ACI 4 «Доказательство будущих жизней», занятие 5

Class 5
Transcribed by Karen Becker

(cut) you see, I don't much like, that's why I don't like that
translation.

(student: Because (unclear) means permanent and unchanging.)

When we say permanent, we mean eternal. And and when Buddhism
says permanent it usually means changing or unchanging, so I
prefer the terms "changing" and "unchanging". Because like is
the (shunyata) of this wall permanent?

(students: No. Yes)

Is it eternal?

(student: No)

It's not. When the wall's destroyed it's emptiness wi will go
out of being, okay, so therefore you can have an emptiness that
lasts only a millisecond. That is (takpa) but it's not...in in
my book it's not permanent, that's why I don't like the the
translation "permanent", I had a trouble with it twenty years ago
when I started studying, I I I it was strange to me.

(student: But the emptiness of it is is still there even if it's
not there.)

No, it's absolutely not there.

(student: It's dependent.)

'Cause there's nothing to be empty.

(students: (unclear) But it's it's become dirt or it's become
something else hasn't it?)

Emptiness has to be emptiness has to, emptiness is a
characteristic of an object. If the object is not there
emptiness (unclear)

(student: But the other (unclear) has the object truly
disappeared?)

Oh yeah, when you destroy the wall, the emptiness of the wall is
gone.

(student: Well the wall, but the element of the wall)

But then the elements of the wall have their emptiness.

(student: Oh so)

But the wall is gone.

(student: But if you)

When you die your emptiness

(student: But isn't the emptiness of the wall the fact that it
does change?)

(student: No, huh uh)

Please. (unclear Tibetan) What about space? Doesn't have
emptiness? No.

(student: well,)

(student: So what is the emptiness in that the wall get broken
down, it's the it's the emptiness of the components of the wall?)

There's nothing that doesn't (unclear)

(student: components of the wall)

The emptiness goes out of existence. The emptiness of the wall
no longer exists. When the wall is destroyed there is no
emptiness of the wall.

(student: So how do you refer to that which is left?)

That's why I don't like the word "permanent". Because that's
obviously not permanent, but it's not not...so that's why I have
trouble with that word. In the case of death meditation when
it's called (chi wa mi takpa), your impermanence, that's okay,
that's a good translation. But in general, in in Buddhist
philosophy, I have trouble with that with that...doesn't quite do
it for me. So I I like to call them "unchanging" and "changing",
 okay. (Takpa) means "changing" and (mi takpa) means
"unchanging". The the wall...the emptiness of the wall will
never change. In so far, so far so long as it exists it's
quality never changes a nit, a wit, (laughs) anyway, never
changes at all. It it goes out of existence and comes into
existence but it but while it exists it never changes, that's the
idea. It has no cause. Nothing produces it. Nothing can affect
it. Therefore it's it's unchanging. Yeah.

(student: I just want to clarify that (takpa) is "unchanging")

Right.

(student: (Mi takpa) is changing.)

And even in Tibetan they admit that they put the (mi) on the
wrong one. Okay. It's it's reversed. This one is negative. This
one happens to be positive.

(student: Oh gee)

It's just the mis it's just a a a quirk of Tibetan language that
that had to have the negative. The concept is positive. This
concept is negative.

(student: That explains the leaning towards "permanent" and
"impermanent", not permanent.)

Right right. 'Cause it it sounds a little bit easier, but but
you can see now why it's technically wrong. The emptiness of the
wall is not permanent but it is unchanging. And that's that's
the point.

(student: You can say "changeless")

The the mind is changing but eternal, and that's that's something
else.

(student: Teachers say "permanent" and then use "changing" and
"unchanging" to qualify it (unclear)

Oh yeah, in English you have to say that. But but in Tibetan you
could have used "permanent" for this (takpa) then you
can't...this never changes, there's no such thing.

(student: Can you say "permanent and changing" and also
"permanent and not changing"?)

In English you can, but you can't say (takpa) and changing and
(takpa) and unchanging. (Takpa) means "unchanging". Unproduced.
 Unborn. Undestroyable.

(student: So what happens (unclear)

(student: So that's mind. Mind is (takpa))

No it's (mi takpa).

(student: But but you just said that it's it's continu
continuous.)

It's a (unclear) but it's changing, that's all.

(student: I'm sorry, I'm getting confused (laughs)(takpa) is
changing or (mi takpa) is changing? (laughter)

By the way, functioning thing, anything which does something is a
synonym for (mi takpa). Anything which is produced is a synonym
for (mi takpa). Anything which can be destroyed is a synonym for
(mi takpa). Anything which is produced and destroyed by the
instant is a synonym for (mi takpa). But but you'll study that
some other day. There's a whole book about it.

(student: So then there's two kinds of emptiness? There's
permanent emptiness and impermanent emptiness? The emptiness of
a wall being impermanent emptiness and the emptiness of your mind
is permanent?)

The emptiness of your mind...the emptiness of your mind is
eternal.

(student: So there's two different kinds of emptinesses.)

In fact that's your Buddha nature, since you brought it up. And
I'm not, it's not the class, you know, it's not the subject, it's
not even the school, but (laughter) but the emptiness of your
mind, since it will be around when you become a Buddha, is your
Buddha nature. And and what those other people all say is Buddha
nature is completely wrong. It's not that you are Buddha inside
and you didn't uncover it, or something like that.

(student: So that was my question, that when the wall breaks down
the emptiness is no longer there because it's a wall whereas when
a person dies the emptiness is still there because it's a person
or animal or anything whatever.)

Right when it...the continuum, the emptiness of the continuum of
the mind never it's never never goes out of existence.

(student: Permanent)

(student: But you can still call it the emptiness, I was just
thinking maybe you're thinking of it as mind instead of
emptiness, so it is still the emptiness of the mind continued
whereas the emptiness )

What is the emptiness of the mind? The emptiness of the mind is
the fact that the mind does not have any nature of it's own. No
nature of it's own. Not even of being mind of it's own.
(student: So what is mind?)

(Sel chen rik pa) (laughter) (unclear) That which is that which
is aware and...that which is clear and aware.

(student: It's what?)

Clear and aware. Aware and knowing.

(student: So is that like consciousness?)

Same definition, it's the same.

(student: In talking about the emptiness of the wall and the
wall being destroyed and not changing)

When the wall is destroyed there is no longer any fact that the
wall has no nature. Yeah.

(student: Maybe a way to think of it is in terms of it's
dependent origination because it's a wall dependent upon our
conceiving of it and labeling it as a wall, so it gets broken
down and we no longer conceive of it and label it as a wall,
therefore it can no longer be a wall.)

There no heap of parts to be labeled wall (unclear), that's one
thing.

(student: Therefore we now perceive and label it "rubble" and it
has the emptiness of rubble because it's dependent upon our
perceiving it that way.)

Yeah. That's true.

(student: I have a little, a question with a little step back.
And it might be a little bit blasphemous, I don't, is

(students: Let's (unclear)
(student: Would it be better for us to learn this in
English...would it be, would the would it be clearer to learn
this in English so not to have the confusion of (takpa) (mi
takpa)?)

Maybe in this particular case. But in general it's good to put a
seed

(student: I mean ultimately?)

