ACI 4 «Доказательство будущих жизней», занятие 4

Class Four: Being of Totally Correct Perception
August 1, 1994
Transcribed by: Amber Moore



[unclear] [clapping]

 He flew all the way up from Barbados for this class, [laughter]. Say {tsema
kyebu} [repeat], {tsema kyebu} [repeat]. {Kyebu} means "person". {Kyi } means
"to be born" and {kyebu} means "anyone whose been born", which, which is a
Tibetan word for person. {Tsema kyebu}, {tsema kyebu}. {Tsema} means what?

[student: The right perception.]

 It means a "good perception", the right perception.         And it's such a good
perception that if you have one, you know the thing you're having it towards is
real. It exists. So this is very important, {tsema}. So what do you think a {tsema
kyebu} is?

[student: A person that has pramana.]

 Yeah, but it's, it should mean that, but it doesn't. It means "anybody who has
pramana". By the way who would that be?

[students: The Buddha.]

You don't know {tsema}? You know {tsema}?

[student: Everybody knows {tsema].]

[student: Its very fuzzy.]

[laughs] If it's fuzzy, it's not {tsema}.

[student: Oh its not, okay it's not]
 {Tsema} is, "I see a yellow wall", {tsema}. Okay, you have, you have a, ninety
percent, ninety-nine point nine percent of... the other night I had a non {tsema
and I remember what it was. I was looking at a thing on the subway from a
distance and it looked like a person's... a poster of a person, and then it turned
out to be a banana or something, [laughter] when I got closer. That's a non
{tsema}. But besides the weird times like that, you know, the rest is all {tsema},
the rest are all {tsema}. So you should be a {tsema kyebu}, but that's not what it
means. [Tsema}, {tsema kyebu} means a person who has only {tsema}. A
person who is totally {tsema}. And in this case {tsema} doesn't mean a state of
mind. It means "totally correct". A person who is totally correct.

[student: Not their perception? Are you talking about their perception?]

 Right, it becomes an adjective rather than the noun for the perception. It
becomes a person who is like those perceptions in that he is totally correct and
every, every state of mind he has is a {tsema}. Now, who is that?

[students: The Buddha.]

 Yeah, only a only an omniscient being can be a {tsema kyebu}, normally. And
in Tibetan nowadays, when you say {tsema kyebu} it can also refer to a great
saint because what it means is, if a, when a {tsema kyebu} says something about
something, what?

[student: You know he's telling the truth.]

  You know he's telling the truth, [laughs]. That's very refreshing, [laughs]. I
mean, imagine a world where people didn't say anything unless they had a
{tsema } to back it up. Imagine, imagine that you restricted your own words to
things that you really knew. Ah.. much quieter world [laughs].

{student: What's the difference between a saint and a Buddha?]

 Well the point is that, they're not totally enlightened yet , but still they are very
careful not to say anything unless they have an actual {tsema } about it. That
means most of what we say about people, we'd have to shut up, [laughs],
because we don't really have {tsema} to judge. I mean, I found myself doing it
today. If you work in a busy office, lunch time is the time that you gossip about
other people. And we were gossiping about five or six people, then suddenly I
realized, hey, I don't have any tsema about any of this stuff. And that's a,a non
{tsema}. So {tsema kyebu} is something like a person that cannot lie, cannot lie, if
he says something, it's true.

[student: Is the Dalai Lama a {tsema} ...?]

A {tsema kyebu}? Can you judge that?

[student: No.]

Why do you think that the Dalai Lama is much different from any one else?

[student: Because he's the Dalai Lama.]

[student: Because he was chosen.]

[Laughs] Huh?

[student: Because he was chosen.]

You mean, if he wasn't chose... well, that's different.

[Student: Conventional, deductive reasoning.]

Well, we'll talk about it. We'll talk about how do you, how can you figure out
that someone's a {tsema kyebu}? He's, he is said to be a {Tsema kyebu}.

 [student: How, How do you, Excuse me.]

[Laughter]. If he's not [laughter], who is? No, it's a... that's actually one of the
reasons of this class. How do you establish that the Dalai Lama is a {tsema
kyebu} ? How, how do you know that such a thing is possible? (A), is it
possible? (B), is he one? You know, we have to think about, to be able to think
about we have to be able to figure out how we establish it.

[student: It seems as if ...ah... ]

By the way, we will answer that, we will.

  {student: Which class? [laughter] Because I'm going away, I wanna be here,
five, five more?]
Fifth class, next class.

[student: next class.]

Now, when is that next one?

[student: Next Thursday.]

 Would it kill anybody if I go away for a week, or would you prefer it?
Seriously.

[students: ohh.. Why would you leave?]

[student: We'd have to talk about {tsema } more.]

[student:Why would you leave?]

Kills anybody? Does it ruin anybody?

[student: If you go away between the fourteenth and the [unclear] that would
be fine.]

Would you like it?

[student: Because II'm going away that week.]

[student: The last week in August.] [Laughter]

 I think he's talking suddenly, maybe next week.

[student: No, next week is before the, no, the week after.]

 Just for one week, just for five days.[laughter].          I can see this happening
[unclear].

[student: Would you be here this Thursday for the class? Or you don't know for
sure?]

I'll be, I believe I'll be here [laughter]. I'll be here, because it's too late to cancel.
Yeah? [student: It sounds like {tsema} is something to do with the truthful...]

Yeah, yeah.

[student: ... awareness of what you are perceiving. So if you looked down the
subways' platform at this yellow poster, and you thought it was a picture of a
person and you began to believe and put weight on that, and then you got closer
and saw that it wasn't, that would have been an incorrect or untruthful relation
to what you were perceiving. However, if you saw something and you said, "I
see a yellow object, but I'm too far away to see clearly what it is." that would be a
correct {tsema.}]

That's a {tsema}. That's a {tsema}.

[student: So in other words, if we're careful to be truthful to ourselves as much as
possible, we could have {tsema} allot of the time.]

Yeah,yeah. We do have {tsema} most of the time. I'd say with other people we,
we, somebody asked in the other class, "What level of reality are other peoples
thoughts on ?" And I didn't really remember it being in a scripture, but it
occurred to me; its almost like {shindu kogyur}, it's almost like it's very deep,
hidden. Because I'm not sure that you could figure out someone else's thoughts
even with logic, you know. I, I, think that to to really know what other people
are thinking, it's, it's probably almost beyond our, our capacity.

[student: So what about the [unclear] that can tell you what the person is about?]

