ACI 2 «Буддийское Прибежище», занятие 9

931206-1      Course II, Level One, Class Nine

[prayer: short mandala]
[prayer: refuge]

Many people told me they were a little confused. [laughs] [laughing] I’ll go over
what we did last week a little bit. I, I slowed down a lot, I have a tendency to be
on different subjects ah, but I’m gonna spend another class [unclear] answers –
um, you’ve got five proofs for emptiness, and the more ah, I was gonna go
through all five but I think we’ll just stick to this one tonight, ah, and the way it
went was like this: considering the three knowledges, what are the three
knowledges, [unclear- someone’s name?] remember?

[student] Yeah they’re, ah, basic um, knowledge, path knowledge and
knowledge of all things.

I’m sorry, what? [unclear- someone’s name?]

[student] basic I think is like, ah, knowledge that everybody has regular, …
[unclear] {Hinayana} perception …

Yeah, yeah, lower, ah, {Hinayana} perception.        That we don’t see emptiness
[unclear]

[student] Okay path knowledge is … [unclear]… direct perception

{Mahayana} perception

[student] oh of emptiness

Of emptiness, [unclear]… hasn’t …

[student] ah, the ah, knowl… the way that we’re …

omniscience … omniscience … Okay, for those three knowledges which happen
to be the main subject of this book, why did he take those [unclear] examples
there are many, you could say, [unclear] you’ve been studying, all, all you’ve
been studying up to now, these different subjects you’ve been studying are all …
relate to omniscience. They are, actually objects of omniscience [unclear] that’s
why you’ve been studying, that’s why we’ve been jumping ground between
refuge [unclear] that’s what, that’s the theme between [unclear] … those three
knowledges do not exist ‘really’ because they don’t exist really as one, and they
don’t exist really as many. Ah, Nina, do they exist as many? In general, if you
don’t say ‘really’, do they exist as many?

[student: Nina] you don’t say ‘really’?

If you don’t say ‘really’ ah, do they exist? Do the three knowledges exist?

[student: Nina] Yeah …

Okay. They do exist, right?

[student] But they’re not self-existent …

Right. Okay, ah, Vilma, they exist as one or many?

[student: Vilma] That they exist as many.

Good. So we can say they exist as many ‘really’ [unclear – student’s name]

[student] Yeah, because they don’t exist independent of someone’s perception.

Yeah, basically that, okay. Those’re per, that’s perfect because they don’t exist
independently of someone’s perception at that point. And that’s, that’s all you
need to know from last night. Okay? Not the, not Tibetan [laughs] Okay?

[student] Can I ask you a question?

Yeah …

[student] What I didn’t understand was how that, ties into the fact that they
don’t exist really as one nor many …

Okay, we’re gonna get to that

[student] I could see what the logic was between them …

Very nice, that’s what we’re reaching right now. Okay? Um, do you accept that
if something exists it must be either one or many? Has to be singular, or plural?
I mean, there’s only two choices, either something is one, or something is many.

[student] What about fractions, I mean yes I’m stupid but fractions …

Ah, you could say fractions are one fraction, or you can say they’re multiples of
that, three sixteenths are plural I guess, if you take it from the sixteenths …
there’s three of them [laughs] okay?

[student] Actually there’s sixteen of them of which we’re only focusing on three
I s’pose …

So anyway, ah, if something exists, it has to be one or many. So if something is,
doesn’t – self-existently exist as one. And if it doesn’t self-existently exist as
many, it can’t be … self existent! Alright? That’s the point. If something exists,
it has to be one, or plural. And if I can prove to you that something is neither
one, nor plural – I’ve just proven to you it doesn’t exist. Yeah …

[student] In order for it to really exist as one …

We’re gonna get there. This is the whole point tonight, and I don’t wanna
anticipate it, you know? This is the whole thing tonight. Ah, so do not exist
really if they do not exist really as one, or really as many. Ah, a Buddhist has to
prove three things here: ah, and I’m just giving you a little taste of what
[unclear]. [[the tape repeats here]] I mean, there’s only two choices: either
something is one, or something is many.

[student] What about fractions, I mean yes I’m stupid but fractions …

Ah, you could say fractions are one fraction, or you can say they’re multiples of
that, three sixteenths are plural I guess, if you take it from the sixteenths …
there’s three of them [laughs] okay?

[student] Actually there’s sixteen of them of which we’re only focusing on three
I s’pose …

So anyway, ah, if something exists, it has to be one or many. So if something is,
doesn’t – self-existently exist as one. And if it doesn’t self-existently exist as
many, it can’t be … self existent! Alright? That’s the point. If something exists,
it has to be one, or plural. And if I can prove to you that something is neither
one, nor plural – I’ve just proven to you it doesn’t exist. Yeah …

[student] In order for it to really exist as one …

We’re gonna get there. This is the whole point tonight, and I don’t wanna
anticipate it, you know? This is the whole thing tonight. Ah, so do not exist
really if they do not exist really as one, or really as many. Ah, a Buddhist has to
prove three things here: ah, and I’m just giving you a little taste of what you will
have maybe a year [[end tape repeat]] from now. Okay? We call, the three
elements have to be here, the three parts of a good reasoning, what are they?
I’m not referring to one, two, three

[student] Subject, characteristic, and reason

Yeah, but I’m referring now to three relationships have to hold. And this is not
on your, ah, homework, I just, I want you to know it. Three relationships have
to be true, if those three relationships come true, the proof is proof. And if any
one of them’s not true the proof is not a proof.

[student] Three relationships have to exist between what?

Between these three parts, these three parts are what? [unclear]Subject, then
you can call this thing [unclear] the three relationships that have to be there, the
first one is very famous, it’s called {Buk-shuk-chuk-chung} you don’t have to
know that. It’s that ‘reason’ is a quality of the subject. Reason, is a quality of the
subject, number three does connect to number one. What does that mean here?
[unclear]

[student] [unclear] … number two?

Ah, no, reason is number three so in this case the reason is because it’s yellow.
So it has to be true that number one is number three, that’s the first relationship,
it has to be true that the sun is …

[student] Yellow

Yellow. Okay? That’s, if that’s first relationship’s not true, obviously the whole
proof is not true. But I say to you, the sun’s not blue because it’s white, the sun’s
not blue because it’s purple, that’s not a good argument because the reason I
gave you which is ‘purple’ is not a quality of the sun.
[student] Could you rephrase what you just said before?

Yeah, this is the first relationship which is between one and three. What I give
you as the reason, which is ‘yellow’, has to be true about the subject, which is the
sun. If that’s not true you can forget this proof.

{Bahk-chiy} is the Sanskrit - {chok trin} is Tibetan. But we’re not gonna, you
don’t have to know that. The second relationship is – as you, as you can state the
first relationship like this. Ah one is, that’s relationship number one. The sun is
yellow. And the guy I’m debating with, the person I am trying to prove this to,
does he accept that? Relationship? Has he already seen that relationship?

[students] yeah,

Yeah. If he doesn’t accept that relationship the argument’s, its, never got off the
ground.

[student] You’ll never win it.

You know? He, he has to accept that relationship. Or else it’s a bad argument to
give him. It doesn’t prove anything for him. And secondly it has to be true that
if – this has to be true – if something is – yellow it’s – not blue.

[student] What if it’s green and it has both yellow and blue?

