ - and {gyalpo} means king, king of
reasons, the highest reason.

[student] So king means highest in this case.

Yeah, number one. The best one, most effective one – tonight’s class is going to
run over a little bit – I hope you [unclear]. Okay.

[student] are all these [unclear]

ah … Pretty much they all [unclear] I, I just, I’m gonna start, ah, the first, we will
run over like ten minutes like ten minutes, I think we can do it, Okay?
Ohhhkayyy what’s the first reasoning? I’ll go around the table – lemme make
sure everyone’s [unclear] - Pam[?], what’s number one? You’re sitting in a bad
seat. [unclear] [lauging] What’s number one? What’s reason number one? Or
did you even write it down?

[student] No, I didn’t

Okay, Faye?

[student] something [unclear]

What’s the, just the name of it.

[student: Faye] {chik-du drel}
Which is?

[student: Faye] Which is one-many-empty, or something [unclear]

Yeah, I call it in the reading, ah, ‘the emptiness of one or many’ – so that’s all you
have to know: The emptiness of one, or many. That’s the name of the first
reason. Okay Arnie, what’s the name of the second reasoning?

[student: Arnie] {dorje sekma}.

Which means what?

[student: Arnie] Diamond sliver.

Okay, sliver of diamond and that’s all you have to know.

[student] How do you spell that [unclear]?

Sliver, right? It’s like liver with an S [laughing]. Means a little piece – if you break
a little piece. By the way, there’s a classical {sekma} if you’re into this word is ah,
when the waves break onto the beach and these little … {sekmas} come out of
wa, of sea water

[student] Froth

[bang, bang] [laughing] It hits the sand and these little droplets of spray come
out, those are called {sekma}

[student] I think [unclear]

[student] Can, Can Di, diamonds can be destroyed [unclear], somewhere I read
like all the diamonds or something can destroyed or somethin’

That’s how you cut them, nothing in the, there is no thing in the universe which
harder than a diamond, period. It is almost an ultimate truth, in a sense.
Anyway ah, number three.

[student] ah, {yu-me kye-gok}
{Yu-me kye-gok}.

[student] {kye-gok}: Exist not, to arise, to deny. [laughing]

It means the denial - that things - which exist -

[student] are you saying the definition, Michael?

I’m just giving you the name and that’s all I want on your homework

[student] Oh, okay, I’m sorry, could you repeat that

Perk up your ears. It’s at the bottom of page three of your reading. The denial
that things - which exist - or do not exist – which exist or do not exist – could
arise. That was reason number?

[students] Three.

Okay. Number four.

[student] Denying, denial that things could arise through any of the four
possibilities?

Yes. It’s on page four of your reading in the middle. It says the denial - that
things - could arise - through any of - the four possibilities. Ah, Vilma Number
five. Just the, just the name.

[student] Um, {ten-drel gyi-rikpa}

Right

[student] ah, things are not self existent, um, because they depend on other
things.

Yes, but just the name of the reasoning is what? Reasoning of interdependence.
Reasoning of interdependence. A.K.A.?

[student] King of reasoning.

[laughs] also known as: King of reasoning. You better, on your homework you
better call it up to ten minutes, king of reasoning.

[student] Interdependence
[student] Interdependence

Interdependence. Okay one more step and we’ll take a break.

[student] what do you call the twelve links to tnterdependence?

Yeah.

[student] [unclear]

Well, ah, ah, we’ll talk about it.

[student] [unclear]

Arising. Dependent arising – or – de, dependant arising is wrong. Period. Yeah,
‘cause it doesn’t [unclear]

We can talk about it anyway. Okay. Now, you’re getting to reasoning. I, I
haven’t done it with you. One day, I think in the second course from now – the
fourth course maybe, we’ll, we’ll do a, a course on, on logic and Buddhist logic.
You need Buddhist logic to prove the spiritual things that you can’t perceive with
your eyes and your ears. Otherwise it, otherwise according to {Dharmakirti}
you can’t even take refuge. You can’t, you have no basis on which to believe in
future or past lives, other than your … nice instincts that you people have from
your past lives. With other, you have no basis for believing in that, without
understanding the logic. So, here you get your first dose. Okay? If, you try to
read the reading you get a, get a, don’t get upset if you can’t understand it.

[student] is this the …

But {{adelpha}} doesn’t mean don’t try to break the code if you can.

[student] Michael is this the same thing that Rinpoche talked about in Jersey?
The same topic, no?

Very similar, Okay? So, when, when you, in Buddhism, you start out, there’s
gonna be three parts to every logical statement. The first part is the subject;
what are we talking about. And I always start it with the word ‘consider’.