    You can, you can, reach a state of meditation, and it's in, it's all over the
Abbidharma that you can read other peoples minds and you can when you
reach the path of seeing. I mean, before that.

[student: So...]

That's, yeah...

[student: You know, we're talking about a Buddha only has {tsemas} all the time,
and therefore he cannot lie.]

Well, theoretically, you could have {tsemas} all the time and still be a liar.
[student: Right, so...]

 But the fact is, he also has this internal mechanism that he will not state
anything unless he's had a {tsema} about it.

[student: Right.]

Then you're covered.

[student: Well,what about the idea....]

 Ah, we're gonna get there, we're gonna get there. If I don't cover it by the end
of the class, ask me then.

[student:But, but, but he has...]

I know what you're gonna ask. I can read your mind,[laughter] just kidding.

[student: He could have a [tsemin] and not say anything about it.]

If he has a {tsemin}, he won't make a declaration about that thing.

[student: But he could have...]

 No. No, I say a saint could have a [tsemin] or a Buddhist, people who wrote the
{Tengyur}, which are not Buddhas, according to Buddhism. They had {tsemins},
had non {tsemas}. So they didn't say, "I know this, this is how it is", you're not
allowed to. If you do that you're not eligible to be in the {Tengyur},[laughs]
that's a rule. You guys are gonna keep these other guys late. Okay, alright,
[Laughter].

[students: Oh, no..no...]

Nah, no, go ahead, you never get to ask the question.

[student: I was vexing about how you reconcile the notion that the the Buddha
who's having perfect perceptions cannot lie with the doctrine of skillful means
[unclear]]

Don't worry, we're gonna get there.
[student: So, very quickly then, not only is a Buddha then a person of {tsema},
who is always having {tsema}, but they have a particular kind of {tsema} which is
also a direct knowing, they couldn't have the kind of {tsema} that you have,
about," I see this yellow object." but I'm not sure that's what it is.]

 We'll get to that, we'll get to that. Okay, {tsema kyebu}. Now what does the
Buddha see? Now we call it his {sig yule}.

[silence]

Who is Chenrezig?

 [students: An emanation.]

Avaloketishvara, why is he called Avaloketa? Ishvara means "lord". What does
Avalok mean? Looking down, and looking like this, [he looks at students]. It's
called "loving eyes". Avaloketishvara means "looking with loving eyes". {Chenre}
means to, to look at someone like your in love with them. And then {sig} means
to "look". {Sig} is the word for look. It's the honorific. What do you call the word
for, for, I'm sorry, "see" in ordinary language, if your talking about your friends?
What's the path of seeing?

[student: Tong Lam.]

 What do you call the path of seeing? {Tong Lam}, {tong} okay? {Tong} is the
non-honourific. {Sig} is the honorific. What's honorific? In Tibet, if someone's
older than you, you have to use a different language. And if someone's
younger than you, you kinda, use a different... or your peers, you use another
language. A whole other set of words. {Yule} means object, object that the
mind looks at. So {sig yule} means the object that the Buddha sees. Why don't
they call it the objects that the Buddha knows?

[student: Cause it's the same thing.]

 Generally you can use the word see in the sense of knowing, but that's not the
sense here. What's the sense?
[student: [unclear]]

 He sees everything directly, he doesn't have {jyepak tsema}. He doesn't need
{dedak shin}. He doesn't need authority. He doesn't need reasoning. He sees
everything directly. He sees all objects directly. There is two kinds of objects that
he sees.

[silence]

 {Chi nyepay che} [repeat], {chi nyepay che} [repeat]. {Chi nyepa} means "as
many as there are", {{Chi nyepa} means "as many as there are". {Chi nyepa}.
{Che} means what?

[students: Dharma?]

 Yeah, generally {che} means Dharma, but Dharma doesn't only mean religion.
It can also mean things, existing things, so he sees as many existing thing as there
are. That's part of his "{sig yule}". Part of what he sees is everything that exists.
Everything that ever was, everything that ever will be and everything that is is
now. At the same time, in one moment. He sees all of them. That's his quality.
That's one of his qualities.

 [student: What was the first definition of the {dedak}?]

Ah, he sees as many objects as exist.

[student: Existed? Existing?]

I like to call it the totality of object, totality of things, the totality.

[student: Didn't you say there were two kinds of objects?]

 Yeah, I haven't got to the second one yet. Well, first of all he sees everything
that there is, by the way, shouldn't that be everything shouldn't that be
everything? How come there's two?

 [student: Is that hidden or not?]

 For him it's {mungyur}, you see, I always have to ask you, " for who","for
whom?" That's always gotta... when you ask me that, I'll ask you, "For whom?"
Because for him it's {mungyur}, it's the same thing as colors are for us, its
obvious for him.

[student:Is it past, present and future, everything that exists? Existed, exists...]

 At the same time. Every thing that existed, and ever will exist, he perceives in
the same instant.

[silence]

[student: Did he see, let's see, the Buddha thousand years ago did he see that
there were going to be refrigerators and things like that?]

 Not only that but he, ah... two and a half thousand years ago he set up his
teachings, he spoke his teachings so that you could have it tonight, [laughter],
you particularly, seriously. No, he has that ability, he has that belief. He sees
into the future, he knows what your going to think two and a half thousand
years from now, so he says something that will chain react up to you in 1994. He
has that ability. Personally tailored,okay. Say {jigtawe che} [repeat], {jigtawe
che} [repeat]. {Jigtawe} means as it is. As they are ... as they are. {Che} means
what? Existing things, existing objects. Which is what? What is the way things
are? Emptiness, they're emptiness. They're true nature. They're ultimate nature.

[student: So it's really not that there's two different objects, there's just two
different..]

You're right.

[student: .. ways he has of seeing them.]

 Two levels. He sees all the stuff that there is and he sees how all the stuff that
their is, ultimately is.

[student: So you're saying the first is [unclear]. He sees the conventional nature?]

Yeah.

[student: For whom?] [Laughter]

[student: Hell being or not?]
[student: Excuse me?]