We, ah, that’s a common ah, it’s a, it’s a common question by Westerners about
this particular debate. Um, we’re talking the whole thing being one color. We’re
not talking mixed colors, or patterns or anything like that. We’re talking the
whole thing being one color, the whole thing is yellow – then the whole thing
cannot be blue. Okay? If yellow, not blue. By the Way, when you study
Buddhist logic a lot, and after you get used to it – you realize you are doing this
all the time. You’re doing this every moment of the day, your actually – when
you talk to people and you’re trying to tell somebody at work, or you’re trying
to convince them of something, you’re, you’re giving a proof in exactly this
way. Ah, you, you’re not doing anything else, and the way you think and the
way you understand the words and sentences is based on this also. This is the
ground for everything you think. Ah, and on, every time you’re trying to
convince somebody at work or your, your husband or your friend or your
mother or anything – you’re actually giving them this logical statement. You
don’t know you’re doing it and you didn’t think about how it works. Ah, but
you’re, you, you’re thinking in exactly this way. ‘If not two, not three’ means …
if something is not, not blue – which means what? If it’s [laughs] blue, it’s not
yellow. If not, not blue then it’s not yellow. Because it means if it’s blue it’s
yellow, not yellow, sorry. If these three things hold – if these three relationships
hold – if somebody understands, the guy that you’re arguing with, if he
understands that the sun is yellow – if he understands that if something is yellow
it can’t be blue. And the third one, is, it’s a little bit, we don’t even have to talk
about the third element but it’s also necessary for special reasons. Then he can’t
deny the, he can’t deny the conclusion which is the sun is not blue, he can’t deny
it. And, and in a way – he knew it already, he didn’t tie it together. He had all
the elements in his own mind; he knew that the sun was yellow, he knew that if
something’s not yellow, if, if something’s yellow it can’t be blue –but it never
occurred to him to say, “oh the sun’s not blue.” We’re talking about a guy who
thinks the sun is blue. You say the sun’s not blue, it’s yellow. You just became a
Buddhist logician. That’s the whole, that’s a Buddhist - why? He accepts the sun
is yellow, he can see it. Does he know what yellow is? Yeah! Okay, he’s seen
what yellow is, he’s seen what sun is, he knows what blue is, okay? He knows
all these things. He just never tied it together. Now how does that relate to our
proof tonight? We wanna prove first of all what we call the

[student] Excuse me.

Yeah.

[student] Um, what, the, the last one: it, does not exist really as one or really as
many – how does that connect to ‘yellow’? Is that cause yellow is – just one? It’s
yellow.

Right, right that’s true. Sometimes the reason given can be plural. You can have
two parts to the reason given. Normally you don’t. This reason’s a little tough
for that reason. Okay? You’ve got two parts to the reason, actually. They’re not
self-existent one, and they’re not self-existent as many.

[student] Michael, is there any reason that they chose that, they chose the many/
singular dichotomy …

Yeah, you’re gonna see why, before we finish tonight.

[student] Okay.
Okay, it’s a good question. Alright? Everybody all right? [laughs] Okay.
Alright, so – ah – we wanna see why, we can knock out this part very quickly –
by saying: if it’s not, if something can’t exist really as one, - I’ll say it again. If
it’s impossible for something to exist really as one thing, then forget many. If, if,
if one self-existent thing is impossible, you don’t have to worry about many of
them. A group of them. Okay? If one Martian is impossible, I don’t have to
prove to you that a hundred Martians is impossible. If I can prove to you that
one Martian is impossible, then, a whole group of Martians, you know, I don’t
have to fight very hard to prove that to you. If you believe – if I can prove to
you that one Martian is impossible, then a whole group of Martians, you know, I
don’t have to fight very hard to prove that to you. If you believe that, if I can
show you beyond a, any doubt that there’s no such thing as a Martian, then I
don’t have to debate with you about a hundred Martians.

[student] I thought that the many was a component of the one.

No, not in this case. It’s a group of ones. So I’m not going to talk tonight about
trying to prove to you that don’t exist as really as many. Because if I can prove
to you that they don’t exist really as one, I don’t have to prove to you that they
exist really as many – that they don’t exist really as many. If I can prove to you
that one Martian doesn’t exist I don’t have to go through a lot of sweat to prove
that many don’t exist. So we’re gonna concentrate tonight, on proving to you,
that existing really as one is impossible.

[student] Any [unclear] as one, Michael? Or these particular …

Any existence as one. I mean …

[student] As opposed to just …

Now, but we’re gonna, whatever we say about them is gonna apply to anything
actually. And that’s the principle of {Madhyamika} but don’t worry about it.
Okay, alright? No, nobody fell off their chair yet, okay. How do we prove that
something doesn’t exist really as one? Okay? And, and I’ll, I’ll give you the
proof now. This [unclear] alright, I’m gonna give you your homework right
now. And we’re gonna go through it, ‘cause this is tough – Okay? You can’t
write the answers in your homework tonight – okay? [laughing] that would take
all the …
[student] during class.

… that would take all the fun out. Yeah, during class, when you get home then
it’s okay. Alright, outside I’m [unclear] doing ninety [laughing] Going ninety -
Push those guys over and say I’ve gotta write my homework

[student] yeah they won’t mug you that way
[student] oh my god [unclear]
[student] I guess so

Don’t, don’t read the whole homework, okay? [laughing] We’ll go through it
together. No, we’ll go through the whole thing but I want you to do it with me.
This is more of an interactive homework. [unclear]

[student] Oh my god it’s so long!

It’s not as long as it looks. Okay? Actually I’m gonna do it with you, before you
do it. Okay. Please follow with me, the first question: The proof called the
emptiness of one or many states: consider the three basic knowledge, path
knowledge, and knowledge of all things. I shortened it to the three knowledges.
They do not really exist, for the exist neither as one thing which really exists, nor
as many things which really exist. Let’s confirm the first part of the proof. We
want to know if it’s true, that the three knowledges are neither one thing which
really exists, nor many things which really exist. Give the proof for the first part,
that the three knowledges are not one thing which really exist. Okay? We hafta,
we wanna prove this – part right here. Okay? We wanna prove they don’t exist
really as one. And, and the classical proof for that is – what’s the subject that
we’re talkin’ about? What subject are we going to be talking about?

[students] Three knowledges?

Yeah, we don’t have to change that part. Okay? What are we trying to prove
about them?

[student] that they don’t exist really as one.

Nine, now we can just [unclear] and the proof is, I use four just as a, as we count
okay? [silence] So if by chance tonight you didn’t have anything to do at home,
you could just write this in the first blank. [laughing]
[student] I didn’t say that

No I wanna go over it, I wanna go through it with you, ‘cause I have, I had,
several people came to me and say, this course is getting to deep for me, and I
said well, okay, I’ll slow down a little bit. Ah, consider the three knowledges –
they don’t exist really as one. Why?

[student] ‘Cause they have parts …

[student] What do you write under [unclear] can you say it louder?

Yeah. Ah consider the three knowledges, which mean… let’s talk about the three
knowledges. That’s our subject. What do we want to prove about them? They
don’t really exist as one. As one thing, they do not really exist as one thing.
Why? Because they have parts! Okay? Because they have parts. Now we have
to prove each part of this proof. We have to prove three connects to one, we
have to prove that if something is three it must be two and we have to prove
that if something is not two then it can’t be three. We gotta go through those
three steps. They’re here in the homework. Okay, part number two. Question
number two: let’s confirm each part of this proof two. First of all, why is it true
that if something has parts - if three, then it cannot be something, one thing
which really exists. Remember? That was the second element we were trying,
we always have to prove. We call it {gyi-kap}

[student] {gyi-kap}?

{gyi-kap}. And, and this is the guts of the, of this, ah, this is gonna be the most
difficult thing to prove. This is the thing that is hard for you, this is what you
asked about. And, and correctly, I was waiting for someone to say, ‘okay, I
understand that if something were self-existent, it’d have to be self-existent one,
or self-existent many, but, but what’s that? Why aren’t those things seen as self-
existent many? I mean what’s the difference between a self-existent many and
just a regular many?’ Okay? [laughs] Because they are a regular many, right?

[student] Yeah.