A seed in your mind. It's good to have a (bak chak). It's good
to have a (bak chak)...it's good for you to hear the Tibetan.
Why do they always put Sanscrit at the beginning of a Tibetan
book? I mean in in the (Kangyur) and (Tengyur), they always put
the Sanscrit in, nobody knows what it means, they they they
religiously put the Sanscrit. One reason is that it's a holy...I
mean the first Dalai Lama in his commentary of the
(b:Abhidharma...Abhidharmakosha) says it's because when you
become a Buddha you will speak Sanscrit. I mean it...there's a
reason to put stuff in that you don't think of. It's it's just
putting imprint in your consciousness and it will come out later.
 Tonight we're gonna discuss the idea of a of omniscience, what
is the nature of omniscience. Omniscience is a state of mind, a
kind of mental state, and it's it's obviously tied in to (tse ma)
because omniscience is (tse ma), or pramana, or correct
perception towards everything. And only a Buddha has that.
That's why he's a person of total accuracy. (Tsemay kyebu). So
we have to discuss what is omniscience. And the reason it's
coming up here and the reason I'm talking about it is there is a
school in ancient India called the Charvaka and they said that
there isn't such a thing as omniscience, they agreed to that, but
they said an omniscient being can only be the creator of the
world. He said omniscience always comes along with being creator
of the world. You can't be omniscient without being the creator
of the world. They said those two qualities had to come
together.

(student: And they used the same word, I mean it's directly
translatable to "omniscience"?)
Yeah.

(student: As opposed to omnipotence?)

Yeah, exactly the same word as the Buddhists used.

(student: Same definition?)

Same def same definition, knowing all things in all times.
(unclear) But they said that that being who knew all things and
who must have made the world is also (tak pa), which is what?

(student; Unchanging.)

Unchanging. He never changes, okay. From him flow all things.
He knows the smallest sparrows pain. He made this world. And
he's (tak pa), unchanging, he's...which means he's always been
that way, he's always been omniscient, okay, so he's he's
qualities are like that. They they they, you know if you
(laughs) are sitting in Tibet and trying to grasp this idea it's
a little bit weird, you know, they say, okay there's this guy who
made the world and he also knows all things and those two
qualities always come together and he never changes. So
Tibetans, you know, said, actually it was Dharmakirti he said,
well let's examine this idea. Let's examine if such a thing is
possible. So where do you put mind in these two? Mind. Mind is
changing all the time. Mind is changing by the instant. It's
changing by the instant.

(student: This came up last week when we were talking about the
Buddha's omniscience and if the Buddha knows all things from all
three times, then isn't there a sense in which (unclear) this
unchanging way that he essentially can not change, it's like a
container...of all objects).

The Buddhists the Buddhist schools in...there were schools in
Tibet that thought that. There were schools in Tibet that argued
that the Buddha must be...that his omniscience must be (takpa).

(student: It's so. But he)
No. (laughs) It's (mi takpa), it's changing and I'll tell you
why, I'll tell you Dharmakirti's argument. Okay. And when
Dharmakirti gets, when when Geshe Yeshe Wangchub gets through
presenting Dharmakirti's idea he says, and that should be enough
for all these Tibetans who think that the omniscience of a Buddha
is unchanging. If you don't believe Dharmakirti, what can I do?
(laughter) 'Cause Dharmakirti is answering that question.
Dharmakirti is ab...I'm about to explain Dharmakirti's
explanation of why the even the Buddha's mind has to be changing,
okay. And the fact is that the mind has something like five
qualities, and and one of them is called (nam pa), okay. (Nam
pa) means "when you look at an object, your mind takes on that
aspect." When you look at blue, your mind gets a little blue
(laughs) okay. What do I mean? It means like a mirror, gets a
little blue. If you put a blue object in front of a mirror, it's
not like it stains the mirror and there's blue in the mirror
forever, you know, for ever after, but there is some kind of
blueness reflecting in the mirror. The object, some quality of
the object exists in the mirror at that time. The mirror is
mirroring that blueness. The mir the mirror has some blueness in
it. For the time that the blue is in front of the mirror. And
then when you take the blue away from the mirror what happens?
The blueness goes away. It's not like it, it's not like a
computer burn...what do you call it...burning? Burnout?

(student: Burned in screen on a computer?)

It's not like that. It doesn't...there's no shadow stays there
and the mind is the same. Whenever you put an object in front of
the mind the mind is like a mirror, the mind is like a piece of
glass, and when you put the blueness behind the glass then the
glass takes on some quality of blue. And when you remove the
blue, the mind loses that quality.

(student: It seems to me for there some self existent blueness
that's, you know, (unclear) before the mind. (laughter)

Why self existent?
(student: Well, where's the blueness coming from? It's just
presented itself to the mind.)

We'll study the Mind Only school's presentation some day, and
they say that the seed which creates the blue and the seed which
creates the mind seeing the blue are the same. There's a karmic
seed that's triggering both events.

(student: So the seed is already within the mind?)

Yeah.

(student: So what this mind is taking on whatever the seed for
(unclear)?)

The mind is...the fact that the mind changes to blue when the
blue is presented to the mind and the fact that the blue was
presented to the mind are all coming from the same karmic seed.
And that's a beautiful thing to admire, but it's not the..and
we'll go over (laughs)

(student: Yeah, I'm getting confused because you keep jumping
from one school to the other and I'm I'm getting really confused,
I mean)

I know. So not to not to confuse. When you when an object
appears before the mind, one of the qualities of the mind is that
it reflects that object, it it becomes it takes on the image of
that object and you know that, you know, you have some...it's not
that color leaks into the mind but it's in the way that color is
is reflected in a mirror. Somehow the mind is is soaked with
that object. Somehow that that object is imaged in the mind and
when you take the object away it goes away. That image in your
mind goes away. That's called (nam pa) N a m p a. It's one of
the five qualities of the mind. And yo and I can't and by the
way there are schools in Tibet that think if you figure out how
(nam pa) works you've perceived emptiness and they spend many
years meditating on the mind and how it takes on the form of the
object. They call that meditating on the...they think that's
meditating on the ultimate nature of the mind. So wha...and it's
wrong. That's not the ultimate nature. It's just the normal
nature of the mind, no big deal, you can see it pretty easily,
but what I'm saying is that it takes some practice to, you know,
just cook it, your mind is like a mirror, what's presented in
front of the mind somehow reflects in the mind, and that's called
(nam pa). The mind takes on that aspect. Now if the object is
changing, what happens to the mind?

(student: changes)

It changes. It's like a mirror. When you when you move the
object out of the mirror it's... the object is moving across the
mirror and the reflection in the mirror is changing. Part of the
mirror is changing. What I'm trying to say is if if a mind, if a
state of mind focuses on something which is changing then the
mind itself must?

(student: Change)

(student: But could couldn't it be something like a river, a
river is continually changing but it's continually the river?)

Yeah, the mind is just like that. The mind is eternal, but not
unchanging. It's always changing.

(student: But the but the vessel is not changing, the
ingredients are changing.)

Yeah, and that is what it is for the vessel to change.

(student: Huh?)

(student: What's in the vessel is changing, the vessel is not
changing.)

The mirror, is the mirror changing?

(student: The mirror is always a mirror, just re is is
reflecting)
So the mirror is changing.

(student: But it's always a mirror.)

Yeah, and the mind is always a mind. (laughs) The fact that it's
a mind doesn't change. The mind is changing. The fact that
it's a mind doesn't change. (Sam sam mi yimba) that's a famous
debate for kids in the monastery, you know, fifteen year olds in
the monastery spend hours in these...you know, they love the
action (laughs) they don't really think much about what they're
doing, they say, you know, they debate about whether the fact
that the mind is a mind is permanent or not...is unchanging or
not. That's unchanging. The mind will always be the mind. Or
the fact that the mind is named the mind is always unchanging.
But but the what the mind itself is changing in the way the
mirror is changing. If you perceive what? If you are looking at
what? A changing thing. If you're focused on a changing thing,
then your mind is is your sensation is changing. We call it a
changing, the (unclear) are changing, thoughts are changing, I
mean

(student: When you when you perceive emptiness it is not
changing?)

Ah, now that's my next point. Could everybody get the first
point? (laughs)

(student: To go and put it up a step since the Buddha is seeing
everything, the past, present and future, at every moment it's
the same set that you're seeing)

But it's, but those objects are changing.

(student: Not moment to moment. Because it's the same set you're
seeing from moment to moment.)

Does he perceive the flow of time?