 For whom? Well I'll talk about it . I'll talk about it right now. He's the only
being who can concentrate on both of these objects at the same time. You or I,
or anyone else who is not a Buddha, either we are seeing emptiness directly or
we are seeing other things directly, but we cannot focus on both at the same
time. When you go into to the - {someone sneezes} the direct perception...exc...,
gezun.... [laughter] at the first moment of the path of seeing, you can no longer
perceive anything else, you can't have any other have any other perceptions you
can't even think that you're seeing emptiness, cause that's a relative truth. That's
a, that's a relative object. You is a relative object, you seeing emptiness is a
relative object, emptiness is an ultimate object. So you can only focus on one at a
time. You can't have any... that's why thay call it "{chupa dug shagpa}", water
poured in water, you can't even, your not even aware that of ourself seeing
emptiness at that moment. You can't, you cannot be. Because you're not a
Bueddha. Only a Buddha can focus on both of them them at the same time. See,
he can

focus on you, on your mind, on what your thinking and he can also focus
perfectly on your emptiness, all at the same time.

[student: How do you know that the Buddha does that? I mean how do you
know?]

This is the purpose of this class and the question is beautiful. Someone asked me
and I appreciate it. And, and I want you to ask. How do you even know a
Buddha exists? How do you know such a thing is possible? You don't. We're
gonna discuss some proofs for it. Maybe the reason why we're so lazy in our
practice is that, subconsciously, we haven't really figured out whether such a
thing is possible. If we knew it was possible we might do harder, we might try
harder. {Di tawa che}.

 [student: Michael?]

Yeah.

[student: Does Buddhism have a, point of view on...if we aspire to this knowing
emptiness and this awareness and stuff, what, what, how should we treat our
lives? Like my job, I mean, how important is my job? Should I be...]
[Laughs]

[student: Should I be a ditch digger or should I be a CEO? What difference does
that make to me as a Buddhist?]

 I think that there's a couple levels answer that. One is that, one is that... one is
that you should have a job. Right livelihood is that you should not grub off of
other people. You should, one of the Buddhist principles is that your supposed
to not bother other people.

[student: But what about the Buddhist monks? {unclear]]

[Laughter] Ah, that's the first one. The second one is that you have to die and
you don't know when. We studied that. So if the time comes when you truly
are ready for that you would cut down on your work, I guess. But to do it
prematurely is not good, because you'll just, you'll end up going back, when
you'll ready you'll know, okay. That's the second thing to say. I think the third
thing to say is that work, work is a wonderful place to ... you know the place
where you work, your job... the definition of nirvana is to stop your bad
emotions, and if your sit in a retreat house, or a cave you, you won't get, you
won't be exposed to any of the objects that can inspire those bad thoughts in
you. [Laughter] But if you go to your office there's pretty ladies that a monk is
not supposed to look at. There's people getting angry at you that you're not
supposed to be angry at. There's your peers who are getting the position you
wanted, that you're not supposed to be jealous at. There's the whole situation
going on that you don't remember why it's happening, which is good for
practicing your ignorance, you know, and those are all great. I, I think work is a
wonderful ... you know I think you really have to...and, and then lastly, where,
who are the sentient beings that you're working on? Who, who are they? Who
are the sentient beings? They're the people in your office, cause you spend more
time with them than anybody else. Those are the... you know, you could have
bohichitta towards all sentient beings, but the only ones you're exposed to is the
ones in your office [laughter]. And you can't even treat them right. No so that's
the, those are the sentient beings for you. And it's very, it's very funny that we
don't think that those are the representatives for you for all of allthe beings in
the universe. You some how think that when you reach bodhichitta it will be
toward every martian and every [unclear]. And you don't imagine that the
sentient beings you have to work on... that are provided to you, are the ones in
your office. And the day that you become... the day that you reach wisdom
about emptiness and therefore act properly, it'll be towards the people at your
office. So I think it's, t's a great opportunity. Okay, anyway, those are all the
answers. But there may come a day that you might want to work less. I don't
believe that in the United States that you have to work forty hours a week to
live...nicely. But, it depends on... or sixty, [laughs]. Okay, {di tawey che}, {che
she}. [student sneezes] We did last weeks five states of mind that were not
{tsema}, right? My question to you is that, does the Buddha have only {tsemas}
or does he have, or have a {tsemin}? He's a {tsema kyebu}. He's supposed to
only have correct perceptions.

[student: He perceives the conventional nature, which is us perceiving {tsemins}.

Now, what about... what is the definition of recollection?

[student: Keeping an image in your mind of something that you've seen.]

 Yeah, perceiving something that you have seen before. And the definition of
{tsema} is {tsa me [unclear] rigpa} which means a "fresh perception". So there's
this huge debate, "What about the Buddha, what about the second instant of
your Buddha hood". What about you're omniscience at the second instant of
your Buddhahood? What's it perceiving?

[student: It's perceiving everything in the universe.]

 Everything in the...it's perceiving everything in the universe. But you just saw
that in the first moment of your Buddhahood. And in the next trillion years of
your Buddhahood, you're gonna be perceiving the same stuff. Because it's all
past, present and future, your seeing everything. So is he a non {tsema}? Is he
not having fresh perceptions? He's not having old perceptions.

  [student: Why wouldn't it be fresh every moment he sees it again? Even if it's
the same thing, cause it's not changed, but its still fresh because he's seeing it at
that moment.]

 Yeah, because it's direct.    And that's the answer, he does have a direct
perception. Fresh direct perception each instant towards every object.

 {students: The things are still changing for him too, even if he can see the future,
the future is changing.]
 Well, there were schools in Tibet in the old days that said a Buddha's wisdom
had to be unchanging. And, and it's disproven by Dharmakirti. He said that's
not true. He said, if the image is changing, then the mind that is a mirror is
changing also. So the mind, even the mind of a Buddha is, changing. It doesn't
change from non-omniscient to omniscient, I mean from omniscient to non-
omniscient. But it does constantly, as it reflects new objects, and as object
change, and even just shift from past to present. Although he sees them all, he
sees, his mind is also moving. So we say that he is omniscient but he's not
unchanging, his mind is not unchanging. So that was a big argument in Tibet, it,
it was a big problem, for allot of people said, there has to be stuff that the
Buddha doesn't see at the first moment of his omniscience that he sees at the
second moment of his omniscience.         But it's not true, otherwise he's not
omniscient, obviously. Yeah?

[student: I was, I wasn't clear on the recollection in the sense that are we talkin'
about seeing it in your mind again or the second time you're on the subway
platform and you saw that poster again. This time you know what it is.}

 Mostly seeing it in your mind.

[student: In your mind.]

Re, Recalling something mentally.

 [Student: Mentally, not visually...or]

 Because as a direct perception, it's again triggered by a direct object. And that's
fresh. Recollection is a wimpy, because the blue from five minutes ago is
generating a new consciousness in your mind. And it's very wimpy. It's actually
not the blue, it's, it's a lousy image of the blue in your mind that's generating the
conciousness. So that consciousness is not as trust worthy, It's not as...