[student] That’s one of the three parts? The subject?

Yep. The subject is the first part of any Buddhist reasoning. What’re we gonna
talk about? That’s where they slap their hands (slap) {{chima se chur-chin}}
When you start a debate with somebody you have to say, “what are we talking
about” I’m talking about {{gyempa-sum}} what’s {{gyempa-sum}}? The three
knowledges. That’s called, that’s how you open every debate. The guy has to
know what you want to debate about. Well, let’s debate about {{pom}} (slap)
{{pom ter-in-ter}} Okay. So the first thing is your subject. What are we talking
about?    We’re talking about the three knowledges.          What are the three
knowledges? You know the last one, what’s the ultimate knowledge?

[student] A wisdom.

Nah.

[student] Omniscience.

Omniscience. So number three you already, you know. It’s called knowledge of
all things in your text, okay. Knowledge of all things. You have to learn these
two knowledges. You don’t have it, yet, we didn’t do it yet. It’s the subject of
this book, actually. The {{abi-sa-mong-ka}} – ah, the first word called, basic
knowledge. [unclear] Hmmm?

[student] I’m just making a joke, a stupid joke.

Okay, basic knowledge means the perception of emptiness – of course, you
knew that.

[student] Directly? Or

I was afraid you’d ask me that, and my computer went down.             [laughing]
[laughs]

[student] Which one, up here? [laughing]

[laughs] The problem is you have, it it’s with the other one, I mean, you start to
depend on it [laughs].
[student] probably not.

I won’t take a shot – right now I’m going to say perception of emptiness by a
{Hinayana} [unclear]

[student] How do you spell {Hinayana}?
[student] h-i-n-a

I shouldn’t say emptiness please change that: ‘selflessness’ - in this school they
don’t call it [unclear]

[student] Can I say something?

Self-less-ness – no-self – you can say no-self I don’t mind. When a, when a
person on the bottom two tracks – the {Hinayana} – the lower way – [unclear]
self-less-ness –that’s, that’s what basic knowledge means.     That is basic
knowledge.

[student] Now, to us, with {arhat} that word means emptiness?

No.

[student] We’re not talking about emptiness then?

In this school [unclear]

[student] You said something wrong, you said the perception of emptiness

Yeah, I should not have said, I should have said; perception of selflessness.

[student] And it’s got nuttin to do with what we know of as the perception of
emptiness.

Well, similar but a different idea of what it means.

[student] oh it’s the same thing - thought of differently? Or it’s a different thing
entirely?

[laughing]
[student] it’s similar

Same thing misunderstood in a very [unclear] way.

[student] it’s not the same thing if it doesn’t include phenomena.

Number two: path knowledge. If I’m gonna give a break, I’m gonna … Path
knowledge is, what do you guess it is? It’s it’s short of omniscience, it’s better
than Hinayana realizations.

[student] How’d it get there?
[student] Habituations?

No …

[student] {Tonglong}

Close. The perception of emptiness by a, by a {bodhisattva}

[student] a {bodhisattva} {tonglong}
[student] … foe destroyers get in here anywhere?

They’re bodhisattva.

[student] No we’re not, not necessarily.

Not bodhisattva? Oh, no we’re not talking Foe Destroyer, no.

[student] Well one minute we’re in the Hinayana and then the next …

[unclear] I didn’t mention Foe Destroyer, and I’m not talking about Foe
Destroyer

[cut] [unclear] … they think that the selflessness [unclear]

[student] What is this

they think, but I’m not going to talk about that

[student] What did you say path knowledge was again?
Ah perception of emptiness by a bodhisattva.

[student] And we’re talking about the direct perception here, right? Or …

I don’t want to bite on that, I don’t wanna say – I’m just gonna leave it at that.
Those are the three knowledges, this is in fact the main subject of this book that
we’re studying. And all of the things that you’re gonna learn in the first course
only relate to this [unclear] We haven’t even mentioned these two, you’re not
gonna get into this [unclear]

[student] Which course?

In this six weeks you are, you are in the first, you’re never gonna get out of the
first chapter. You’re never getting out of the first third of the first chapter.
[laughing] We spend ah, four years on the first [unclear]

[student] Which is the third part? The “c”

It’s, it’s all subjects about “c” - and you can guess that … [unclear] … these are all
qualities that relate to omniscience.

[student] We’re not gonna get outta the first two? Did you say?

We’re not gonna get to the first two in this course.

[student] First two what? [unclear]

These two knowledges.

[student] We’re not gonna get to those, we’re just gonna work on ‘c’ in this
course.