So, we, we’re gonna start with the most difficult stuff, which is; why is it that if
something has parts it can’t be a self-existent one? Why is it that if something
has parts, it can’t really exist as many?
[student] [unclear] if you take a part away then you don’t have it, or …

I’ll tell you. Ah,

[student] [unclear] dependent, [unclear] dependent

You hear that said a lot, you know? The lamas get up and they say well things
have parts so they can’t be self-existent. And then you, you have trouble, I mean
it seems so obvious tonight, you wonder, well who would think that it didn’t
have parts? You know, or who would miss the point that it’s not self-existent if,
if all that means is that it has parts, I mean who, who’d be dumb enough to think
that it didn’t have parts? You know? I mean you hear people get up and it
seems to me, it, it appears to me that it breaks down sometimes. They give the
argument very clearly, they say if it has parts it can’t be self-existent; if it’s
dependent it can’t be self-existent; if it has parts it can’t be a self-existent one.
And then they go on. But you don’t see [laughing] But you don’t see what’s,
what’s the relation, you know? Whaddya trying to prove? What’s it got to do
with me? What, am I, how am I ignorant of that? You know? And how, if I
didn’t think that way, how would things change? You know, ah, I think that,
get’s, it was very frustrating for me for many years. So, ah, the point is this, and
they’ll, and they’ll get up and say this too, um – take the pen okay? And I’ll tell
you something very, very deep, and some day you will catch it directly, you will
not catch it directly tonight because I’m saying it, but it will put a seed in your
mind and then if you, if you are, who you seem to be and you haven’t seen this
yet it’ll come to you one day. And, and the way to get it to come is to be good.
Keep your morality, keep your patience, do all this stuff. That’s the energy that
makes you see it someday, and it’s that, ah, when you look at this pen what,
whaddya see, do you see a pen? Carol.

[student] um-hm White and blue?

A pen. Right? It’s a pen. What a, what, it’s a very deep thing, a very difficult
thing, but you – you cannot be seeing a pen. It’s impossible. Why? Because if, -
because you can’t see the pen without looking at the top of the pen, and looking
at the bottom of the pen. It’s impossible for you to see this pen without looking
at the parts of the pen. But while you’re looking at the parts of the pen it’s
impossible for you to see the pen. And it’s that simple. It’s impossible, what you
think you’re doing is impossible. And it’s so – simple that you, you, again you
get this feeling [laughs] what’s it got to do with me? You know? It’s s’posed
[unclear]? [laughs] I mean what’re you talking about? [laughing] I’ll say it
again. What you think you’re doing is impossible. You cannot see a pen. It’s
impossible. Because when you look at a pen, the only way you can see it is by
looking at its parts. If, if you didn’t, if your eye didn’t go to the top and then to
the bottom you couldn’t see the pen. But if your eye is focusing on the top or
the bottom you can’t be seeing the pen, you see the top of the pen or the bottom
of the pen, you cannot see a pen while you are seeing the parts of the pen. You
can’t see the parts of the pen [laughs] and still see the pen. What you’re doing is
impossible. What you believe you are doing is impossible. And, so what, who
cares? Right? [laughs] As long as I can use the pen, I don’t care. [laughs] You
know? And that’s true. Ah, what, what you’re really doing, what’s really
happening, and you’ll understand it on the path of preparation, on a high part of
the path of preparation, you’ll see this fact directly; you are taking clues, you,
you never see the whole pen, and that’s obvious ‘cause you can’t see the back of
the pen. You don’t know if this is a fence that goes on for a mile, I mean, you’re
assuming, but you don’t know. All you can see, you are catching clues, you’re
catching some, you’re catching some blue, a rounded part up here, you’re
catching ah, a line of white over on the edge here, I mean, this is why artists,
great artists know that; Picasso was playing on that. Ah, you, you catch a few
clues, and then something in you, ah – something in you – makes you – paint a
picture in your mind of a whole perfect beautiful pen. There’s some habit, or
tendency within you that makes you - interpret those parts as, as a nice perfect,
what you call, ‘pen’.

[student] But Michael?

In your mind.

[student] This [unclear] I always had problems with. A two year-old, or a one –
year-old, sees this thing and doesn’t cognize it that way, and doesn’t, and doesn’t
label it as a pen

No.

[student] but they’re not perceiving emptiness –

No.
[student] So, how, how does …

They’re perceiving a, a long white and blue thing, with a … that’s all.
[student] But they haven’t filled in, they haven’t seen enough pens to fill in the
idea of the pen …

No, they don’t see a pen. They see a long white and blue thing.

[student] Which is the same as a pen in this …

Which can work as a pen for a person who knows what it is. You see? Now
how does, now, so who cares if, who cares, and by the way, didn’t you mistake
this perfect image for, you think the pen is out there independent of your image.
And, and you have done that with every – single – object – of your thoughts –
your mind or senses for beginningless time – and you’ve made the same
mistake. And you believe it.

[student] Why you say mistake, Michael?

It’s not out there. It’s a product of your imagination.

[student] Why can’t you say that it’s made up of some parts?

The parts are there. You’re, you’re interpreting the parts to be a perfect pen.
And you’ve been doing that,

[student] Why [unclear] logical?

You’ve been doing that for your whole existence, you’ve never done anything
different.

[student] Why isn’t that logical, why can’t you have different parts that
constitute a pen? Why can’t you?

I just told you. Are you looking at a pen or it’s parts?

[student] Parts, okay, but parts can make a pen!

Then you can’t see a pen. At the same time.

[student] What if you had a hologram?

Then you’d see the top of the hologram, or the bottom of the hologram, you
couldn’t see the whole hologram and if you could, you couldn’t see the bottom
or the top – you couldn’t recognize it as a hologram – it would be …

[student] Something very small that you see … [laughing]

You guys are anticipating the arguments of the lower school. [laughing] And
we’re gonna get that tonight. So just, I just say it’s a very holy thing, I’m not
kidding. At some point, just before you perceive emptiness directly, you’ll see
what you’re doing. And that’s your first direct perception of, what? Ultimate
truth? Or deceptive truth?

[student] Deceptive.

Deceptive! You finally understood what you’ve been doing, you did not see
emptiness yet, directly. But you directly perceived the game that your mind is
playing.

[student] Well, I still think that, that babies don’t play that game.

They do.

[student] They see a whole thing.

They, even they are imputing – you see? Even they are – even in, from the
moment of conception – they are imputing the warmth that they feel and the
wetness that they feel and whatever [unclear]

[student] They’re imputing it as out there and labeling it?

Yeah, they believe it’s external to themselves.

[student] Well ….

Bugs do. Roaches do, amoebas do, okay? According to Buddhism everyone
does it. And it infects every, every conscious being’s mind, okay?

[student] What is that saying the particles exist?

By the way, is the, is the habit of taking it that way, or believing it that way,
deceptive state of mind? It’s a tricky, this’s a tricky question.
[student] Believing what way?

Now, believing that the thing out there, is out there on its own, independent of
me – is that in your mind all the time? Do, do you always bring it up
consciously, “oh, I, ah, it’s not in me, it’s out there.” Are you stating it all the
time? No. It’s infecting your mind, it’s coloring your mind. But you’re not
always on the, if someone else says, “hey, you, what’ya have your lunch, for
lunch?” And you say, “Hey you know what I’m doing? I, I think that things out
there on it’s own.” [laughs] [laughing] It infects your mind. It infects your mind
to the point that if someone asks you, “Does that flower, ah, where’d they go?
[laughing] … exist out there on their own? You’d say, well of course they do.
You know and whe, and if they said, well, if you weren’t thinking about it,
would they be there? And well, of course they’d be there.

[student] [unclear]
[student] So what is the deceptive mind?
[student] … if your imputing that there …

Deceptive mind, lemme get to her [cut] – it’s a good question

[student] What is the deceptive mind. This is the karmic seed, this is – you’re
talking about the …

Deceptive mind – deceptive mind is the plain old normal perception of what’s
around you and he’s, he’s valid. He’s okay. He’s very healthy, if it wasn’t for
him you couldn’t see anything. He’s what, he’s what seeing things, he’s what’s
establishing things as existing. Does space exist, yes. Well that’s it! That’s
deceptive mind.

[student] What about atom? Atom still has parts? [unclear]

I love this question.