[student: It's not as fresh.]

What do you call fidelity? It's not...

[student: It's it's disintegrating.]

 It's weak, and it's wimpy and it's getting close, it's a non {tsema} according to this
school.
[student: And that's our, that's our, that's our perception, not the Buddha's.]

That's how we see things that we've seen in the past. He sees them directly.

 {student: So he sees recollection directly.]

 He can see you recollecting, [laughs].         But he doesn't have recollections,
because...

[student: He doesn't need 'em]

Because when he sees the blue he saw ten minutes ago it's the blue of ten
minutes ago directly generating a consciousness.

 [student: Even if he's not looking at it?]

He's looking at everything, [laughs].

[student: How could it change then?]

As it, well you could say,"As it moves through time."

[student: Because there is no time.]

 But he still recognizes our perception of time. He could, maybe his mind moves
as he sees us changing our perceptions.

[student: So then, is the Buddha seeing everything in the past, in recollection?]

No, how could he?

[student: How could he have recollection? He doesn't have, there's no such thing
as recollection for a Buddha.]

No he doesn't have, there's no such thing. Everything is direct for him.

 [student: Can't be.]

Everything is direct for him.
[student: But if he sees the future, then things aren't unchanging.]

Say that again.

[student: If if he sees the future it's not a not changing thing, it's a given thing, for
him, so it can't be, can't be a changing thing]

 If it's functioning it's changing, even in the future. If it's doing something, by
doing something it has to change.




[student: Is it because of the nature of time?]

 But I know what you mean, I know, I see what your saying. For him it's all like
frozen.

 [student: Mmm, Uh huh.]

[student: But we don't know.] [Laughter]

[student: No, I mean, It seems to be this kind of, I mean how could anyone
know, truly, exactly what it's like unless they were a Buddha themselves?]

We, we can't, Ah.. but we do have to attempt to prove that he's omniscient. We
do have to attempt perceive the possibility of his omniscience.

[student: But to say exactly the way that he's seeing something, I mean we can
say generally, but exactly the way he's seeing something.]

No , no you can't. You can't. In fact only another Buddha can. Okay.

[silence]

 { Jyepa sum} [repeat], {jyepa sum} [repeat]. The way you see direct, obvious
objects is with direct, correct perception. The way you see hidden, just plain
hidden objects is with reasoning, thinking. The way you see deeply hidden
objects is with what?
[student: Belief.]

 It's, it's like authority. The Buddha says look, the reason this thing goes to the
left here, the reason it doesn't go to the right, is that you waved your arm like
that ten thousand years ago [laughs]. Only the Buddha can see that kind of stuff,
no matter how much we understand in a rough way that something must have
caused it and we can figure out the causes roughly, but we can't actually see that
it was a wave of some, of our arm thousands of years ago. By the way, it must
have a cause, every thing has a cause, it's changing. And we just chose in our
society to ignore those questions. Why did the left wheel of the car go flat and
not the right wheel? Why did the person on the left side die, but not on the
right. You know, why does this medicine work for him and not for me. Those
questions we just avoid.

[student: In the west, wouldn't we go back to a series of causes also?]

 No, they'll go back to who, short term causes, they'll say, well the medicine
didn't work for you because your enzymes are different.




[ student: Yeah, and the enzymes are different.]

 And why are the enzymes different?

[student: Yeah, and the enzymes are different because this chain....]

 Yeah, and your father was such and such. And you'll say why was he my
father? And they'll say you know, don't ask a silly question. But then you say
oh, Mr. Scientist, is it a thing? "Yes." Does it have a cause? Well not... there's
some things that, hmm..[laughter]. No, really! It's not, it's very unnfair. Then
when they get to a thing they can't figure out the cause, they just skip it.

[student: There's no way of knowing, they would say, why the pin broke that
time.]

 No they just skip it. Why was he your father? Why wasn't somebody else your
father? And children ask this question and if I ask this question in my office,
they'll laugh at me. You know, it's not a silly question. It's a thing, it has to have
a cause. It's an object. All objects have causes. Once you get into saying this
object has a cause and this doesn't, that's voodo. That's middle ages stuff,
[laughs]. You know, but you grew up with it, so you feel comfortable with it. A
hundred years from know they'll probably say we're silly, hopefully. Okay,
{Chepa sum}, so what are the three? These are the three tests

[student: What is {chepa sum}?]

     {Chepa} means "test". {Sum} means "three". They are the three tests for
checking what someone says. When the Buddha says, "Hey, that was when you
waved your arm ten thousand years ago", these are the three tests that a normal
person can use to check whether or not what he says is reasonable. Did I give
you his famous quotation, "{Jinbey longchu tringi gey}"? I'll write it, but you
know, you don't have to memorize it, it's not on your homework. It's the most,
it's one of the most important quotations in Buddhism.

 [student: Do you mean checking to see if it's logically accurate?]

We're gonna talk about it. Okay?

[student: Who said this?]

I'll give you a quotation, okay?

[student: If you ask a question, speak up, 'cause they'll never pick it up on tape.]

[silence]

 {Jinbey} [repeat], { longchu} [repeat], {tringi} [repeat], {gey}. {Jinbey} [repeat],
{longchu} [repeat], {tringi} [repeat], {gey}. {Jinba} without that {sa} is the first
perfection. What's that?

[student: Generosity.]

 Giving, giving. I'm not too hot about generosity because it can also mean giving
protection, it can mean giving Dharma. I like giving,but I don't, you know but
I'm not gonna shoot all the people who translate it as generosity. But I think
once you learn more about it giving sounds better. {Jinba} means giving, the
first perfection. {Longchu} means, things that you own, what do you call it?
Things in your ..
 [students: Possessions.]

Possessions. {Trim} is short for {tsultrim}. Does anybody know {tsultrim}?

 [students: Morality.]

 Yeah, second of the perfections; Morality. Which I, you know, it is morality, but
you know, morality's such an unpopular word in our culture. [laughter] I kinda
like, not hurting others is the same thing.

 [student: [unclear]]

 Not hurting others. It's it's the same, it's absolutely the same thing, okay. {Shenu
shedang shepa letopa deyang.......[unclear] nyi}. [Laughter] Definition, alright.
{Trim}, {trim gyi dey}. {Dey } means, oh, {gyi} means by,B Y. {Dey} means
happiness. And it's a very famous quotation of the Buddha, he said, "If you give
to others, you will have possessions.          If you keep your morality, you'll be
happy, you'll be a happy person." And he's talking karmically, and when you
talk karmically, normally it means in your next life. So what he's saying is..