(students: No)
(student: That that that's a ver, that's a very interesting
point because it show the way that we tend to ascribe static
ontology to things even if we say, okay, if I have a whole
history of of something of it's life to birth, if I can see it at
each moment it still must have some kind of substance that that
that subsists, but it's actually that it it has nothing like that
so that even if you can see the totality of it's moments, those
slices of time themselves are always in the midst of change,
there's really nothing to hold on to.
(student: except mind)

You can say that. You can say that. You can say that. But
anyway the objects, if the objects of changing the mind are such,
even the Buddha's mind, how does the Buddha see change?

(student: I gue I guess my point is is that because he's
perceived everything...)

Yeah, and is perceiving everything all the time

(student: And is perceiving everything, his perception hasn't
changed.)

His perception doesn't change but yet, but does he see change?

(student: He does see change.)

(unclear) then his mind changes (laughs) right. Think about it.
Just cook it. Okay. This is Dharmakirti, not Michael Roach,
okay, and the verse is in your reading and the commentary is in
your reading. And and be aware that some Buddhist schools in
Tibet, later, thought just that. They thought omniscience was
not wisdom, they thought it did never that it never changed, but
every book in India, every Buddhist book says the mind
changes, the mind is a changing object.

(student: Why would they say "not wisdom"? What do they mean by
"wisdom", if if not)

They think they I guess what they mean is they can't accept that
omniscience is a state of wisdom. Because if they do they'd have
to accept that it's changing.

(student: Why does wisdom have to be changing?)

I don't know, but they they they avoid that, they don't want to
say wisdom, that that omniscience is wisdom. Maybe because it's
a mental function. Maybe they accept that mental functions
change but the main mind doesn't change. Maybe therefore, they
have to argue that omniscience isn't is not a mental function but
is the main consciousness. All right. Now what about...if what
I said is true, and just cook it, you don't have to accept it, if
what I said is true, then what about a mind perceiving an a a
unchanging object...is the mind then unchanging?

(student: What kind of object could the mind perceive that was
unchanging?)

Emptiness, or space.

(student: So how, okay, so let's say em emptiness)

Or the fact that there's no no elephant in this room.
(student: But if an elephant comes in the room (unclear)
changing.)

It's just it goes out of existence (laughs) okay. No. The the
lack of an elephant in this room does not change from moment to
moment. Until an elephant comes in. So let's say until five
o'clock no elephant comes in. During that time, the lack of an
elephant never changes it's quality in the slightest, it it just
does not, it's quality doesn't shift in the slightest, it's
always exactly purely lack of elephant. It doesn't get less or
more lack of elephant. That's what changing means. So

(student: So, that's what (unclear) means?)

(student: But that's a background perception right?)

(student in background: Unchanging, unchanging)
(student: That would be...if you're sitting in this room
observ...you don't sit here until an elephant shows up you don't
sit here and the only thing that you can see is that there's no
elephant here.)

No, but whenever you focus on that object, you're focus focusing
on an unchanging object. It never gets more or less
elephantless. It's just elephantless.

(student: Like a measurement.)

(student: But your convictions would change, I mean at first)

Well then no that's different, that's totally different, that's
changing. That's different.

(student: Glad it's not here (laughter))

(student: So then there's a there's an infinite)

Glad it's not here (laughter)

(student: Will we have to know the inner qualities of the mind
in order to answer that question, 'cause)

Ahh, they would confuse and it's a long subject. So that's all.
Now. What is the argument? Why why does Dharmakirti say a mind
is omniscience is changing? Just get that one. Why?

(student: 'Cause things are always changing.)

'Cause it's focusing on a thing that's changing. It's a it he's
saying the mirror is changing if in front of the mirror there's
something going like that. If if something is moving in front of
 the mirror the mirror is changing too. That's his argument.
Therefore omniscience is?

(students: Changing.)
Changing. Because omniscience focuses on what?

(student: Things that are changing. Everything.)

Everything. (unclear), by the way, this covers all existing
objects. Every existing object has to be one of the other here.

(student: So omniscience is nothing?)

No. It has a (nam pa), okay. Omniscience is...what is,
omniscient...think of omniscience as a big mirror...what's
reflecting in the mirror?

(students: Everything)

Every single object in the universe that ever was, will or

(student: And is)

Is, yeah (laughs), And their, and each of those objects
emptiness.

(student: Oh emptiness)

It's seeing all of those things, okay. It's ref...all those
things are reflecting in the mirror, as long as there's anything
moving, the mirror is mov is changing. Omniscience is changing.
There therefore because omniscience sees all stuff, and because
changing things are some one of those stuffs, then the
omniscience is changing. That's Dharmakirti's argument. Now the
non Buddhists come and say, well what about when the mind focuses
on something unchanging. According to you, then the that mind at
that time should be unchanging, right? Dharmakirti says, "no not
necessarily". He says, it doesn't, in other words...the reverse
is not necessarily true. If you focus on something unchanging,
the mirror is changing. I'm sorry. If you focus on something
changing, the mirror is changing.

(student: Why?)
But...just because you focus on something unchanging doesn't mean
the mirror is unchanging.

(student: Why?)

And he says because because the mind engages in the object and
then withdraws from the object. The mind is always

(student: Well the mind (unclear) always changing)

Like a fly, it's on the object for a while and then it goes away.
(student: The omniscient mind or the ordinary mind?)

That's a tough one (laughter) (laughs) This is the argument. He
doesn't mention that point. He says, he says, is the mind
focused on the ob...is the mind like a...we call it (bang mong
nar shing), we say a person who can't sit in his seat is called a
fly in Tibet. You know, he can't he he comes to the object and
then he goes to the another one and then he comes back to the
object, this is the nature of our minds, anyway, and there that's
called (rik val), it means "the mind is changing because
sometimes it's engaged and sometimes it's not engaged, and that's
changing.

(student: Yeah, isn't that really the only change? I mean
there's no)

When he's focusing on em on something unchanging, that seems to
be, I mean that's Dharmakirti's argument for saying that even
then the mind is changing.

(student: So then prior to omniscience the mind is always
changing.)

(student: No but he's saying that omniscience is changing.)

He would say even omniscience is change.

(student: But what is the direct)
Because omniscience sees

(student: Right right. I'm just making the distinction about
the before period.)

(student: But we with the nine stages of meditation when you
reach the final stage of shamata, I thought by definition )

One pointed (unclear)...one pointed

(student: Right. I thought you mind..by definition your mind
doesn't wander so you're not withdrawing and engaging)

Well I'll say this, and and that's why you're let's say you're
meditating on your thoughts, or or we need something unchanging,
right...let's say emptiness, is emptiness of four o'clock the
same as emptiness at four-o-one?

(students: Yeah, yeah, maybe, (laughter) No.)

(student: When you're when you're when you're meditating on
emptiness you're meditating on a generality, on a concept really,
aren't you?)

Not when it's (unclear) but anyway

(student: Because it's not)

So I those are his two arguments. I'll go over them. He says
omniscience must be changing because omniscience sees all things
and changing things are part of all things. So if the object is
going weh-weh-weh-weh-weh and that the perception of it must
somehow reflecting weh-weh-weh. Yeah?

(student: But is there really an object that's going weh-weh-weh
or is it merely a perception of an object that's going weh-weh-
weh?)

(student: Unclear)
In this school the object is (unclear)

(student: Okay)

Now, why doesn't then why, then Tim's question, why then if
something if the mind focuses on an unchanging object don't you
call the mind unchanging. Well because it's it's touching the
object and then it's engaging and then it's disengaging, and
that's changing. That's his argument.

(student: So the direct perception of emptioness is?)

Is a state of mind and all mind is changing. I can give you
another argument why the mind is changing, the mind is

(student: Well, but wait a minute. Isn't mind changing because
it's consciousness from moment to moment?)