Right. But, tonight we’re talking about, wh, why did I write this? What’s the
first part of this? What’s this the first part of?

[student] Logic.
[student] Reasoning?

It’s the first part of the first reason. The reason that things, the reasoning that
proves that things are not self-existent because if they were [unclear] we’re
talking about the first reasoning

[student] singular or plural?

We’re talking about the first reasoning,

[student] [unclear] reasoning?

 the first proof of emptiness – selflessness. The first proof of selflessness which is
called {{??}} One or many? Okay? Has this as it’s first of the three parts of {{??}}.
First we tell the guy, what are we gonna talk about. What am I gonna prove has
no self? The three knowledges! That’s my subject. I wanna prove emptiness
but first I gotta talk, I wanna talk about the emptiness of the flower, the
emptiness of the guy at work, no. We wanna talk about the emptiness of the
three knowledges. The emptiness of these three understandings - the emptiness
of these three levels.

[student] Would it be safe to say the first proof of selflessness, that is the
emptiness of one or many applied to …

Right, right.

[student] … these two things.

Right, right. A, a little bit, not [unclear] what I’d rather say; the first proof of
emptiness takes as its subject these three knowledges.

[student] [unclear] about discussions? Or always?

Always. First proof of emptiness - takes as its - subject - and that could be
[unclear] the three knowledges. That’s what they’re debating about when
they’re proving emptiness [unclear]

[student] Always.

Obviously you apply it to other subjects later, after you understand it with
regard to one subject. Hopefully you will. But in the classical presentation of this
[unclear] they always take the three knowledges as what we’re talking about, as
about, as what we want to prove are empty. We could take, we’ve been taking
what? Tonight? What was the subject we tried to prove was empty?

[student] Flowers.

We had a disagreement about this; was I talking about anger? Was I talking
about the man; was I talking about his goodness or badness? This is a confusion
about what am I talking about; this is confusion about the subject. You know,
what am I trying to prove is empty? So, so whenever you use the first reasoning
you are always trying to prove that the three knowledges are empty. Because
that’s the main subject of this book, actually.

[student] Can you clarify, can you clarify conceptual thinking? I thought we
were referring to ah, to a proof of emptiness and now we’re switching tracks
from focusing on emptiness to the three knowledges.

No. We’re trying to prove emptiness of the three knowledges.

[student] So are all five of these different aspects of emptiness we’re proving?
Five different ways of looking at emptiness …

Yeah, five different ways to prove the same thing. Basically – but we

[student] Emptiness of five different things …

Ah, mainly the point, the reason there are five different reasonings, is that they
prove emptiness in five different ways – but incidentally they also take different
subjects that they’re trying to prove are empty. And the first one always takes
these three knowledges.

[student] prime example.

Always trying to prove the emptiness of these three.

[student] Could he take another subject then?

Sure, later. You see, first you apply it to this subject, ah, and then later you – you
know obviously ah, you apply it, ah, especially to yourself. To John, or to Carol.
Okay take a break, I just wanted you to get the, this is the, I mean, this is the
easy part – what are we debating about? Three knowledges,. What’re we trying
to prove are empty? Three knowledges. As opposed to the flowers; as opposed
to the guy at work.

[student] Why, why the three knoweldges?

Because the sutra stars off from that point, the ancient, the ancient sutra starts off
with that and its … Okay you really wanna know?

[students] Yeah! [laughing]

I don’t want any blank looks, don’t write anything – she asked me a question
and this is just [unclear] {svatantrika’s} school believes that [unclear] is you.
Okay. Lianna is Lianna’s … the awareness of Lianna’s thoughts - ultimately. The
‘I’s’ just don’t wanna accept that. In a sense that makes sense, that’s a driver,
that’s the person listening to the thoughts in your mind – it’s not a bad position.
So if you prove the emptiness of mind, you can prove the emptiness of you.
And that’s the emptiness which you’re supposed to save you - from suffering.
You see, the emptiness you perceive when you perceive emptiness directly for
the first time will always be the emptiness of yourself. And somehow that’s very
important. And if you wanna know how it’s important –um …

[student] Start meditating

No, whi, talking, I’m not, actually when you perceive emptiness the first time – it
won’t be about the guy at work – you know what makes him appear bad, what
makes him appear good - it’ll be understanding what makes you appear in any
way to yourself – which is a very deep subject, you know – why do I appear to
myself today as depressed? [laughs] you know? – why do I appear to myself
today as confused? You know … this, this is ultimately what we’ll say.