[student] A neutron, a proton [laughs]
[student] [unclear]

Okay so what we try to do so far? This is the most difficult part, okay? I was
expecting people to [unclear]. Um, the rest is easy, the rest is much easier to
prove, but this is the, this is the – profound part, this is the part that if you
understand, you, you can get very close to perceiving emptiness, because if you
understand this, you’ve seen, what? Deceptive reality. Which is the way things
exist conventionally rather than really.

[student] Are you saying that lamas don’t go into this because to them, it’s, they
get it and [unclear]

I don’t know. I, I, I can’t [unclear] I can say that I was confused for a long time.
And, and I felt – ah, or I guess I didn’t reach the part – and it does come in
scripture but it didn’t come until about eight years into my training

[student] So what are the parts, Michael?

Ah, we’ll get, we’ll talk about it.

[student] you reached the part in scripture and what?

That, that explains all that. And it was just a sentence. It was just two sentences.
And I tore it out, and you know [laughs] [laughing] Alright, ah. So we, let’s say,
okay that we’ve established, you’ve gotten now feeling for the truth of what
exists. You don’t know if, if it’s such a big deal that you wanna go to a five year
course to hear that, but, ah you understand it. So if, if something has parts it
can’t really exist as one. Which I said, what I’m trying to say is: if you perceive
the parts, you can’t perceive the whole, but you constantly think you are
perceiving the whole. If you didn’t perceive the top and the bottom, you
couldn’t perceive the thing. But while you’re perceiving the top and the bottom
you can’t be perceiving the thing.

[student] So then you get to the point where then it, it might appear as a
collection of parts.

But, lemme, lemme answer that and everybody listen. He says; you might reach
the point where it appears as a collection of parts …

[student] no no, where it ‘may’ appear…

Okay, may appear as a collection of parts. Let’s suppose it does appear as a
collection of parts

[student 2] and that means it doesn’t appear as a pen then?
At the time that it’s appearing as a collection of parts you can’t see the pen – you
know if I say; Okay everybody in this room …

[student] Cannot see the parts?

[unclear]

Look, listen if I tell – concentrate on this pen – concentrate on the pen, don’t
think of all the parts of the pen, don’t, don’t, look at the letters here, don’t, don’t
focus on the top, don’t focus on the bottom, just focus on the pen as a whole –
Okay? It’s difficult [laughs] No, actually – it’s hard to describe it, you have to
practice it – your mind can go and grasp the whole thing in a sense – you know,
the outline, or something ‘pen’ – and then, and then it shifts gears and goes back
to the parts again. You can perceive the collection of parts – but, but you can’t
do it independent of the parts. So y…, I can say concentrate on each part; skip
around, skip, skip, skip, skip, skip, skip. Now, now try to concentrate on the
whole thing at once – you can sorta make a picture - and then you slip back
[laughs] into the parts again. Y.., you can go into it in two levels.

[student] But you can’t see the entire collection?

You can’t. You can imagine it. And that’s what I’m saying we’re doing.

[student] Furthermore though, if, if that’s the way it really existed, take away
one of the parts and it would cease to exist.

Right

[student] Okay, but what about what a, don’t the parts exist though? Michael? I
mean maybe the whole collection does not exist because it’s made up of parts,
what about the, the …

Now I’ll tell you something tricky okay? I don’t want to get into, [laughs] you
wa, you wanna be, get, potential confusion? You guys want it or not?

[student] yeah, yeah
[student] yeah.

All right. When, when you concentrate on the top, can you see the top without
looking at it’s parts? Now the {svatantrika} say; while I’m looking at the parts of
the pen if I wanna see what I’m calling ‘pen’, the parts are there, the parts are
there and I’m calling those parts ‘pen’ – I can find the parts I call ‘pen’. Ultimately
you know, when I get down to these parts – that’s what I’m calling ‘pen’. Now
{sandika} the higher school says, oh, mister {svatantrika} [laughing] what, what
happens, pray tell, when you concentrate on the top?

[student] Of the top.

Then you need to look at the top of the top and the bottom of the top. So where
is this thing you’re calling ‘pen’? Oh, it’s the top and the bottom together. Says,
oh! What about the top? How can you perceive the top? You know, and what,
what {pro-seng-gye-ka} is saying – you never will find a thing that you gave the
label to, the, the {svatantrika} says you can find it; it will stop; the buck stops at
the first level of parts, they say that. The {pro-seng-gye-ka} says, com’on, be
honest – how can you be seeing the top, if you’re not looking at the top of the
top and the bottom of the top? So where’s this thing coming from?

[student] [unclear] bottom?

Wait, wait, wait, wait; so where’s this thing coming from? How can you be
perceiving it? If you can’t see even the top without looking at the top of the top
and the bottom of the top, then where’s this thing coming from?

[student] Atoms.

Your mind! Your, your phony imagination. [laughs] [laughing] Okay? Your
deceptive mind. Okay?

[student] Why?
[student] Which kinda fills in the

It’s filling in. It’s filling in.

[student] No but I’m not talking about

And why is it filling in, in this certain way, that’s the point. You see, that’s the
where I feel that I always got short changed. Why is it filling in, in a certain way?

[student] [unclear]
No. Who’s causing it to fill in, in a certain way? Is it choice?

[student] karma.

Karma, it’s my past mental seeds. It’s filling it in the way it wants to, despite my
desire for happiness, [laughs] okay? I want it to fill in things always the way I
would like you know? I would like dinner to be filled in as delicious [laughing]
and [laughs] I would like ah, my boss to be filled in as saying, you know, you’re
really the best employee we have. Ah, and it, it it, it’s the same parts, but it’s
refusing to fill it in that way despite my desires. That’s {samsara}. That’s
suffering.

[student] What about if you narrow it down? I mean, you, you, what are you
saying if I understood you correctly is that if you break it down, if you go into
the part you’ll see the part that you see the bottom, the top of the part and the
bottom of the part, if you narrow it down more, you’ll see again, what about if
you really get to the protons and neutrons …

We’ll get, we’re getting there, we’re getting there – I’m getting there – he it, it’s a
beautiful, beautiful question because it’s exactly where the argument goes next.
It’s exactly where all the great saints of India have decided this should go next.
So your mind is going in the right direction. So ah, let’s talk about what Nina
said, we, we, let’s talk about [laughing] … So you now have the [unclear-
reason?] of number two.

[student] which is …

Which is, now I’m not gonna read to you, you, you distill what I said, but don’t
forget the pen, I mean, use the pen if you like. Okay, number three. The
{svatantrika} system says, the reason here which is what? The reason is here.
Because they have, here’s the reason, right? They say that this having parts
applies to every object that exists in the universe. You uncomfortable with that?

[student] Say it again Michael.

They say this reason – applies to everything in the universe. Everything in the
universe has parts. Remember the first course? Didn’t they say that? Wasn’t
that the independent, - independently {svatantrika}? They say that everything
in the universe has parts, therefore the three knowledges – what? .. have parts!
They exist!

[student] They are one of the things in the universe

They are one of the things in the universe. What, what are they getting to?
They’re getting to – they’re getting to this, remember if we want to prove
something we have to prove this relationship also? We just proved the worst
one, the hardest one, that was ‘if three then two’ – but now, we’re gonna try to
prove ‘one is three’ meaning the three knowledges are what?

[student] Have parts

Have parts! And the {svatantrikas} say, hey! You guys, if you want to prove
that the three knowledges have parts, let’s just prove that everything in the
universe has parts. Probably cover the three knowledges [laughs] alright?
Overkill, to prove that the three knowledges have parts – I’m sorry, to prove
that all things have parts, you have to prove that changing things have parts,
and that unchanging things have parts. And by the way, there’s only two
possibilities in the universe - you are either a changing thing, or you are an
unchanging thing.

[student] um, sometimes they break things down into composed and ..

Yeah, that’s incorrect. It’s just a mistake. It’s a ba, it’s a mistranslation.

[student] That’s a mistranslation of changing and unchanging?

Yeah,

[student] Okay

Yeah, in fact the normal translation here is permanent and impermanent and
that’s a mistake.

[student] What about produced and unproduced?