That's another reason. But this is not his argument here. He's
he's basing his argument on the nature of the object. But in
fact since mind has to be caused, of course it's changing all the
time. Why? The energy that shoves it into our present time is
always...it's a reaction in...anything that pushes something gets
less as time goes on. The energy that keeps it going changes.

(student: But but Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk's the text that we read
for last week said the second mind of omniscience is not the
cause of (unclear) it's not, it doesn't focus on it's object by
the power of the person of omniscience so)

It's not, it's a

(student: That's right.)

Let's say this. It it's direct cause is the is the omniscience
of the moment before and always will be and must be. It's it's
material cause, the stuff that turns into omniscience in the
second moment has to be the omniscience of the first moment.

(student: But it's not triggered by)
What's what's what's what's giving it the content, what's
creating the the content, is not the is not the omniscience of
the first moment. You have to distinguish between...there's five
types of causes. The stuff that turns into the mind of the
second moment. The stuff that turns into omniscience of the
second moment is is always the omniscience of the first moment.
It's always...that's why he he's has a mind stream, he still has
a mind stream.

(student: But is it)

Has to be.

(student: But you're, then you're but)

There has to be some stuff to turn into omniscience.

(student: But then what does it mean to (unclear)?)

The, it's not the memory of the objects of the first moment which
is triggering the the awareness, the consciousness. It's it's
the very objects themselves.

(student: Because they're always (unclear))

Yeah. It's not like he's he looks at the blue and he turns away
and he says, oh yeah, I remember what all things were like. He
sees them again pure, fresh

(student: So the Buddha has no memory?)

No, he doesn't have the mental functions of memory. He doesn't
even have (je pak tse ma), he doesn't have deduction.

(student: And he doesn't have clairvoyance either.)

Except in so far as he can read someone's mind. You know, he can
perceive your deductions so he knows deduction exists.
(student: Right)

He doesn't he doesn't require the state of deduction because
everything for him is evident.

(student: So being without any memory. Any any mental function
of memory or or clairvoyance.)

Yeah. Why not clairvoyance?

(student: Well, what's the difference between clairvoyance and
just seeing it directly?)

Well you could...we do call it clairvoyance but we call it the
Buddha's clairvoyance. We call it (sang gye gyi chen), there's a
word for it, five eyes, first chapter (b: Abhisamankara). Yeah.

(student: Okay, this is something that can't for me (unclear)
changing the homework, the Buddha, once he's enlightened,
presumable because he sees everything also sees his own (tse mas)
and (tse mins))

Yeah, right.

(student: prior to enlightenment.)

Oh, and that's why he wrote the Kangyur, that's why he spoke the
Kangyur.

(student: Right.)

The Kangyur is sixteen volumes of it are the Buddha tell you all
the bad things he did to people (laughs)

(student: But so there is this kind of...but that's not, it's
not really a self co...I mean, would you call that self
consciousness?)

It's not aperception. It's not aperception in the classic sense
of that word.
(student: Okay, so it's not inter)

Where the mind perceives itself.

(student: Interverted, right.)

It's not that.

(student: And the other thing is you sounded that you were
making a distinction of about moments of consciousness of from
the first moment of omniscience to the next.)

Yeah.

(student: But you're acting as though it's beginning at
omniscience, but doesn't it begin with...it's not...it's
beginningless, because it's isn't it begun long before
omniscience?)

The mind stream the mind stream is beginningless.

(student: Right)

Omniscience there's a there's a moment that it begins to be a
quality of that mind stream.

(student: Right, but it doesn't com...does it completely
transform that, so that...do you know what I'm saying? Is it a
complete break (unclear).

Yeah. Yeah. No. No. It's still...no. That's why we talked
about the Buddha nature. Okay. (Sang gye su gye rung). It's
the definition of Buddha nature, (san gye gyi rik). Anything
that turns into the Buddha.

(student: Is it...)

One more and then we gotta go on 'cause I'm I'm gonna
(student: Okay)

'Cause I feel bad if you (unclear)

(student: Are there any other metaphors for the mind other than
mirror 'cause mirror is way off, I mean it's )

Well,they say "glass". Glass.

(student: But but it'd be glass that has an on-off switch. When
a when a when a mirror's)

Never...never empty, never has no object.

(student: When it's perceiving emptiness...)

That that's a definite object. That's a very important object.
See that...then you've got a wrong idea of emptiness and you
should have been in the first class (laughs).

(student: Yeah, that's right.)

The mind never turns off. We wish. Right?

(student: All minds have Buddha mind where)

Mind is like a like a fly, mind is never without an object.
There is a state called (le du she mey (unclear) ting nge dzin),
you know, mindless, there is a very deep state of meditation
which is called "non...non mind" or something, but it's not it's
not really. Okay. So those are his two arguments for...and I
present them for you and I and I'll maybe I'll just leave it like
that, you know. I I

(student: Are there two arguments? There were two in there?)

Excuse me?

(student: Did you just say those were just two arguments?)
(student: Yeah, one and two)

This happens to be the first two questions on the homework, okay
(laughs). Why why does why does Dharmakirti think that
omniscience has to be changing? Why?

(student: Because it's focus is always changing.)

It's focusing on a changing thing. Why is it focus on a changing
thing?

(students: Because it's)

It focuses on everything and everything has a lot of changing
things, in fact unchanging things are quite rare. The the
quantities are much less. You should talk. (hand clap)(unclear)
it doesn't have even have emptiness? Yeah, I guess so. Okay.
(b: Abhidharma) says there is. Okay. Then then he says then
somebody says, well Dharmakirti, I guess mind is unchanging too
because mind focuses on unchanging things. And he says, well not
necessarily so. Why?

(student: Because the mind engaged in a different thing.)

Yeah, he's steps back from that argument about content of the
mind, you know, well that's for unchanging, that's for changing
stuff. Unchanging stuff, because the mind focuses on it and then
goes away and then comes back again, well then it's changing.
The mind is changing.

(student: Yeah, but if you're omniscience you are seeing
everything all the time.)

Maybe in the second moment it's maybe it doesn't get into
(unclear) Buddha. (laughter) (laughs) Okay. All right. Now, now
he he he asks... I gotta write another one.

(cut)

(repeat) (sowapo) (repeat) (jikten) (repeat) (sowapo) (repeat)
(Jik ten)...it's a beautiful word in Tibetan...it's the name for
the world, it's the word for the world, the dirty world. Our wor
our our suffering world. It's not a synonym for samsara, but
it's it's the name in Tibetan for the place, the world. (Jik)
means "destructable" (ten) means "basis", and you know, it just
means world. (Sowapo) means "maker", maker of the world,
creator, and this school, the chandrakas, they said that there
was this person...and other schools in Hinduism said there was a
force that created the world, and that force, that that primal
cause and that (jikten sowapo) what they call Ish Ishvara, okay,
or Indra, is unchanging. He's unchanging but he creates the
world. He's been forever and then at some point he creates the
world.
Yeah?

(student: Michael, who believes this? Is this the Hindu or)

The charkabaka. It's a school which was prevalent in Indian in
six hundred eighty.