[student: Say the whole thing again.]

Excuse me.

[ Student: Could you say the whole thing again?]

  Ah, if you give to others you will gain possessions and if you keep your
morality you will be happy, in your future life. Not only in your future life. If' if
you follow certain Buddhist practices like this in a radical way in the higher
teachings, the whole idea is that it could be in this life. But but generally
speaking, next life okay. This statement can only be confirmed with which of the
tree kinds of { tsemas}? Can you see the truth of this directly? Impossible . You
can't even see your future life directly. Can you see it with reasoning? Do, you
can but it's not gonna be a very clear perception. You have to take his word for
it, it's authority, you have to depend on authority. Now, my question is, being
Buddhist and being logical, the idea of accepting something on authority, it's
very distasteful. We don't wanna do that, we don't like it. So therefore we have
{chepa su}. If you don't wanna take something on authority without the {chepa
sung}. That authority has to be checkable with the {chepa sung}. You don't just
believe what the Buddha said, because the Buddha said it, it's gotta pass these
three tests also. Now I'll give you the three tests, okay.

[silence]

 Say, { munsum gyi} [repeat],{ minoepa} [repeat], { munsum gyi} [repeat],
{minoepa} [repeat].    {Munsum} means "direct, correct perception". It's short
form is {munsum tsema}. Direct correct perception. In the same way, you can
see this color here. {Gyi} means by, B Y. {Gyi } means by, B Y. {Mi} means
what?

[student: Not]

 {Mi}, {me}, and {ma} are negatives in Tibetan. { Moepa} means, { moepa} is a
very difficult word, help me with it, we couldn't do it much in the other class. It
means when I thought the sign on the subway was a person from a distance, I
had a perception of it as a person. But when I got closer and had that other
perception, the {tsema}, of the thing as a banana or whatever, that second
perception {moepa}'s the first perception. You know {moepa} means, literally it
means to harm or injure. In the definition of morality that's the word that
comes. Don't {moepa} other people.

[student: [unclear]]

I don't know, you think about it, I don't know how to... it means when one
perception bams another perception and the first one just dissolves because it
was, you know, standing on one leg anyway.

[student: Cancels?]

You could say cancels.

[student: Displaces.]

 It just blows it away because the first one was wrong and the second one is
correct. It's like when you're at work and you think that somebody's out for you
because they did something . But then you hear out from another person that
they did it because the boss told them to do it. And then suddenly, that first
perception just disolves. That's {moepa}.

[student: So is {moepa} the action of displacing?]
 It means, it cannot be {moepa}'d by a direct perception. And what does that
mean? It means, what that person said," If you give you shall receive" , "If you
keep morality you will be happy in your future life." And you'll see people that
are naturally more happy than others. That statement cannot be disproved with
any direct perception that you can ever have. Period. You can't prove it's wrong
with any direct perception that you've ever had, you have had, or ever will have.
That's the first test, if you pass that test, it's already pretty good. It's one third
good. You

can't disprove it with any direct perception that you have had or ever will have
and that's natural because if it's true you can never have a {tsema} that's not true.
If it's true, you can never have a {tsema} that contradicts it or that blows it away.
You never will have such a {tsema}, because it's impossible.

[students: [unclear] it's true.]

 Didn't say that, yet. I know, I agree, so far I haven't said anything about
proving it's true. I'm just saying, you can't unprove it, you can't disprove it , so
far.

  [Student: Why can't something be two at one time ? You know, something is
this way....]

 This is a universal truth, if you ever have a {tsema} that contradicts a universal
truth, it's not a universal truth, [laughs]. If you ever have a direct, correct
perception that contradicts this statement, it's not true.

[student: Is this where all three have to be?]

I didn't get there yet.

[student: Or any one of the three.]

 All three must be true. All three conditions that I haven't given you yet must be
there.

[student: But this isn't covering things that I can know, if something happened
across the street yesterday that I didn't see I ain't never gonna have a direct
perception of that.]
Right, I'm gettin there, I'm gettin' there, give me time.

 [silence]

 Say, { jyepak gyi} [repeat],{jyepak gyi minoepa} [repeat], { jyepak gyi minoepa}
[repeat]. What is { jyepak tsema}?

[student: Reasoning.]

 Reasoning. Correct, foolproof reasoning, air tight reasoning, not the fuzzy
reasoning we always use, okay. {Jyepak gyi}, like I'm at work today and we
have a supplier in Bombay. He hasn't supplied the stuff he's supposed to supply,
you know. Now, it's either because he really doesn't have the diamonds or it's
because he has them and he's given them to some other company, because
they're paying him more. Okay, I mean those are some of the... so if I find out
that, from somebody that definitely he's not giving them to somebody else,
them I can have a {jyepak] that he just doesn't have them. But, even that's not a
{jyepak}. Maybe he's got them and he's hoping to give them to somebody else.
You see what I mean ? {Jyepak}'s are very difficult, it's very difficult, to be a
good logician it's very difficult. And then you, that's why we get in trouble with
people. We do lousy {jyepaks}, actually they're not {jyepaks}. You know? If you
could think of every possibility, then you could say you have a {jyepak}, he's not
giving them to me, for that reason. But, it's very difficult. And, and If you get in
the habit of keeping your {jye paks} straight. The people that you know in life
who are successful and who are good people, are very strict about their
{jyepaks} to themselves. They don't allow themselves to judge a person or a
situation without all the, satisfying pure logic. Totally honest logic. Very
difficult, we don't do it much. {Jyepak } means "good reasoning", solid reasoning,
air tight resoning. {Minoepa} means, not what?

[student: [unclear]]

Whatever, not...what's a good word, I don't know, disproved.

[student: Displaced.]

 Not contradicted by good reasoning, okay? And if this statement is true, which,
as a Buddhist, theoretically, as a Buddhist you beleive it, you will never be able to
have a air tight logical reason why it's not true, why it can't be true. If you're
honest to yourself as a Buddhist, if that's true you'll never have a correct, air
tight, reasoned perception of anything that contradicts that, in fact, you never
will. For Eric we still haven't proved anything, we've disproved something,
okay? We still haven't, all we've proven is that I, I haven't seen it, I just said, well,
so far we haven't proven it's wrong. Maybe we can't prove Hitler wrong, but
that doesn't mean that he was right [laughter].            We've gotta be careful
here,Okay.

 [student: Now, what was the definition for {gyi} again?]