That’s better.   But, it’s not great because there’s unproduced things but they
don’t exist.

[student] What is it unchanging and permanent?
Well, I don’t want to get too much into it, but, is the, is the emptiness of this pen
what they call permanent in the normal translation? It is.

[student] Yeah,
[student] Yeah.

It will go out of existence when I destroy the pen. Does that, fit your idea of
permanent?

[student] no.

I think it’s a bad translation. You see?

[student] Oh, ‘cause permanent’s, okay …

Permanent means eternal.

[student] Yeah

And that ain’t what the Buddhist terms mean, it just means unchanging. For as
long as, - for such time as the emptiness of this pen does exist, it will never
change its quality. It won’t get more empty, less empty. As long as there’s no
elephant in this room, this room is empty of elephants. And it’s not like half
empty of elephants, or five minutes later empty of elephants, or any more less
empty of elephants or any less empty of elephants it’s either, or any other ‘nots’
– you put an elephant in here it’s, the emptiness of elephants is –

[student] non existent …

Gone. Okay, is it permanent? It is what the translations say permanent is, it’s a
bad, I don’t like that translation, alright? I will use it but I, I think students have
to understand that. Okay. Ah, Prove this; you must prove that changing things
and unchanging things have parts. So we can divide all things in the worl, in the
universe into those things that change, and those things that don’t change …

[student] Why d’you even have to divide it? Why you just can’t say whole
things? Why d’you have to say changing and unchanging?

Because if we can prove that changing things don’t have, I mean, I’m sorry. If
we can prove that all changing things have parts and if we can also prove that all
unchanging things have parts

[student] [unclear] you still have to ah, ah, divide it? Why can’t you just say ‘all
things’?

I’m trying to prove it to you! Everyone in this office is an asshole. Prove it to
me. ‘Well, Tom over there, you should hear what he said to me yesterday
[laughing] and hey [laughing] and [unclear] you wouldn’t believe what she said
to me.’ [laughing] I mean by the end, if I’ve gone through everybody, now you
believe everybody is?

[student] Yeah, but I, I didn, you didn’t divide

If I say everything in the universe is changing, I’m sorry, is, has parts; everything
in the universe has parts. One good way to do it is to go through the things one
by one and say look everything on that side of the office is a … and everybody
on that side of office is a … – so you agree everybody in this office is a …?
[laughing]

[student] You’re in the office, too [laughing]

Okay, No, [unclear] common, I can prove that all the [unclear]

[student] I don’t understand why you have t, why you have to eh, eh, separate
them [unclear]

I just told you why! If I’m in your office and [laughing] [unclear] everybody in
Nina’s office is a, is a son-of-a-gun, and you say well prove it, and I, then well
then how do I prove it?

[student] yeah, but you say everybody in your office is either son-of-a-gun or
not son-of-a-gun you know what I mean? You didn’t say that, you just said son-
of-a-gun. One choice. You have two …

No I am dividing. In each person, I’m dividing everybody into each person

[student] You know why he says it that way? Because if he didn’t and he said
everything is ah, gotta be changing, one person in that class is gonna stand up
and say what about the things that are not changing? So you have to distinguish
…

No it’s, it’s not for that, it’s that when I want to prove something about
everybody in your office I can do it if I can prove it about every person
individually in your office, right? That’s how I have to do it.

[student] Okay but you still did not say – I – you didn’t present it as, ah bad
versus good, or you didn’t present in two formats rather your, you did,
changing and unchanging.

Oh no I’m saying John or Tom. John and Tom are both bad guys – prove it, well
first I’ll prove John is a bad guy, and then I’ll prove Tom is a bad guy when I’ve
to it done, I’ve prove that both are bad guys. Okay, divide and conquer. Alright,
next think about it – ah, to prove that changing things have parts, you must
prove that physical things have parts and that mental things have parts because
mainly those are the two divisions of changing things. And you’ll learn that
someday. If a thing is changing – broadly speaking – it has to be either mental
or physical.

[student] I’m sorry could you repeat that?

I, I’m trying to prove everything in the universe, is, is, has parts. And by doing
that, to do that I split everything into changing things and unchanging things.
‘Cause I can, if I can prove to you that the only two choices in the universe are
both, ha, both have parts then I’ve proved that everything has parts. Now. To
prove that the first part has parts, which is what?

[student] Changing things.

Changing things. I’m gonna split them into two parts and prove that both of
those parts are, have parts. Now the only, basically speaking, and there’s an
exception and I’m not gonna get into it; if you, if the thing is changing it either
has to be mental or physical.

[student] So these are the two parts you are dividing into?

Yeah there’s only two choices

[student] Mental?
You can go like this, here – this will make it easier

[student] Mental and what?
[student] Physical
[student] Thank you
[student] Like Olivia Newton John, let’s get physical. [laughing] a really bad
song in the seventies.
[student] Bad song in the eighties and nineties [laughing]
[student] Unchanging badness! [laughing]
[student] actually on Mars they think it’s great so …[laughing]

Alright things is little delicate – but I’m gonna leave it for now [unclear]

[student] Delicate things are undelicate?
[student] What is the in, other word?
[student] Subtle
[student] Subtle
[student] Gross
[student] Gross

Gross

[student] Gross like John Travolta [laughing]

So I wanna prove that things all have parts – I have to prove that changing
things all have parts, and unchanging things all have parts. By the way, what’s
the big deal about proving that things have parts? If I can prove that everything
has parts then what I said about [unclear] applies to all things, and then all things
are … empty.

If I can prov…

[student] but you still haven’t answered the atom question

I’m getting’ there ‘cause it’s right here! If I can prove that [laughs] if I can prove
that if something has parts its unreal – if, if it’s true that, that if anything has parts
it’s unreal – and if I can prove that everything in the universe has parts – then
you’re gonna have to accept what?

[student] everything’s [unclear]
Everything’s unreal. Okay? So I’m just tryin’ to work – it, it’s a little hard to
prove that everything has parts, but that’s what we’re gonna spend this evening
on. And if, if and now because of what I said about the pen at the opening, which
is, never forget that, that’s a holy thing and it will help you someday. Okay, if, if
I can prove that fact about all things in the inverse then everything is empty.
Then there’s not a thing in your life, or in this universe which doesn’t come by
means of your own perceptions and your own karma that’s forcing it on you.
Even the universe, even the galaxy, okay, even atoms and carbon [laughs]
alright. We were gonna - if we prove this and this one, we prove this one. If we
prove this and this one, we prove this one. If we prove this and this one, we
prove this one and then … there’s no other choices. We’re down to gross subtle
things subtle, I’m sorry; gross physical things and subtle things. I’ll cover those
two and then we’ll take a break. Gross, [laughs] She’s gross from [unclear] now
common! [laughing]

[student] wow [laughing]

Okay, gross is very easy. If I cover my two fingers like … [laughing] I can prove
my hand has parts. Because by covering this, this doesn’t disappear. [unclear]
have to move the same way – if they weren’t separate parts. It’s so, it’s simple.
Okay? I’ll say it again. There’s two proofs from the scripture. One is that if you
cover a part of a big physical thing, the other part doesn’t disappear so there
must be … different parts! If you move Michael …

[student] [unclear] Michael?

I gave you two examples, remember? You only need one. The second thing is –
I mean – if I didn’t have any parts, then when I move my right arm, my left arm
should move, if they’re not separate parts, then, or when I wink this eye, the
other eye should wink. And those are all examples from scripture.

[student] When you say ‘removed’ you mean rem, simple removed from view
or removed as well, if you cut your two fingers off?

Well, I mean from view [laughs]

[student] Well but it’s true! If you cut your two fingers off…

That’s true too,
[student] … hand right?

Well if you cut your two fingers off, the other two don’t fall off.

[student] W..

If they weren’t parts,

[student] right

If your hand didn’t have parts, then the other two would fall off.

[student] And – and – same thing goes if you took the inside of the pen out from
behind, then we couldn’t see it, then the pen should cease to exist.