(student: Unclear...force)

No, the being. They were the believers in that being. And then
the (sam kyas) believed in a in this force. But I tell you
something very serious...you know, this subject is is not just
religious debate, you know, it's not just an interesting
question, you know what I mean? You have in your guts and I have
in my guts some some gut feeling that well, what you parents said
was true, you you actually entertain the thought, you actually
seriously consider the thought that there's a being who makes the
world, and that there is an outside force who who is either cares
about us or doesn't care about us, who's watching us, who's
somehow involved with our lives, and and you in your guts you
you have a little bit of that left, differing degrees, I would I
would guess, you know, but but you probably...you know you can't
pick up a magazine or a newspaper or you can't read a novel or
it's it's always there, there's always this idea of a being who
made the world and who has some influence on your life. And if
and if you think about these arguments carefully, that's just a
totally wrong idea. That's just illogical. It just doesn't
(unclear) it's it's it's just false, it's just non existent.
And so so why why pick on people's beliefs, you know, it's kind
of nice to think there's someone there. Because you have to find
out what really made the world. That that's the point. It's not
to pick on so on, you know, whatever tradition you grew up with
and I grew up with. It's it's that we were inculcated, not...well
didn't grow in us when we were born, it was taught to us, and it
and if it's wrong, and if there's a different place where the
world came from and where our our experiences come from and where
our suffering comes from, then this is a very bad idea. This is
very harmful to us. It blocks us. It obstructs our our our
getting out of suffering. And and insofar as you entertain this
idea, then you you have a very dangerous block to to getting out
of suffering. So, it's not just a useless debate, you know, and
you have to think about it. It matters where the world came from
and it matters who made the car accidents and the cancer and and
these nice sunsets and the flowers, it it really does matter, if
if you want to get out of suffering. It's a very it's a very
vital important question. It's not just, you know, they're wrong,
we're right, you know, like that. That doesn't help anybody.

(student: (unclear)

Ah. I've been waiting for someone to ask that, okay, anyway, we
gotta, first we gotta show how one, we will show one small
problem with the idea that an unchanging being could create the
world. Okay. She asked a very good question. Did he make it in
seven days. If you think about it, why shouldn't this creator,
if his nature is never to change, why does he take history to
make the world, why does he take millions of years to make the
world? Why can't he do it in seven days? Why did the world
develop...why does the world go on...why does it take so long
for...why does time go on? Why does our life last for fifty,
sixty seventy years, why? He can (finger snap) he can make it
all and and wipe it all out in a minute, why not? You know, why
why is he restrained to years? Yeah?

(student: I thought we established that time was not a factor in
this realm that we're discussing. There is no time.)
Well, if he's unchanging, and he's all powerful, then why go
through time? Why not destroy? Create every being and every
experience and every moment in history in the same moment and
then just be done with it. Why do things go on? Why do things
have to change? Why do why does Lincoln have to come and before
that Washington and after that Roosevelt, why? Why can't he just
do everything at one moment and get it over with? He's not a
he's not restrained by time. He's (tak pa). He can do it if he
wants. Why why do things go on?

(student: It's such a (laughs) (laughter))

But there's no logical reason. If he's totally powerful and he
can create all things and all...and he can create all moments of
all things at the same time, so just do it, you know, why stretch
it out, why have (unclear)

(student: Maybe he did. Maybe we just perceive it that way.)

(student: I don't know, yeah, exactly.

Why do you (unclear) Well, now you, we call, you know, a
rabbit's horn, you know, and maybe it's twenve inches and maybe
it's fourteen inches high, I don't know,you know. We say in the
de monastery, okay, let's debate whether the rabbit's horn is
twenve inches or fourteen inches. Doesn't exist. Okay.
That's...(rimpa shin) means "in in stages", (rimpa shin) means
"in stages". The world according to your own perceptions occurs
in steps, in stages.

(student: (Rimpa) is stages?)

That's where the word (lam rim) comes from (unclear) (Rim) means
"a step", (shin) means "in", okay. (Rimpa shin) means "in
stages". That's the Buddhist proof why a a an unchanging being
didn't create the world. Because things are happening in steps
and things must happen in steps, you create the causes, you you
you you nurture a thing, you cultivate a thing and then over a
period of time the thing grows and that's the way things work.
And anything else is (me nye je), we had it last week, anything
else is an insult to your perceptions. You can see that's the
way things work. You know, you have to do your work at work, you
have to open the bank account, you have to get the materials
ready, you have to hire the staff and then after a few months you
can produce something but it just doesn't happen like that.
Things things are caused. Yeah.

(student: Could you also say that this was an unchanging being
the act of creating something would need to change)

It that in itself is a contradiction, total contradiction.
Anything anything which expends energy to do something is
changing, must be changing.

(student: It's a I mean isn't, I mean there's some people I I I
guess that say "primal cause", you know, that that God was a
(unclear) they say that that in other words he started the ball
rolling and then he said, okay, take it.)

I I you know, to a to a to a pure to a Buddhist who never heard
about this primitive idea, he'd say you know, you're just
grabbing at straws, you know, what what're you talking about, you
know. Why why if he's om om omnipotent, I almost...by the way,
the Buddha is what? He's omniscient, but he sure isn't
omnipotent. If he was omnipotent, what?

(students: No suffering.)

No cancer. Come on, you know. No aids, you know. No pain. He
he what is he, a sadist? (laughs) You know. (unclear)

(student: But uh)

Does he want to test you? Okay, test me and finish the test
within one second.

(student: An unchanging thing can (unclear) to that changing
thing, is that it?)

Impossible.
(student: So why couldn't you say this is a changing...)

You have to expend energy to do something. You have to move to
change. You have to move to make something.

(student: So why couldn't you say this being was a permanent
changing omnipotent being, what would that would)

Oh they didn't say that. We're not fighting somebody who said
that.

(student: But what if they did (laughter)?)

(student: But the but the implication is when they say)

(laughs) We'd have to think about it. Oh by the way there's
there's hundreds of pages, I mean, they they go through the Hindu
schools, but these is the one that to me was most interesting,
because I grew up...when I was in the monastery debating it, I
realized I was the best debator to defend this position (laughs)
and then I realized that's my problem, you know. Yeah?

(student: Well, the Judeo-Christian ideal is that God is jealous
he gets wrathful some, they claim he's changing, he's he's
omnipotent but he changes, they never claimed he doesn't change
because he's always responding and teaching us and loving us, so)

Yeah, right. I'd say so.

(student: They never said he doesn't change.)

Right. Right. But they say he he was God for all time, which
brings me to the next argument. (laughs) In others words, I'll
give you Dharmakirti's now...then I'll finish and we'll take a
break. Dharmakirti's argument against that, okay. Now he has to
say, he'll say to you, okay, you've changed now. Now you say
your God changes. Now you say your God goes through moods, and
sometimes he does stuff and sometimes he doesn't does stuff, so
he changes, but you're saying that his quality was Godness forev
forever. He never was not God and then he did something to
become God. He's always been God. And then Dharmakirti says
that in itself is is a is is a wrong idea. He says that's not
possible. He says you have to go through...there has to be some
cause to make you omniscient.

(student: Omniscient or omnipotent or both?)

(student: Well, how can we can accept that the mind stream has
no beginning )

Excuse me?

(student: Exactly)

(student: Where is where is the cause for the mind stream?)

We'll talk about it. We're gonna get there in the seventh class.
(laughter) okay. But but they but this is Dharmakirti he says,
and and you know to us it sounds not very good argument. But
I'll present it to you and you think about it. He says, a being
who has been perfect for all time, a being who has been
omniscient and omnipotent for all time has never suffered the
slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, he almost says it that
way, you know, I mean he's never had anything bad happen to him,
and he's never had anything good happen to him, in a previous
version of himself which was suffering. He never had it. He's
never been through that. Th and then Dharmakirti says, therefore
he can not be omniscient.

(student: Why?)

Cook it. (laughs) Okay. He could not have applied the antidote
to suffering and therefore become omniscient.

(student: Say it again.)

A person's who's been Mr. Know-it-all forever (laughter) never
had a time when he became Mr. Know-it-all because he never
suffered, and because he never suffered he never practiced the
practices that allow you to stop suffering. What's the main one?

(students: Direct (unclear))

Direct perception of emptiness. He never went through that. He
never did that. He never was he never was a wimp long ago and
had bad things happen to him and then taught learned learned the
way, learned the path, meditated on emptiness directly and with
that powerful powerful antidote stopped his suffering. He never
did that. Therefore he's not omniscient and he doesn't exist.

(student; May I say this is kind of a totology.)

It is a totology. It is a totology.