 {Gyi} means, " by, B Y".       So we can't, cannot be contradicted by a airtight
reasoning.

 [silence]

Say, {ngachi} [repeat], { ngachi ringyel} [repeat], {ngachi ringyel} [repeat]. {Nga}
means "before". {Chi} means "after". {Ri} means what?

[students: [unclear]]

{Gyel} means, contradict itself. So what do you think it means? {Ngachi rigyel}.

[student: Not internally resistant.]

[student: Before or after.]

Not only that but...

[student: Ever before or later.]

 Well, it's refering to what he said, so what do you think? It's refering to his
statements, so what does a {ngachi} mean?

 [student: [unclea]r]

 Yeah, what he said yesterday, and what he said today, he doesn't change his
story, Okay? Nothing he ever said before ever contradicts anything he said
later.

[student: Different statements.]
 Even different statements, yeah it doesn't have to be about the same thing.
Doesn't have to be that he switches his story on the same thing. It can be
that,that nothing he ever said in his whole life ever contradicts anything he said
later.

 [student: Try that on Bill Clinton.]

 JeTsongkhapa said, and this is the last thing I'll tell you before you have your
tea, because I want you to get upset about it. Je Tsongkhapa said, "When you
reach a real good state in your Buddist education, you know, when you, when
you become really knowledgeable about Buddism you will realize that there is
not one statement in the {Kangyur}, not one statement in ten thousand pages of
scripture, I'm sorry, one hundred thousand pages of scripture, that contradicts
another statement in Buddhist scripture. You will not find it. The more you
study and the deeper you study you will find that there is not one statement in
Buddhist scripture that contradicts another statement in all those hundred
thousand pages. Okay, take a break.

[student: Of course, initially it seems like there's lots of them.]

What's that?

[student: Of course, initially it seems like there's lots of contradictions.]

Yep. Hey, Claire, how's she doin' ?

[student: I walked into her work, I came in and she said to say hello.]

[silence] [break]

                              [cut] that there's not another statement in Buddhist
scripture that contradicts another one, I have one for you here. {Ma} means
what? Around the world.

[student: Mom?]

 Mom, okay, {Ma} means Mom. {Dang } means and. {Pa}, Pop. Ma}, "mother"
and {pa}, "father". {Nyi} is just a filler, because this is a verse that's found in a
sutra. What's a sutra? The definition of a sutra?
[students: A scripture?]

Huh?

[student: Words spoken directly by the Buddha.]

 {Sangye gyi ngar}, spoken by the Buddha. {Dujey mitog,tujog pong gye du
sumbay Sangye, Sangye ngar}.         Anything that the Buddha said that would
remove the bad qualities of disciples. Which means when the Buddha stubbed his
toe he went,uh, that's not, that's Buddhas speech but it's not a sutra, okay? Of
coarse, he never stubbbed his toe. {Sayjang}, {sayjang} means something to kill,
should be killed, should murder. {Shing}, "and". The Buddha said this, what is it?

 [student: You should kill your father and your mother.]

[student: Wow]

You should kill your father and your mother.

[student: What is {shing} again?]

 And, is a ... is the rest... there's more of this sentence. {Shing} means "and", and
there's more of this quotation.

[student: Ecetera?]

 Well, it's and, and then there was more. {Shing} means "and", A, N, D. It
means this is only part of a longer quotation. I just found the rest of the
quotation, I've never seen it before, I went downstairs during the break and
asked the computer because I wanted to make sure I was spelling it right, and it
says, "and destroy your country and everybody in it." [Laughs]. Okay?

[student: Hmmm]

 And there's more. [Laughs], kill your father, mother, and wipe out your
country and everybody in it. Obviously, we have to.....

[student: {unclear} means and.]
{student: And, A, N,D, A, N, D.]

[students:I don't know. {unclear]]

 What I'm about to say about this subject is not in Dharmakirtis' book, okay? It's
in Madhyumika, it's in the middle path. But I just thought that it was so
approprate here that I just stuck it in, alright? It's very famous, we spend about a
year on this subject.       {Trangye}, say {trangye} [repeat].       {Trang} means
"figurative". Figurative, not literal. It means the Buddha said something but he
didn't mean it that way. {Trang}, you can find scriptures where the Buddha said,
"things have their own nature", things have a self nature. In the lower schools he
said that, "things do have a self nature", things are real. And then in later schools
he says, "no, their not". [laughs]. Okay. That's {trang} . One of those has to be
{trangne}, {trangdun}. {Nye} means "literal". Figurative and literal. Figurative
means, he didn't mean what he said. {Nye} means he did mean what he said.
And we, in Buddism spend years on this subject, because it's very important,
right? How do you know when the Buddha meant what he said, and when he
didn't mean what he said? Okay? Because you can get in big trouble, with a
religious teacher, you know, if he says," kill your father and your mother", and
people think he was literal, you have a problem, you wouldn't have mom here.
Okay. So they're three rules for, "How do you know the difference." They're
the ground rules for interpreting the Buddha. How do you know when the
Buddha was talking literally, and how do you know when he was just speaking
figuratively. How do you know the difference? Okay. [silence]

{Gom} means thought, meaning, true thought or true intention behind what
somebody says. You know, when my boss says, what did he say this afternoon?
It was really funny, I don't remember [laughter]. Something like, you know,
you're a really talented person. You know it means we can't send any one else
in, because no one else is stupid enough to go [laughter]. I mean, that's the
{gom}, okay? {Shi} means basis, so {gom shi}, {gome shi} means; what did he
really have in mind? What did he really have in mind?

[student: True intent?]

 Yeah, true intent, I like that, true thought or true intent. What was his true
intent? {Tigey mitag kor dombay}, okay, { Gom shi}. Excuse me?

[student: Tsema gomgen]
  Yeah, {tsema gomgen }, that {gom} is the same {gom}. And that means, what
did the Buddha really mean when he taught {tsema}, but this is {gom shi}. What
do you think the { gomshi} is in this case? He say''s kill your mother, kill your
father, destroy the place where you came from.

 [student: To liberate us.]

And all the people you grew up with.

[student: Be free of the past.]

 Yeah, be free of attatchment. In Buddism you, in the Buddist confession for
monks, {Tibetan.....}. You first have to confess any, any disrespect to our
parents before we confess disrespect to the abbot, or to our Tantric masters. It
means you, must respect your parents. You know, it's more import...you know,
it's listed before respecting your tantrc master and the person who gave you
your vows. You must respect your parents. I mean you're not allowed to,
killing your father or your mother is one of the five deeds that can get you to the
lowest hell, automatically. Period. There's only five; trying to hurt a Buddha,
killing an arhat, splitting up the monks during the Buddhas time, which you can't
even do now, and killing your father and your mother. Those, so he obviously
had something else in mind when he said that, okay. That's {gom shi}, what he
really had in mind.