Yeah, right. Now subtle ones, this is where we get into atoms. Miss [Macardi’s]
atoms? This is a beautiful argument. Does that happen to be number four?

[student] four. [Laughing]

This is pretty interesting and this is the one the Dalai Lama often brings up and
this is where, a, his lions come in, okay? Um. Let’s say you get down to the
smallest [unclear] in the universe. Miss [Macardi’s] instinct wants her to say they
don’t have any parts. And the, and the Buddhist philosopher says, um, are they–
is it by putting atoms together that you make things? Do atoms blend into each
other? Do these two atoms go like this? Or do they, do they have to be - can
they invade each other’s space?

[student] [unclear] together.

Or do they, can they just overlap totally? Can every part, can every side of one
atom be covered by the side of the atom next to it? Can every surface on that
atom be touched

[student] in other words, can they merge or not. Or not.

Be touched by the atom next to it?

[student] Partially or totally?
Is it that every part of this atom touches every part of this atom? Which is – it
would end up looking like that then everything would be one atom big. And I
wouldn’t be here [laughing] [laughs] Okay? Or is it that somehow they touch,
they touch on one place, or even on a couple of places, but they don’t touch on
the other sides, the far side? I mean, you have to say this, ‘cause if you say this,
you wouldn’t have anything bigger than an atom.

[student] Okay.

As long as they exist in this way, which Miss [Macardi] says no, ah, there has to
be a side that’s touched and a side that’s not touched. Okay? There has to be a, a
left side and a right side. Or, an inside or an outside, or a, or a near side or a far
side – and that’s parts!
[silence]

[student] I knew you were gonna say that.

[laughs] [laughing] [unclear]

[student] Can’t you make it small enough that you can’t take up or down?

I didn’t say up or down, I said …

[student] I mean left, ahh touching, none touching side

No cause if they don’t make some kind of contact or if they’re not close – how
can you have a thing, how can a thing be made up of those? – if they’re not
somehow grouped together – how, how can it, and then, and then when you
group them, I don’t care if you wanna say they have fields and they can actually
kinda go like this – but in, in any case there’s gonna be a far side which is closer
to the, to the field in which they sem, semi-merge or there’s gonna be a closer
part to the field in which they semi-merge but, but in any case there’s gonna be a
left side and a right side, or a near side and a far side or, there always will be. Or
else you couldn’t make a thing of it. If they touched, if every – I repeat – if every
surface, every point on the surface of one atom touched every point on the
surface of another atom everything would just merge into one.

[student] We’d have one atom.
And everything would be a single atom and you couldn’t eat the deserts
upstairs. [laughing] Okay, we’ll do [unclear]

[student] Are you saying that there’s no such a thing as one atom, one atom in
the universe by itself? if I …

There’s no such thing as a subtle physical thing which doesn’t have parts. And
I’ve already proven to you that there’s no such thing as a bigger physical thing
that doesn’t have parts, therefore what? There’s no such thing as a – physical
thing, it - no physical thing in the universe doesn’t have parts, or everything
physical in the universe has parts. Because I proved it for atoms and I proved it
for everything made of atoms. Has, has

[student] why are you call this [cut]

[unclear] things have parts too. And

[student] oh yeah, ahha … [laughing]

Okay? [laughing] [unclear]

[student] What are mental things?

Ah, well, there are your mind and your mental functions. You, your basic
awareness of anything and in all those little mental functions like jealousy, anger,
concentration, knowledge, not {bodhichitta}

[student] Not {bodhichitta} [laughing]

[unclear] … struggle with. Those are mental things, alright? Now we talk about
ah, we talk about direct – two kinds of karma. Okay? One is direct cause and
one is indirect cause.

[student] Causes of what?

I should say direct and … you give me a good word when I explain it. Direct
means happening right after the other with no other thing in between. So you
can say me-ness awareness; your, your visual awareness of ‘me’ at eight-thirty
and your visual awareness of me at eight-thirty point-oh-one. The next, the next
second,
[student] millisecond.

okay, the very next millisecond.

[student] Okay.

That, your awareness of my color and shape – ah, visual awareness of me at
eight-thirty point oh-oh. And your awareness of me at eight-thirty point oh-
one. These are what we call direct cause and direct result. Okay? The – your
visual awareness at eight-thirty-oh-oh, is the direct cause for your visual
awareness at eight-thirty-oh-one. I’m contributing as the object, but I’m not the
direct cause. The direct cause is, is the mind of the moment before - the visual
awareness of the moment before. Now the thing that turns into the visual
awareness of the moment after – I admit that there are many other causes going
on, many other conditions … ah, I’m here as your object – ah, you have the
eyeball helping you out, that you have the, ah the – what do they it? The cornea?
In your eye …opening and closing

[student] Iris …
[student] pupil …

Those are all helping – the main cause for your visual awareness of me is, is the
one from the moment before.

[student] Michael, how does the karma fit into that, I mean …

We’re getting to that

[student] … talk about the main cause being karma …

We’re getting there. We’re getting there.

[student]   So it’s still the main cause is really the visual perception of
immediately ..

The direct cause, the direct cause. What we call the direct cause is the visual
awareness of the moment before. Of the millisecond before. You can think of it
like this, I mean here’s, here’s the, let’s say it’s going this way, okay? Here’s
your awareness bearing moment one – and then here’s your awareness bearing
moment two – and then here’s your awareness … milliseconds, okay? Milli-
milli-milli-milliseconds. Okay they’re going like this: you’re aware of me, you’re
aware of me, you’re aware of me – you’re aware of seeing me actually – okay?
My color actually if you wanna get technical … um … your, your, your eye
consciousness – your awareness of seeing me at moment number one is it’s
direct cause of your awareness of seeing me at moment number two. Let’s say
you keep your eyes on me for three milliseconds - is number one, is, is the visual
awareness at moment number one, still the direct cause of the visual awareness
at moment number three?

[student] no.

No because there is something … in between.                  That’s important for our
argument tonight okay? That’s called - what do you want to call that cause? I
don’t like so much ‘indirect’ I just - in Tibetan it’s like stream

[student] In between

or …

[student] intermediary

No I mean ah, this, one is a cause for three but it isn’t a direct cause it’s a …

[student] continuous
[student] delayed

Delayed maybe … the, the word in Tibetan is like a stream

[student] buffer?
[student] Built-upon cause.

There is such a good way to

[student] interlocking, interlock

it’s [unclear] What it means is after a certain moment of streaming …

[student] laps
You can say laps but the word, is there something that says stream - some kind
of idea of stream? I could say indirect but I don’t pref, like indirect so much
because that, there are other little causes hanging out here which are indirect
causes of it,

[student] Can you describe that thing again? What, what is that?

If I call number one a direct cause of number two,

[student] Right, ahha …

What do I call, what kind of cause do I call number one and number three, it’s
not direct, it’s …

[student] But what, how do you describe whatever that was

It’s happening in a stream

[student] It’s preceding section of a direct continuum

I mean if I translate [laughing] If I, if I translate it literally in Tibetan it would be,
it would be – what do you call your root lama and your lineage lamas? Lineage
lamas start just before your root lama and it, the word is, is lineage cause, you
know? I don’t know, it’s a, it’s a stream cause. It, it has to stream on a little bit
further and then, it’s not direct anymore.

[student] But, but I’m going back even before that when you described what,
what that was

[student] What about

Oh, visual consciousness. Your consciousness of seeing me.

[student] Right, okay and then

And then at this moment, and then this moment.

[student] Right, okay.

That, the visual consciousness you had at, when I had my finger here, what’s the
cause of the visual consciousness of me here?

[student] Right.

Direct cause.

[student] and so that’s one, two, three, but then and that’s the direct

Now if I go like that – then, your visual consciousness of my finger at this
moment was a cause of your visual consciousness of this moment but not a
direct because there was something in between.

[student] oh, oh, oh,

But these two, these two are, are direct. And it’s very important what, I forget
who said it, but something’s in between. In this case, when you’re talking about
these two, there is nothing in between. Because they’re happening, milliseconds
together.