(student: I mean so how can that be a how can how can we be
persuaded by that)

Cook it. All I say is cook it. Some of these things are so are
so out of our ex...what he's say is that...what is he saying when
he says that. He can only be it can only be a good argument if
it's true that everybody in the world know that, come on, to
become omniscient you must go through suffering and you must
perceive emptiness directly, right. I mean, if that, if we all
knew that

(student: If we're gonna use that as a basis, then yeah)

Yeah. If if I already died. So for him somehow it's a priority.
That's all. That's all I can say.

(student: Yeah but, you you you don't have to burn yourself to
know that fire burns.)

Right (laughs) Okay. That's his arguments. So I give you his
argument. And I just say cook it. After when we get back we'll
talk about where Buddhists think the world came and then by the
way, it's not like you don't believe me right now so you'll never
believe me. As you learn more it will feed this. It will feed
it more and more and it will support it more and more and then
one day you'll say, oh that's where the world came from, this is
where my world came from. You must understand that to practice
the higher teachings, the the secret teachings. The whole idea
of the secret teachings depends on understanding where the world
comes from. If you practice the secret teachings without
understanding these points it's useless.

(student: Omniscience is (unclear), omnipotent meaning did
suffering, (unclear)

Yeah. Well then he has an omniscience forever and

(student: Why why can't you suffer as much as an omnipotent
being (unclear)

If he's omnipotent and he's sticking pins in his arm, I don't
know why he'd want to do it, but (laughs)

(cut)

(repeat) (lang ja) (repeat) (dor ja) (repeat) (dor ja) (repeat)
(lang ja lang ja) means "things you should take up", things you
should take up, meaning things you should practice, things you
should follow. That's (lang ja). Things you should take up.
(Dor ja) means "things you should give up". Things you should
get rid of.

(student: Which one?)

(student: (Dor ja)

(Dor ja). (Dor ja) means "things you should get rid of". Things
you should abandon. If you knew this if you knew where this line
was, your life would be very good, you know, we we we're got it
mixed up, some some of the things that we should reject like
pain, money, attention of other people, hope for lasting love in
this life, you know, things which are impossible, we we are
struggling to get those things. Those are not (lang jas). Those
are (dor jas). Things to get rid of. And then the (lang jas)
which are you know, sacrificing ourselves to help other people,
you know, putting other people before us, all those things, we
they're in our (dor ja) part, but they should be (lang jas)
(laughs) you know. The re...we don't know (lang ja) and (dor ja)
very well. We we we don't know it, we we we heard it but we
don't really believe it, we didn't buy into it. There's only one
being who knows these conditions perfectly.

(student: Buddha)

And that's a Buddha. Okay. He knows it perfectly. And that,
Dharmakirti says, is why he's omniscient.

(student: Is he saying (unclear))

Dharmakirti has this long verse which is in your reading and he
says, it ain't omniscience to know every rock at the bottom of
the Pacific Ocean. It's not omniscience to know every bug
crawling on every plant in the planet. He says, omniscience,
what really makes the Buddha omniscient is that he knows
perfectly what we should be... giving up and what we should be
doing. And he's the only being, and that that qualifies him as
omniscient, and he and he says, if you think omniscience
omniscience means some being who knows perfectly what's what we
should be giving up and what we should be taking up, and think
about it.

(student: Right. So so then, according to Dharmakirti, the the
highest quality of omniscience, or the main thing of omniscience
or the most important thing of omniscience is this.)

This is what qualifies you as omniscient. If you knew this
perfectly you'd be omniscient. He doesn't care if you can see
everything in the world, and he has this beautiful line which is
very famous in (so chok jar gyu tem pa shok) which means, if you
think knowing everything or being able to see, you know, the
atoms of some object, and and basically that science's what,
that's what science is offering, right, they're offering you the
the ability eventually to see every object. He says, so big
deal. It doesn't help you. It doesn't help you at all. That's
not omniscience. That's not that's not the point. So he says,
if you do you think that's the omniscience, then go study with
a eagles. 'Cause if if you've ever been in India it's it's
incredible, they have lot of eagles around our monastery and
both, what do you call them, vultures and and they fly you can
barely see them, they're up above, I guess they would be a mile
high or a mile and a half high or something, you can barely...you
see them go up in a funnel and then they disappear, you know
they're up there, and suddenly they swoop down you know, like
three four thousand feet and catch a mouse, you know, they got
some kind of weird ability to see. You know, so in in Bud in
India in six hundred a.d. this was an example of some creature
who could see unbelievable detail so he says, if you think that's
omniscience, then go study with birds.




(student: (unclear) does an omniscient person know all I mean I
know that's not)

Yeah, he does also know all things. But that's not the main
reason, that's not really the important reason. That's not the
important part of being omniscient.

(student: Is this important because it's tied to seeing the
subtle aspects of pramana basically)

It helps.

(student: It leads to happiness)

It helps. But basically it's important because that's what helps
us. That that's our interest in the Buddha. Otherwise, the
Buddha's not interesting. So okay. Somebody can see everything.
 Who cares. You know, if he can't get me out of this lousy life,
where everything I get is I lose and I can't get all the things I
want anyway, then I don't care. I don't care if there's some guy
who can see everything, you know, I I don't care about Steven
Hockens wrote a book about the nature of the big bang, it just
doesn't affect me. (laughs)
(student: So this is really the culmination...)

Huh?

(student: So seeing these two things is the culmination of
seeing subtle pramana, this this (unclear)

Na na na na not directly related like that. It helps. Of course
he he had to know that 'cause he knows this perfectly, that's
true. So

(student: But Michael, isn't the...it seems to me this is
something you'd have to accomplish as a prerequisite to
developing omniscience.)

Yeah, if you if you were omniscient, by the way you would also
know this. That's not the

(student: No no no no. (unclear) not saying.)

(student: No, it's it's part of the process, you know it better
and better and better and better and finally you know it all.)

Oh Oh you've gotta know this very well to become omniscient.
Yeah, you do. But you don't know it perfectly until the day you
become omniscient.
This is by the way called the pure side of existence, and this is
called...I'll write it.

(student: The pure side of?)

Existence.

(students: existence.)

Everything in the universe comes into one of those two things.
And we don't know, we we got it messed up. Shantideva says, you
know, we chase after the things that hurt us and we run away
(laughs) from the things that would help make us happy (laughs).
(student: (unclear) try to give up the things that hurt you it
hurts. (laughter)

Seems to hurt. 'Cause that's your side of the...by the way if
you do it with understanding it's quite pleasant. You know,
keeping your vows is a pleasure. You know. Acting right is a
pleasure. You know. Helping others people...I mean once you get
into it's a real pleasure. There's no problem with it at all.
It's it's like, you know, you think eating chocolate all day is
happiness, and then when you stop it (laughter) (laughs) it feels
really great. You know. Anyway, the pure side and the afflicted
side. What does affliction mean...mental affliction? I call it
bad thoughts. Sanscrit "kleisha". Tibetan (nyo mo). And
affliction means...the klish, the the word comes from a sanscrit
root that means to bother you and and your mental, your six main
afflictions bother you, jealousy, anger, hatred, desire, these
things bother you. They they upset your mind. They afflict you.
They irritate you all day long. If you didn't have them it'd be
quite pleasant. That's the afflicted side. Afflicted side means
things directly involved with those, or the products of those
thoughts, which are what? New York City. The karma...New York
City's created by these things, affliction, by mental affliction.

(student: Could you list the) (laughter)

Your body and your mind, you body and your mind were created by
them.

(student: Our experience of New York City is created by them)

Your body and your mind are also (dor ja) (unclear). Your
present state of your mind and your body are...they came from
mental afflictions. They were produced by mental affliction.
And until you see emptiness you'll continue this and you'll
continue to have all those emotions that you have all day, bad
emotions (unclear)

(student: You were saying what the six were, the six)

I was afraid somebody's gonna ask me that. Pride,
(student: Anger)

Anger

(student: The six of what?)