[student] Michael but you can only perceive emptiness in a deep state of
meditation you’re not gonna see

Directly, directly

[student] Directly

You perceived it tonight –ah, on many different levels – intellectually and that’s
very [unclear]

[student] so when you walk down the street then you think that people are
empty, I mean you, you’re, ser, you know, like you have an image of this
people, like, this empty body that is covered by …

That’s obviously not, ah

[student] … emptiness

yeah, or I hope, if nothing else that no person ever comes out of these classes
and [laughs] ever says that to me [laughing] [cut]

[student] I don’t think you have to worry about that in this neighborhood.

[cut] [student] Now I see why the brilliance of you picking this neighborhood –
there’s no chance that anyone will walk out of here and see these characters out
there and think they’re just empty [cut]

Number two it’s the characteristics we are asserting; a characteristic we claim
that the subject has; characteristic we are trying to - what?

[students] prove

Prove about the subject. It’s the characteristic which are – the person listening to
us – doesn’t see yet – this is why we’re trying to prove it.

[student] Oh!
[student] Don’t see it ‘cause [unclear]
[student] Doest it have a title number three, Michael?

Yeah, this is the reason.

[student] Reason.

They’re all, this is your first one, it’s like, in your initiation, okay? Hopefully
your life will be full of these in the future. This is what we debate about for
hours and hours and hours in the monastery. Every argument we use has to
have these three parts. And you’ll study the parts and it’s a whole thing. I
studied it for eighteen years and then I found out [laughs] what it was for
[laughs]

[student] the parts? You studied the parts? Or the parts of
The form of {samadhi} the form of logic

[student] oh the parts of logic.

Yeah. The parts of logic [unclear]. I really didn’t understand until this year, what
[unclear]

[student] Is number three the third part of logical statement?

Yeah, that’s the reason, number three is the reason. [unclear] make sure I’m
covering the [unclear]. By the way, this could very well be on your quiz even if
it weren’t on your homework, which normally I wouldn’t do. [laughing]

Now I asked [?] Because she’s the a, the only foreign Buddhist here. [laughing]
Are the three knowledges, one or many? Are they one thing or many things?
Three knowledges. These three knowledges.

[student] ah ha.

Are they one thing? Or more than one thing?

[student] if you ah, if you saying three knowledge …

Then?

[student] it’s more than one.

Okay. Good! [laughs][laughing] So they are … do I say that they are not many?
Can I say that the three knowledges are not many?

[student] not logical

No! they are three! They’re plural. They’re more than one.

[student] does this continue the argument, you are now [unclear]

Well if I ask you, if I happen to ask you on some occasion, are the three
knowledges one or many, I hope you’ll say what she said, which was clearing,
well obviously there are many, they’re not one. Many means more than one,
okay? I could have said plural, but I didn’t want to do that – okay? Do they
exist?

[student] They are posited to exist, by the statement

No, do they exist? I mean I ask, do the three knowledges exist.

[student] Of course they do.

Of course they do. In this school, how could you prove that?

[student] How could you prove that they exist?

Yeah, if I say why do you think they exist …

[student] Because they appear and we perceive them.

Good! Very, very right.

[student] They what?

Okay? Because they appear to me; because I perceive them. They’re doing what
they have to do, and I’m doing what I have to do. If they didn’t appear to me –
what?

[student] [unclear] appear to me …

If they didn’t have to appear to me - to be the three knowledges, I could make
up three knowledges - if’s it’s just from my side, I could say four knowledges, I
could say six knowledges. … What if it didn’t have to come from my side?
Then, then everybody who, who walked into a room where the three
knowledges were they’d say, “Oh hey! Three knowledges! Path knowledge,
basic knowledge, knowledge of Buddha - hey! I know what those are.” Even
people who’ve never heard of them. If they opened up this book in Tibetan and
they saw the Tibetan word they’d say, “Hey! Three knowledges, yeah, yeah,
yeah, I know [unclear] - okay?

[student] So before I was a Buddhist the three knowledges did not appear to me,
at that time they did not exist. Now that I’m a Buddhist and I’ve discovered
them – now they do exist, they’ve come into existence.
You can confirm their existence. They, they exist, you can, you can establish
their existence because they appear to you and you named them.

[student] So I really could not confirm their non-existence before I was a
Buddhist, then.

Right

[student] But they did exist because an unimpaired mind perceived them before
you knew about them.

i.e. a Buddha’s mind. At least. All right. Ah, well, I wish I could [unclear].
Anyway. Okay, so we’ve established a couple things: they really are many, I’m
sorry, not ‘really’ - they are many. And they do exist. But do they exist - really
-? Do they really exist?

[student] Whadya mean ‘really’?