[student] So how do you want to call ‘em?

Dir, I’m talking now about direct cause. Okay? When you’re talking about a
direct mental cause and a direct mental result – your consciousness of Mike at
instant one and your consciousness of him at instant two – and there’s nothing
between there, okay?

[student] What’s wrong with indirect?

Does this look familiar? I like indirect, but what I’m saying is that there’s other
little causes and factors that are contributing to things that are indirect but
they’re happening just before. But we’ll talk [unclear]

[student] Michael could you say that when, when something, changes from a, a
cause to a result, that that’s sort of the point that which you’re talking about?
Right? You’re not talking about, that which lead up to it – you’re talking about
the, the, the spot where a cause

I am talking direct and, and I define it as, the way she did, naturally, which I liked
it [unclear] that way; was nothing in between. Okay? Does this look familiar?
Does this look familiar? Do you recognize these tonight?
[student] yeah.

Right? Does every part of this instance – is every, is every mo…, is every part of
the second awareness equally close to the first one? Is every line of this square
equally close to every line of this square.

[student] no.
[student] Whaddya mean by close, Michael?

I’m, I just said it; is this line as close to here as this line is close to here? No. If, if
every part of this instant, overlapped every part of this instant – then what?

[student] Then we’d only have one instant. [laughing]

[unclear] … one instant to live [laughing] … if, if there were no instants, there
were no part of instants of two that were any further along in time than, than
any part of than a particular part of instant one, they would overlap. And you
wouldn’t have time.

[student] But Michael…

There have to be parts of instant two, that are a little bit longer along in time,
than some other parts of instant two because if it weren’t true then instant two
would overlap itself and there would never be no instants.

[student] [unclear] for me to understand [unclear]

It’s exactly the same.

[student] Since I was a kid, I mean we were taught about atoms but, but time –
doesn’t there have to be something that comes between instant one and instant
two otherwise how do you tell instant one from instant two?

Oh, good question. If there were something between instant one and instant
two then I say, then, then you, then we’re not talking about direct causes. I’m
talking about a priori – I’m - you have agreed - what I - after you came down
here after that nice food and you were still lazy and you didn’t object to what I
said, [laughing] there was a direct cause and a direct result – boom, boom. And
there was, according to Nina, nothing between. And that’s true, there is such a
thing. There is such a thing as a direct cause and a direct result. That - we call a
{chibo-sa-chua} - {chibo-sa-chua} means flip-flop – the cause flip-flop’s into a
result. You know, boom. That – and there’s nothing between. It, it’s, it’s even
called flip-flop. The defini…, the way the definition’s of a cause is; previous flip,
previous flop. Flip I guess, flip of flip-flop [laughs] you know? And the result is
the flop of flip-flop you see? Well, the wa- there’s nothing in between. If you
want to posit something in between, then you’ve just ruined the idea of cause
and effect. Of, of a direct cause and a direct result.

[student] So we have found something ahhh, that’s … can’t be subdivided then.

Why?

[student] wha, you, what you just said. Then they can’t be a cause and result. If
we had ah

Right. So I’m saying …

[student] … that, that in Buddhism postulates that there is something that
cannot be further subdivided and that is the flip-flop of a cause and result.

Direct cause and result.

[student] so how small, so how small do they make these moments in time, I
mean they’d have to be infinitesimal …
[student] of, of a direct cause and a direct resul, and there’s not a …

Ah, there are sixty-four in one finger snap. [laughing] They’re called {yu-gay-
ma-chig-ma} I mean the {yabi-dharma} system says there isn’t a smallest
measurement of time and the other schools say impossible.

[student] yeah that’s what I would think

Impossible.

[student] it’s irrelevant

Because, that moment in time …

[student] what’s the use in subdividing it?
[student] It’s not

No because, because there’s a part of that moment in time which is closer to the
previous moment in time, and there’s a part of that moment in time which is
closer to the next moment in time and if that weren’t so, then it would just
overlap with one of those moments and there would be no movement in time.

[student] So it’s just …
[student] … one really long moment [laughing]

These are interesting questions [unclear] [laughing]

[student] in the time that it takes to ask the question [unclear – too many talking]

[unclear] … this is the proof that mental things have parts. And I, and I, you
know you can debate it for a long time, you’re welcome to stand outside after
class.

[student] Michael that, that mental, mental things have parts, or that mental
things appear to have parts?

Have parts - to a deceptive mind.

[student] which means appears to have parts.

Right.

[student] thank you.

But not really have parts. [unclear] We just proved that this whole side of stuff
has parts now we get to the hairy one: unchanging things. Try and name some
unchanging things for me, there are only three classical examples.

[student] You got it.

Oh, I did have it, boy this is a gift, I have to say. Okay. [laughs] We’ll start with
empty space.

[student] Just give us the quiz, now [laughing]
[unclear]

[student] open book quiz.
[student] yeah.

Alright people from the first course, this is all coming back to you. ‘Oh, the
independence; they said, their explanation of dependent origination is better
because it covers all existing things and not just caused things.’             Right.
Remember that? Right. Okay, now I have to go to the book, okay? Because this
is hard for me. Let’s start, {Gye} starts with cessations. What’s a cessation?

[student] ? (yaay-von?)

That is one cessation, yeah, of what? What did you stop?

[student] negative emotions
[student] mental afflictions

Yeah, mental afflictions and their … seeds.        That is one kind of cessation.
Cessations are … permanent?

[student] Pretty much permanent, I would say! [laughing] [unclear]

They’re, in being an absence of something, they are unchanging. I don’t like the
word impermanent, okay? Because they are absences of something – they are
unchanging, their quality never changes – you never get more or less free of
mental afflictions. After you stop it, you’re just free. Thus it, that quality never
changes, it never gets bigger or less [unclear]

[student] While you’re experiencing ..

No, not even that. Okay.

[student] So if yer, if yer, um you achieve freedom from afflictive sort of some of
the time, you haven’t achieved cessation? By definition cessation has to be
something that’s unchanging?

Right, but you can, and that’s an example [unclear]. When you talk about the
truth of cessation he says; Can you, is there a kind of cessation where you have
given up the intellectual belief in self-existence, but you have yet to give up
seeing things as self existent. We’ve been talking about that a lot.

[student] yep.

Who is that? In the magician’s story? It’s a person who has …

[student] [unclear – many answered] magician.

Right he still sees it as self-existent – he’s forced to: he knows he’s great; he
knows it’s a spell; he knows it’s not really there; he knows [unclear]

[student] But did you just say, intellectually?

Yeah, but we’re talking about a person now who’s seen emptiness directly. He
has reached path num, path number three. He’s just become an {arya} he’s
achieved the path of seeing. During those short minutes that he sees directly I’m
not talking about those but right after that, you can imagine that he, he just saw
what I described to you at the beginning of this class. He, I’m sorry, he saw that
before, but anyway, he will never again believe his eyes. Although his eyes are
still lying, he knows his eyes are lying - he will still see things as self-existent but
he knows it’s not that way. And in fact he’ll reach {nirvana} on the day he can
stop seeing things as self-existent.

[student] Who yer referring to in this, in this context?

Okay …

[student] Cessation …

I’m talking – what I’m describing –

[student] yeah,

Is a cessation that has parts. Because what? It has a part of having given up –
we’re talking about the guy who just saw emptiness directly – okay? His
cessation. What did he s- he does have what we call the truth of cessation –
general truth of cessation – in the three- in the four {arya} truths – he does have
the truth of cessation in him. He owns the truth of cessation, in fact that’s what
makes him …
[student] an {arya}
… and, a object of refuge. Okay? He has the truth of cessation in him. And that
truth of cessation has two parts. What? It, it is a cessation of intellectual belief in
emptiness.

[student] A cessation of …?