The six main bad thoughts.

(student: Jealousy)

You got em all?

(students; (unclear))

Ignorance is in there too by the way.

(student: Oh, ignorance, then I have seven.)

Okay, I've gotta move or else these ladies'll run away on me.

(student: Unclear)

Those are the only six.

(student: Which we didn't really mention.)

If you want to do all of them we've gotta go until nine thirty.

(students: Okay. Just to remember them?)

(unclear) eighty four thousand bad acts. Say (duk kun) (repeat)
One and two, okay. (Duk) is the first noble truth. I'm teaching
you the shortest way to say it. (Duk nel den pa) Sometimes in the
monastery we say (duk kun) (Duk) is what? The first noble truth
is what?

(students: Suffering. The truth of suffering.)

Buddha said, all changing things are suffering. A little tricky.
(laughter) Most of our life is suffering. (duk nel den pa) Why
is it a noble truth?

(student: Because it leads to)

Because it's a bad translation of arya truths. What's an arya
truths?

(student: What you see right before, by analys, by individual
analysis before you perceive shunata)

Right after.

(student: After.)

Right after you see it. Right after you see emptiness directly
and become thereby an arya, which has nothing to do with a race
of people that attack (unclear) in one thousand b.c., (laughter)
(laughs) you become an arya. And then and then when you come out
of that state you perceive these four conditions totally,
directly, and you se you know that everything in your life is
suffering. Until that you're not...it doesn't really...you don't
see it directly. Okay, that's (duk). (Kun) is what? Second
arya truth.

(student: The cause of suffering.)

Yeah. The source of suffering. Where does it come from. (Kun)
stands for (kun jung den pa). The source of suffering. Which is
mainly your bad thoughts which are caused by ignorance. Okay.
Why? The blank at work (laughs) okay, you know, work is where
it's at, you know, where is your world, you know. Where else are
you gonna learn all this stuff. Think of the bad guy at work
when you react to him with ignorance, not realizing that he's
empty and that he's a projection of your former past deeds

(student: He seemed very nice to me) (laughter) (laughs)

He's very nice, actually. That that's not the boss that I always
talk about. (laughter) That's not the big boss. That's not the
big boss. (laughter) He's actually quite nice.
(student: And he's nice too, the big boss, most of)

(Duk kun). So (kun) means (kun jung den pa) which means "the
source of your suffering." And and that's that whole mechanism
that we keep talking about at work, you know, when you respond
badly, that's (kun jung den pa). It's source. It's creating
more of the same. You gotta meet him again. That's
(kun)...that's exactly (kun jung den pa). You're not gonna find
some philsophical (kun jung den pa) somewhere else. That that's
it, and and if and as long as you have a bad day at work (laughs)
still then you didn't make it, okay. (laughs) (unclear)

(student: Sorry. My mind is going in and out. You said (duk)
is suffering?)

Excuse me?

(student: (Duk) is suffering?)

(Duk) is suffering which is the first noble truth and (kun) is
the source. There's two ways to remember them that I'm (unclear)
okay.

(student; Michael the two words together mean something, I mean
(duk kun) means something.)

It's a it's a way in in monastic debate to say the first two
noble truths in a very easy way. We just say

(cut)

(duk kun)

(student: Okay so nothing says that there's two)

(unclear) okay? And you don't want to learn all that, (unclear)
(duk kun) Suffering and the source of suffering. (Gok) means
what?
(student: Cessation)

Yeah, (gok me denpa) means stopping it, finishing it, ending it.
Cessa...what they call cessation. Stopping it. Stopping
suffering. That's (gok). (Gok) means "stopping suffering". And
and it really is and you can really get it, and and that's the
whole point and I I hope we do it before we die (laughs) you
know, I hope we do it before we all get old and these classes
stop. You know. I we that's our goal. We have to do it. You
can do it. You can really do it. And it's quite pleasant
(laughter) (laughs) okay. (Lam) (repeat) (lam) means "path".
Path is is exactly...what's the main thing of path, understanding
the emptiness of that object. And then responding to it with
compassion and love. So the Buddha knows this this condition
perfectly. And the last point of tonight, the homework question
says, why is the Buddha unerring? Why is the Buddha never, why
is he unerring, why is he (miluway), why is he perfectly correct,
why does he never make a mistake. How can you know it? On what
basis can you say that the Buddha is is correct when he describes
these four? When he says, here's your condition, you're you're
messed... you're in trouble (laughs), you're getting old minute
by minute, if you're pretty you're getting ugly, if you're smart
you're gonna be senile, it must happen. Anything you have you
will lose. You'll lose you body, your face and your name.
Forget about your kids and your friends and your money. You lose
ever...you lose your identity. Why and and why why should we
believe him? This is a very important. Why should we take it?

(student: Well we see that that's true. Everybody dies)

That's the nice, okay that's the real nice (unclear). We see
this one. Out of everything he said, out of everything the
Buddha says, and by the way, this is one of the only proofs for
believing the Buddha, there's is one of the only good reasons you
should be a Buddhist. It's one of the only good reasons why you
should ever practice or go to a class, because he's the only
being...I I know in my experience and maybe I don't know about
you, who describes this condition perfectly. You know. Out of
those four there's only one that I can perceive now. But he hit
it on the nail. I love his description of suffering, you know, I
mean, that's what attracted me to Buddhism. It's so perfect.
Nobody ever said anything like that in my experience, you know.
People are saying, if thing's not right, you know, some things
are okay, (laughs) you know, what they're saying, you're kind of
saying it kind of desperately, you know. (laughter) Yeah, I just
his description of the problem attracted me, this this absolutely
true, that the seed of the destruction of a thing starts as it
begins and my and my condition is unhappiness, and even those
things which I dearly want to go right, collapse, you know. Why?
What's causing it? I mean, what's what's going on, and does
everybody suffer, you know. Can can somebody collect a certain
amount of money or can somebody reach a certain level of income
or can somebody reach a certain level of balancing their life
that everything's all right and there's actually happy people in
the world (laughs). No not really. It's true. You you kinda
wish they were and you kinda think that if you had a little more
exercise or (laughter) (unclear) you know you gotta think if if I
could just shift this over here (continuing laughter) and
increase this, I really would be happy. But that's not the case.
 It doesn't work. It never will. There is no balance like that.
 There's no such thing.

(student: Michael? Doesn't that point to the fact that we
really don't even see clearly the first one. We see the first
one but ultimately)

All I'm saying's that and and I love it, I heard Kedrup Je I read
it in Kedrup Je, why believe the Buddha? Because he describes
that condition perfectly. Okay. And then does that mean
everything that he said about stopping it is true? No. Does it
mean I can take him as the closest thing to authority in my life
that I've found? Yes. It...that's all. That, it's, the rest is
kind of an assumption. You know, you you're taking his word for
the rest because he described the problem so well. That's it,
that's all, that's why he's supposed to be (unclear). And that's
the only way you'll ever see it. And for me that's a quite nice.
 For me it's enough. And I don't actually have no choice.
(laughs) No one else even described the problem, so one guy
describes the problem, okay, I I...there's really nobody else,
you know, that's the (unclear), okay, that's I I'm gonna write
one little quotation from the (b: Abhidharmakosha). You guys
have been dying to study (b: Abhidharma) I know.

(student: Michael, this is not the explanation of, the Buddhist
explanation of)

What?

(student: Cosmology. This is not the Buddhists' explanation of
where the world comes from or are you)

This is the Buddhist explanation accepted by all schools.

(student: So it's any what you're gonna...right)

(student: You've got a lot of help)

You're asking where the where the world came from and I'm gonna
tell you about that.