[student: What? To be free of....]

 Attatchment, for your, for the place that you grew up in and things like that. I
mean, don't let that hold you back from your spiritual progress. It doesn't mean
that you have to reject them necessarily. But if, but if your, you know, if they
keep you from being a good person or something like that, you don't.

[silence]

 Say, { mula} [repeat],{nuajay} [repeat], {mula} [repeat], { nuajay} [repeat]. {Nue}
means the way things really are. Reality, true,true reality, how's that? In this
case. {Lopa nyentso} means the way things realy are

. [student: Ultimate or conventional?]

No, just the way things really are in the sense.. we'll see, you'll see. It doesn't
mean ultimate. It doesn' t mean emptiness or anything like that. I'll explain it .
{Neu} and {la}, {la} means "to", T, O. {Neu}, you had before, what does it mean?
"Hurt, damage, contradict". {Je} means "it does". So, listen, I'll tell you something
true. This wall is red. [Laughter], okay. [cough]. {Meula neumje [unclear]},
{meula neumje}, I mean, it offends your intelligence. Come on. It contradicts
what I know I mean, it contradicts what I can see right here, you know. It's
wrong. It contradicts reality. It contradicts what I can see is real. Why did
Michael say it was red? He wanted to explain the idea of {meula neumje} to
you. That was my {gom shi} and when I call that thing red, it's {meula neumje}.
It, it's not true, it offends your direct perception, you know it's not true, {meula
neumje}. It's the second. By the way you're gonna get those last three I spoke
about and these three mixed up, be careful not to. The three tests for checking
what a person says and now these three conditions for deciding that the person
is just speaking figuratively are different,and don't get them confused on your
homework, I'm sorry that there is two three's coming at the same time and their
kinda related and..

[student: [unclear] means what? {Meula}.]

I'm sorry, excuse me?

[student: {Meula}, what does that mean?]

 {Meula} means to the real reality, to the reality, you know, fenced reality. You
can see it's not red, you can see it's yellow. The true condition. {Meula Neumje}
means it contradicts the true condition. You can see it's not yellow, you know
very well that your parents aren't {sajang}.

[student: So what are the second three, what classification are they?]

 I was afraid you were gonna say that. What are we gonna call it? The three
ways to check, I guess you could call it the three rules for interpreting the
Buddha.

[student: Is it always so obvious though?]

 Ah, no, or else there wouldn't be four Buddhist schools, [laughter]. And each
ones swearing that they're right, [laughter].

 Say {goepa} [repeat], {goepa} [repeat].        {Goepa} means compelling need,
compelling need. Big purpose served.




[student: Big purpose served?]

Big purpose served.

[student: Or the compelling need.]

 Either one, take your choice, [laughs]. There's a compelling need for him to say
that. Why did the Buddha say to the Abhidharma disciples, " There is a self
nature. Of course there's a self nature, if they didn't have a self nature, they
wouldn't be there. It's itself."? Why did he say that? First of all, is it true? Is it
{meula neumje}? Is it true?

 [student: It looks true.]

 It's not true ! They don't have a self nature. Or else the guy at work would
seem nice to you, but please.

[student: But to them it would.]

[Laughs], okay. No, no, { neu} means the "real reality". It is not true, so why did
he say it? He

had a { goepa}, he had a {goepa}, Okay?. He would have freaked 'em out.
{Goepa} means it's a compelling need for him to say something that is not
correct, and he did it all the time. And, and there are beliefs in each of the three
lower schools which are wrong.

 [student: And what was his compelling need?]

 If he had tried to explain emptiness to those particular disciples, they either
would have, normally what happens, with a, with a disciple whose, whose,
intellect is not strong enough, when you explain emptiness to them, they can
swing over to nihilism, nothing that matters. I can act anyway that I want. I can
kill, people, I can lie, I can steal, if everything's empty, and you've seen that. You
know, pick up half of the books in the Snow Lion catalogue, see what thay say
about emptiness, you know, and they say, "You see colours, and it liberates you,
you don't have to do anything, right." When in fact it's quite the opposite. When
you see that the guy at the office is empty, you realize, you know, the ugly way
he seems to you is your own projection and he's empty, and then you realize
where it came from, your past bad deeds and then you'll stop doing things like
that. So actually, the opposite is true. As soon as you realize that something is
empty, you have to, quite soon after that realize that everything is totally up to
your goodness. You must be good. So there's all these books about Buddhism,
you know, teaching that in Buddism you can do whatever you want, it's
liberating, you don't have to think about anything, just put your mind into a
void. You know it's wrong. And so the Buddha, to all those disciples who might
fall into thinking that he said, " No such thing as emptiness."

[student: How do you know he was talking to those disciples, how do you,
because this, the books were written years and years after the Buddha was dead.
So how do you know that they didn't misquote him, or that this wasn't made up
by the people who wrote it?]

 Ah, we can establish a {goepa}. And and we can establish that there is some
pressing need to do that even if, even in the present time. Even in nowadays
you're not allowed to explain emptiness to people who are not ready, it's a vow.

[student: How can you reconcile with what Lama Tsongkhapa says[unclear]?]

 You think about it. I think it's when you understand {treng ye} that you can
accept Tsongkhapa's statement.

  [student: And that says it's not that sophisticated. Its not like something you
can realize after ten years of studying.]

No, I think..

[student: Because it's a catch all. Put any contradiction under that. If I say, "There
was a need under a certain context to lay bait for people".]

You could, you could say that.




[student; He's talking about something much more...]
 Yeah, he's talking about something much, and in fact I'll tell you that when
you've finished your five year course, and when you have studied all four
schools, deeply, you'll see the same thing. You'll say, "Man, this is a fantastic
network. It's all, I see why he said everything. I see where everything hooks in
to everything." And that's why I wanted this course to touch everything, cause if
you just taught Abhidharma you wouldn't get everything. If you get, if you just
taught the highest school, Lam Rim, you wouldn't get everything either. When
you get the whole, they call it the sugar ball. In India they have these brown
sugar balls, they usually got maggots inside, [laughter], really. But where ever
you eat it from, they say it's sweet. Any contact you ever have with the Buddist
scriptures if it's well explained, you, it just blows you away. There's no part of the
Buddhist scriptures that you can say are useless or meaningless or wrong or not
helpful or... Every contact you have is very sweet, from the lowest school to the
highest school. And I'll tell you, if you ever have any other impression, you
haven't studied enough, I would say, Okay. One more short thing. Yeah.