Ah, now we’re close, nice! Nice! Nice! Nice! In this school, what do I mean when
I say “really”?

[student] Independently?

The way that most people – think - they exist. Which is what?

[student] self existent.

That’s too simple, be more specific to this course

[student] {gak-ja} -ly [laughing]

Yeah, which means what? The opposite of what we just said. Which would be
that they exist from their own side. In their own unique way of being. That’s a
fancy way of saying, “they exist out there I can see ‘em, they’re there, it doesn’t
depend on me – those are flowers, those are half-ugly flowers, and those are
daisies, and those are orchids, and those are …” – from – they just ‘are’.

[student] So really means …
Nope – doesn’t depend on me at all. They’re out there, and they have their
unique identity, independent of me. Which is really what you think in the back
of your mind, which is really the way you color all things that you see. Is it
wrong that you see them as flowers? No. Is it uncolored? No. Is it tainted?
Yes. Is it impaired? No.

[student] Um, Michael? Ah, question … Do you mean to say, is it wrong that
you see them as flowers?

Yeah, I mean; are they flowers there? Obviously they exist.

[student] Right.

Do they exist the way the back of my mind thinks? That they exist out there?
Independent of me? They don’t exist that way. Is my perception of them as
flowers wrong? No. That’s what we call deceptive perception [unclear].
Acceptable. Do, but when I ask {Lucille}, How do they exist? And she thinks,
well, they’re just there. That’s unacceptable. That’s your, that’s your – rose-
colors – coming out. That’s your {{dong-din}} and your grasping self-existent,
asserting itself. It is not your deceptive mind, you deceptive mind is just saying
these are flowers. And the rot, the rotten little ah, [laughs] you know, hanger-
on-er [laughing] you know, the little ah, mental function in the back there called
ignorance is saying they exist out there on their own and everyone should see
them the way I do. And that causes problems. Conflicts. I’ll go two more steps
and then I’ll stop.

[student] Can I ask a question? You said number three was conclusion? In the
logical reasoning …

So if I ask if you on the homework, [laughing] do they exist, – really – in this
school? What do they mean by ‘really’?

[student] Self-existent.

Too simple! Be more specific to this school.

[student] Independent of anything else.

Independent of those two requirements: that they are appearing and that I’m
seeing them that way. Or you can simplify it to this, and I’ll accept it if it
happened on your homework – that they are, exist, out there on their own, with
their own unique identity independent of me – that they could exist out there on
their own, with their own unique identity, independent of me, everyone should
see them the same way I do – they are daisies and white carnations and
everyone should see them the way I do. That’s what ‘really’ means. So, do the
three knowledges exist - really? Do they exist independently of my perception
of them?

[student] Nothing does.

Right, nothing. That’s, and that’s, that’s you know, that’s {svatantrika}. That’s
the guts of {svatantrika}. You just [unclear] that’s kinda nice. Okay.

[student] Michael, you just said there were three, three parts to [unclear]? … this
is number four!

Ah, sometimes you can have four [laughing]. I’m serious, I’m not kidding – the
fourth is optional. That number four is optional.

[student] [cut] four then?

That number four is a good example – a good example – you could say
supporting example? How’s that.

[student] Good supporting example [laughs]

By the way, one quality of the example is that the other person should, should
already have seen it and he agrees to it.

[student] What is it? A reflection?

Of an image in a mirror. Why is this a good example, Vilma take a shot.

[student] Why is this a good example …

To prove that something doesn’t ‘really’ exist. Use your first reaction.

[student] of what? The mirror?

Yeah, the reflection
[student] Why, why is the reflection a good example of …

For unreality.

[student] um, because - it doesn’t have any, any substance – reflection doesn’t
have … [unclear]

What happens when a baby is in front of a mirror?

[student] They think it’s real.

Yeah. Okay? That’s all. To a baby, I mean to, to someone who doesn’t know –
it looks like the person is inside the glass. The person inside the glass is not really
a person. But it looks like one. It’s an example of something that looks real, but
isn’t. Why? Still Ralph– why do the flowers look real but are not? {Svatantrika}
answer please.

[student] Ah, they look real because we see them out there existing on their own
independent of our perception …

But in truth …

[student] … but they aren’t real because they are dependent upon our
perception [unclear]

Okay now, that, that impression which is in the back of your mind all the time,
and you have it, you do have it - is that they are objectively out there –
independent of you. And that’s, that’s the, baby in the mirror. It looks real, but
its not. Okay and that’s all tonight.

[prayer: short mandala]
{Idam guru ratna mandalakam niryatayami}
 [prayer: dedication]