(student: Okay)

(cut)

not on your homework and it's not on your quiz, it is in your
future lives (laughter) (laughs) and it's a great it's a great
quotation from the fourth chapter of the (b: Abhidharmakosha).
And it's really it's really beautiful. (Le le) these are two
different words that are spelled the same and sound the same.
The first one means "karma" (Le) means "karma". The second (le)
means "from". From. (Jikten) you had before. It means "the
world", or this planet. (Natsok) means "all the various ones;
all the various ones". And (kye) means "come".

(student: Come?)

Come. So what's that sentence mean?

(student: All the worlds come from karma)
Yeah. All the planets of the universe come from karma. All
these many planets that beings live on, according to Buddhism,
many many planets with inhabited by beings like us, all of those
planets come from karma. This planet came from karma. (Le le
jikten natsok kye), say (le le) good luck (repeat) (jikten)
(repeat) (natsok kye) (repeat). (De ni) means "that" meaning
that karma, that karma, (sempa, sempa) means "when the mind
moves, anytime the mind moves, any time the mind goes like
this...look (laughs) that's (sempa). Movement of the mind.
Shifting of the mind. What do you call...there's a good word in
English.

(student: unclear) (laughter)

Yeah. Just like that.

(student: Vascillation)

It just means any time it just...shifts, why is movement of the
mind (sempa), it's not the word (sem) by the way, it doesn't mean
mind. It's (sempa), it's a different function of the mind. And
any time the mind moves. (Dang) means "and" (de je) means "what
it makes you do". (De je) means "what it makes you do". Or say.
And that comes in the next line. The definition of karma is is
any time the mind moves. And anything inspired by that movement
of the mind.

(student: Any...any time the mind moves?)

Any time the mind shifts, that's karma. That's (le).

(student: Is karma. And that creates the world.)

Yup.

(student: Whose mind?)

(laughs) Yours. No, your own. That's a good question. You you
created this world...you created your world. We happen to in
this room we have all done a karma together in the past that we
are all experiencing the same room right now.

(student: But but but is that Mind Only...I mean, that sounds so
close to)

No it's accepted by all schools.

(student: But then is there a universe out there, there, I mean
is there a universe out there)

No.

(student: except from mind?)

(unclear) of your perception.

(student: Is there a mind out there separate from...beings?)

The Buddha if you want to say that, but no, that's all. Every
mind is a long spaghetti noodle and goes back with no beginning
goes on for no end, and they're all separate.

(student: There's no universal mind.)

They can be together, they can be near each other but they can
never mix.

(student: So all these many many minds create many many worlds?)

At the at the...all the, well no.

(student: Well, then it's not one world.)

Yeah. All the beings in this world have collected a similar
karma to live in this world and the people in Tijuana who live
five minutes from the people in San Diego, you know, have
collected a different karma. They live in the same land, the
same water, the same air and they're very poor, and then five
minutes across an imaginary line everyone's extremely
comfortable, and that's (unclear) but they've all created a
karma to perceive the world.

(student: Michael, just one thing. Are the are the number of
those continuous minds finite)

Yeah.

(student: or infinite. They're finite. It wi it will never
change. How's that.

(students: That's not an answer.)

(student: Do they not address that or is a big or is it a big
(unclear)

Big problem, big problem.

(student: Okay)

Sentient beings are countless.

(student: Right)

There will be a day when the last sentient beings becomes a
Buddha. (laughs) Okay.

(student: (unclear) can you be more than one sentient being at a
time?)

Excuse me?

(student: Can you be more than one sentient being at a time?)

No no.

(student: No?)

Never. Never. That's an absolute principal. You cannot collect
karma for someone else, you cannot experience someone else's
karma.
(student: Oh no, can I, my mind be an insect, in hell and here
at the same time?)

No, no.

(student: Can minds split in half?)

You can perceive hell in this realm if you have certain aids, not
aids (unclear)

(student: And our mind will always stay as one mind
continuum...it will never grow)

Yeah it never makes it...all the people who have ever become
Buddhas are different beings.

(student: Can you say that whole statement?)

The various worlds of the universe come from karma. Karma is the
movement of the mind and what it inspires us to say or do...do or
say.

(student: unclear)

Excuse me?

(student: (unclear)

Karma is any movement of the mind and what that inspires us to do
or say. And it's accepted by all schools but not every school
understands how our emptiness ties into this, how perceptions tie
into this, and you must study those, otherwise karma is not very
easy to swallow. When you study that in detail you'll be able to
buy it quite easilly. And that's that's'll be...maybe that's a
good subject for our next class.

(student: So this is merely a concept of as you think so becomes
your reality (unclear) not in the sense that they consider it)
But there's always a time lag between (unclear). We don't
believe in "causelessness". If you are good now, if you are
moral now, I'm a sorry to say it won't help you right now.
(laughter) (laughs) And that's the problem that people have.
King Buyana, King Buya, King Buyadyana, you know, he became an
arhat and he

(student: Who also became an arhat?)

(students all together: (unclear))

The principal of the higher teaching is such, the secret
teachings is that you (unclear) very very very (unclear)

(cut)

(student: Michael? (unclear))

It will, it it can improve but but where people give up religion
is when they get disasters after being with a person for a while.
 And Buddhism doesn't promise you that. Buddhism says you've got
certain causes in your actions and motions, you can remove them
through proper purification, but don't expect not to have major
problems in your lives. That's not the way it works. (laughs)
Sorry. (laughs) But that's it's cause and effect. You don't
get the effect at the same time as the cause, it's impossible.
It will improve...you life will improve because (unclear), you
know accidents happen to you, disasters happen to you...your
mental state can improve constantly. You state of happiness can
grow constantly. That's that's something you can control. But
you can't control the events that happen to you, and and, you
know, Dalai Lama gets chased out of Tibet. (unclear) Okay.

(student: The Dalai Lama is (unclear) at the same time, how can
we do that and still have this course be what it was tonight?)

(student: It was in our homework.)

(students: Is having class...oh homework, yeah. Twenty)
(laughter)
The idea of Go...if you say that God is the principle of karma
and if you behave as if God were the principle of karma, and I
mean a good Christian does, and a good Jew does,

(student: I'm going to bed)

I mean a good Christian is is behaving exactly...he thinks he's
doing it in the presence of God, we think we're doing it in the
presence of the principle of karma. I'm not sure they act much
differently. But I think in the end you must

(student: The principle of karma (unclear)

in the end it's an obstacle if you don't understand that
everything comes exactly from your actions. I think it's a huge
obstacle, that that might actually prevent you from reaching your
goal, if you don't truly believe that every bad thing that
happens to you is directly related to something you've done. And
that if you do any bad reactions to any bad...if you're just
irritated slightly, you're gonna have a bad reaction. Much less
fight with a person, or yell or get angry or get red, you know,
anything less than equanimity is dangerous for you and harmful to
you, you know, and and will have bad results, must have bad
results. I think when you really understand that...what it
forces you to be is is happy (laughs) you know, it it forces you
to be happy in the in the face of bad circumstances and bad
people, and that's...even if Buddhism is wrong, that's still a
great feeling, try it, you know, it's very interesting.
(laughter) And that's not why you do it. You don't do it to be
calm or...you do it to get out of suffering. But by the way,
it's also the nicest thing to do, and by the way it's the most
pleasant thing to do. And it's the best thing for the situation
(unclear), you know, if you're just happy, the person's screwing
you and you're happy, you know, that's a great...you can do it,
as you study more, you can...if you have somebody literally
trying to mess you up at work, you're just not gonna allow them
to ruin your happiness (unclear)

(student: (unclear)
No it's not even talking about his reaction. You're just happy.
Fact you're always happy. So

(student: A...as distinguished between somebody who's just plain
crazy (laughter) who's happy when (unclear) (laughter), I mean
there's a big difference, right?) It's not the sa...) (laughter)

(prayer: short mandala)

(prayer: dedication)
The Asian Classics Institute

Course IV: The Proof of Future Lives