Intellectual belief in emptiness. But he still has what? Still has this inborn
perception of self-existence, still has this inborn, this inherent - that people are
born with, ah – belief I’m, I’m sorry I should say, perception of [unclear] … so in
a sense, his cessation has two parts; a part of the cessation where he’s got rid of
the intellectual belief in self-existence, and a part of the cessation where he hasn’t
got rid of the innate perception of self-existence. So his, his big, perception, his
cessation there, if you wanna look at it - see it as an egg, okay? [laughs] [unclear]
two parts here: this is his truth of cessation … and this part doesn’t have any
more of the belief obs, yeah the belief in things, the intellectual belief in things
that self-existence – he doesn’t believe what he sees, but this part still has the
perception of things as self-existent, the appearance of things to him as self-
existent.

[student] Yeah, but … um

… so his cessation has?

[student] parts
[student] parts

… Parts. Proof number one. Okay? [laughs]

[student] when, when, so then Michael, when, when y- he both thinks and
believes that ah, things are not self-inflicting, then he does not have cessation
anymore – it it’s a different stage –it’s not, it’s not called cessation any more? Is
that wha’cher saying?

It,s I’m sorry …

[student] E, what, when, when he …

This whole thing is called truth of cessation – he has the truth of cessation which
is characterized by not having anymore intellectual belief in self-existence and by
still having …

[student] Right

… that’s the nature of his deceptive …

[student] what happens, I mean, would you say it’s, that he has proof cessation
and I donno if it’s a good word to say, when ‘e – he both ah the reason to

That’s truth, when he reaches the point of the spectator who came later, he will
have an empty egg, but that doesn’t fit my needs tonight, I need to prove it has
parts. [laughs] Okay? Alright. Lemme go on. Empty space, that was easy,
Connie do you know any of the arguments … [unclear]

[student] … north, south, east or west.

… have parts.

[student] All of the directions, eh? North, south, east, west.

Yeah okay, by the way, what is empty space? It is very hard to perceive.

[student] It’s the absence of an obstruction

Yeah, it is not the place between these, you know you see it and people trying to
explain space, it is not the place between two exits. It’s not that, that’s wrong.
Okay? Space is where this whole thing is, is being. Space is, empty space is
where this pen is sitting, is located right now. You can even take away this
location.

[student] So how would you define empty space then?

Empty space is the absence of … what did we call it?

[student] Translo…

Obstruction! [laughs] Okay. By the way, I ah, ah, it’s a, it’s a real bummer with
me I, ah, hate to hear it miss-explained, okay? Is the pen in empty space? Yeah!
It’s occupying empty space.
[student] We are in empty space too …

We are too, so’s New York City, and so is the planet. And when I take the pen
out of empty space where’d the empty space go?

[student] Still there

It never gonna move. [laughs] You know? [laughing] I’m gettin’ Barbadian in
my expression [unclear] [laughing] Okay? It’s never gonna be – you know, you
can take the pen in and out of empty space, the empty space is hanging there –
and it always will …

[student] You could never take the pen out of empty space – ‘cause, ah isn’t it
actually empty space is part of the pen

Out of that empty space which, which is good from this point – I took it out of
the empty space which is at one foot east and I moved it to the empty space
which is one foot west. And those are the parts of empty space.

[student] oh!
[student] do the parts, how d’you find the parts?

Here. The pen is now in the eastern empty space – and now I move it to the
western empty space. And I really prefer the word empty when you say space
when you translate that word, most people [unclear] translate it as space, I think
you get into trouble – this is space too – you know? That’s not what it means.
And, and the {yabi-dharmas} figured that out they have an argument about it.
Okay

[student] So this will be the four cardinal directions? Ah north and south …

I don’t care. Up/down, there/here – around –

[student] Okay.

Left side/right side, you can say anything but empty space has parts. [laughs]
Alright we’re gonna finish on time if we can do - emptiness!

[student] {Rirab} actually.
Sorry – Okay, let’s see what he says here. If can explain it to you guys, I can
explain it to the next guys [laughing] You’re my guinea pigs, I’ve apologized
[unclear] [laughs] aaaa, let’s see here …

[student] By the way which answer did all this correlate to?
[student] Empty space. Parts of empty …
[student] Number six.
[student] Number six on the homework?

Okay he says: is the emptiness, which is a quality of the table, ah … is, is that
emptiness which is a quality of the table also the emptiness which is a quality of
the chair?

[student] Say it again, Michael?

[laughs] Okay. I have trouble with it myself. Let’s take emptiness in general.
Okay? Emptiness – the emptiness – which is a quality of the table – and the
emptiness which is a quality of the chair – are different.

[student] The, is the emptiness of two pens – exact pens, the same?

No.

[student] So no emptiness is the same?

Right, every object has it’s own emptiness, by the way,

[student] As long as that object exists.

Well, when you say obj, - object is a synonym for existence.

[student] So the emptiness for that object ceases to exist when that object ceases
to exist.

Right and that’s why I don’t like the words permanent and impermanent with
reference to these in, it’s not eternal.

[student] So then emptiness is also something that’s changing.

Unchanging.
[student] No, you just said when the object changes and goes away it’s
emptiness goes away

Ah, now we get to a subtle point which you will perceive someday – directly
[laughing] I’m not say, no it’s not a joke – it’s a very deep thing – it’s a very, very
deep ah perception you will have one day; that the, the emptiness can go in and
out of existence but it never changes and it never starts and it never ends. And
that’s a difficult thing to realize, it’s a difficult thing to perceive. It, it can be in a, it
can go out of existence – it can come into existence – it doesn’t start and it doesn’t
end. And you just have to cook that, I can’t make you realize that directly – you
have to meditate on it. I can describe it to you and it’s true – you have to think
about it.

[student] go in and out of existence?

It can go in and out of existence …

[student] But …

But it cannot begin or start, or end.

[student] So it moves around maybe?

[laughs] It’s there or it’s not there. But it doesn’t begin or, or end, and I, I, you
just have to cook it, I, I, I tell you someday you [unclear]

[student] So’s there a moment right before it’s there that it’s kinda starting to be
there and ah ..

No, no

[student] It’s just instantaneous?

Changing things are always that way –

[student] ah-oh

Changing things are always starting to start, halfway through starting, getting
close to the end of starting, it does not apply to emptiness.
[student] So what are the parts of emptiness?

Ah, that emptiness which is the nature of the chair and that emptiness which is
the ultimate nature of the table are different parts of emptiness.

[student] but Michael ..
[student] [unclear] two different parts of emptinesses
[student] so when you get rid of the table, then emptiness would have to go
away too

Apparently when you say ‘quality’, you escape this problem. [laughs] .. now I’ll
read it more carefully [laughing] It doesn’t just say the emptiness of the table and
the emptiness of the chair – it says that emptiness which is a quality of the chair.
Apparently that distinction helps, by the way just basically what you can come
out of that with if, if, and I’ll, I’ll read it more and try, if there’s anything, more
information about it I’ll tell you because I understand the objection. Or the inta –
or the questions. But in general view where every object has it’s own intimate …

[student] and as long as it’s …
[student] yeah but you see [unclear] …

Because every known thing

[student] … believe you and wha’chu say!

Because everything, [laughs] good! I like it. Lemme study it more carefully and
I’ll come back to you. So we’ll say that for, for purposes of this evening so you
can go home on time; if there’s three kinds of unchaining things, we conclusively
covered this much, ops! I’m [unclear] over there. Those things have parts.
Probably everything, and at least I proved it for everything that emptiness
pretty well. Um, if they have parts then they can’t be what? What’re trying to
prove?

[student] [unclear- all talking]

Then they can’t really exists as …

[student] one.
One, we’re only proving that, we didn’t get to the second part yet. That’s all I
wanted to do tonight. [laughs] But, I’m starting to realized that’s all we can
digest; me, too. Okay? We just proved that everything in the universe has parts.
If it’s true that everything has, that has parts, can’t exist ‘really’ then nothing in
the universe …

[student] Really exists.

… really exists. [unclear] [laughing] okay what [unclear] homework nine, oh,
you got it!

[student] We got it. [unclear]

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