[student: That group, we're not talkin' figurative are we ? We're talkin' about ..]

 These are the rules for establishing something he said was figurative. There's a
big need for him to say "kill your father, kill your mom" He wanted to shock
people.

[student: The Abhidharmist thinks they have a true nature.          He's saying that
figuratively they have a true nature.]

Sure.

{student: They didn't know that he was meaning figuratively.]

No, by definition, they often don't know, or they don't find out 'till later.

  [student: So what's the difference between saying something figuratively with
the people when you know they don't know that your talking figuratively and
not telling the truth.]

[Laughter]

It's a debate in the monastery.

[student: I know, fifth year, fourth class.]
[Unclear Tibetan] The Buddha, the Buddhas, it doesn't come through in English.
The Buddhas speak lie, but lie, the Buddhas speak lie, but the Buddha don't lie, or
something. The Buddha can describe lying, but the Buddha doesn't lie. But in
Tibetan it sounds cool. It's, Buddha don't lie , Buddha lie, I mean, nevermind,
[laughter].

[student: Is this figurative but not literal, or both?]

 Well it's very beautiful, I didn't want to tell you this, but since you asked. In the
highest, even the division between what is figurative and what is literal is also an
object the Buddha simplifying for people. So the lower schools don't even agree
to what the higher schools think is literal and figurative. The rules, even in the
lower school are different. And in the highest school, Madhumika Prasanghika,
any scripture which does not mention emptiness directly is figurative, it's not the
whole truth. Even a book about morality, if it doesn't mention emptiness in the
same breath, is, is not, it's figurative. It's beautiful, that's a very beautiful thing.

[student: So all schools recognize {trangye}?]

[student: Before you go into that.]

Is the, is the air conditioning too cold?

[student: Could I ask a question before you go into that?]

Yeah.

[student: You gave us the three rules, so how would you apply those, could you
give us an example of, you could, you know you get these sticky [unclear]]

 Well, {bani mani sa jayi}, so first off all, what did he have in mind when he said,
"Kill your mother, kill your father" ?

[student: How do you know?]

 Well first of all {meula neumjay}, it offends everything that makes sense to you,
I mean, you know that you shouldn't kill you mother or your father. Something
wrong with the statement, then you try to figure out what he had in mind
behind it. Oh, he meant, don't be attatched. Well why did he say that ? Why
didn't he just say, don't be attatched? Why did he say, "Kill your father and
mother." ? He wants to shock you. He wants you to remember what he said.
You will never forget that quotation. I'll tell you that, in your life, I don't believe
you, any of you will forget it in your life. If I got up here and said ,"Don't hate
your mom and dad, oh I'm sorry, don't have attatchment.", you'll forget that in
about a week. It has a value, it has shock value.

 [student: So all three of those things should be there to say that it's figurative.]

 They have to be present, all three have to be present, even deciding that is a
tough job, and you know that. But at least you know that Buddhism talks about
the rules and I like that, I really like that. We have rules, and the books on that
are really long . And we have some over there, we did some on the computer,
for Sera Je. Tsongkhapa wrote a two hundred and ten page book about it, and
most students in the monastery try to memorize that, and you get an award if
you memorize it. It's such an important subject. Okay, {tsema drepa} [repeat],
you have this already, the one who turned correct. That was in that quotation,
you have to ignore that. Okay the one who became correct, the one who turned
correct. The last thing we're going to do tonight, it's only one minute. Is ah, why
did Dignaga say that? Why didn't he call the Buddha the one who is correct?
Why did he use the word turned?

[student: Because he turned..]

[student: Because he developed the process.]

[student: Because he wasn't always.]

 All good answers. There's a negative need for him to say that and there's a
positive thing. I mean, there's a negative thing he's saying, and there's a positive
thing he's saying. We call, {yong chokyi goepa} and {nam chokyi goepa}.
There's, there's something he's trying to get you to realize didn't happen, and
there's something he's trying to get you to realize did happen. What's the thing
he 's trying to get you to realize didn't happen?

[students: He wasn't like that from the beggining.]

  He wasn't like that from the beggining . He was not like that from the
beggining. The Buddha was not perfect from the beggining, in fact he was just
like you and me, in fact, he did some terrible things.
[students: Really?]

[student: He did?]

 The first sixteen volumes of the {Kangyur}, which are the books on vinaya,
monks vows. They're not long stories about keep this vow, keep that vow, keep
that vow. They are stories of the Buddha describing his, many stories of him
describing his past bad deeds. It's like Rinpoche saying what a bad kid he was, if
you ever read that book. I mean, the Buddha's describing horrible things, and
then at the end of the story he usually says, by the way, that was me, you know.
[laughs]

[student: In his previous lives.}

 Yeah, he was just like us, he's a little bit ahead of us, but we'll end up the same,
won't we? I mean, that's the point of class. He was just as bad as anyone ever
was. So he was not, the negative statement, he never was , he was not perfect
from the begining. Positive statement?

[student: The cessation envolved.]




 He became, he did something to get that way. He did something to get that
way. He followed some kind of method. He followed some kind of path. Those
are the two implications of that statement. And ,and the whole second chapter
of Dharmakirtis book is gonna be just about these four syllables. Somebody
wrote a whole book about this, { Sema kyerpa}. Became, turned correct. Alright,
Carlly.

[student: No homework?]

 Oh, Tom asked me to, Tom's gonna, has invited anybody who's interested in
having like a discussion group about the vows, you know that Rinpoche taught,
last weekend, which are bodhisattva vows and secret vows. He'd like to start,
maybe start a group like that to start to talk about them sometimes and stuff like
that, and stuff like that. So if anyones interested you know.

[student: Also to discuss the practice that the people got in the last initiation and
looking forward to the initiation to come . If people are interested in forming a
discussion group or study group about what that entails, I'd be more than happy
to be of help.]

 I know that Serge and them are doing that, it's really good, they spend, I think
they get together on Saturday nights. It's really good for you. If you wanna, are
you ready?

[Prayer: Short mandala] [Prayer: Dedication]

 So we will have a class on Thursday. Then there's a good chance we'll take a
week. We'll have a week off. I'm gonna try to have Saturday night and a
Saturday morning.... [cut]
The Proof of Future Lives