ACI 4 «Доказательство будущих жизней», занятие 7

ACI 4, Class 7
The Four Reasonings of the Forward Order



[prayer: short mandala] [prayer: refuge] [prayer: refuge] [prayer: refuge]

[student: unclear]

There's three, three versions, and in fact it's explained in the commentary of
Pabonka to [unclear] [cut] where you would be here, and uh [student: could you
spell that?] Yeah, you see it's spelled many different ways. In fact I have a
handout now that I think of it. This one's just two pages long, nope. [Fran
Dayan: Do you want me to save these handouts for next Wednesday?] Yeah if
you could. That's four pages. Kyedrup Je is generally known for his tantric
commentaries, and the other great student of Tsongkapa's, Gyaltsab Je, and he's
known for his logic commentaries, but both of them wrote about logic and both
of them wrote about tantra so we're gonna study Kyedrup Je's presentation.
And Kyedrup Je's presentation about past and future lives hinges on what we
call nyerlengyigyu.       Say {nyerlengyigyu} [repeat] {nyerlengyigyu} [repeat]
{nyerlengyigyu} [repeat], as opposed to {kyen}, say {kyen} [repeat] {kyen}
[repeat] {kyen} [repeat]. All right. {Gyu} means "cause," {gyu} means "cause,"
and {kyen} means "condition," or "secondary factor." And in Buddhism it's very
important, a lot of books like abhidharma talks about it and other books. What
do you think is the...well let me, let me finish...{nyerlen} {nyerlen} means, I call it
"material cause." Okay? {Nyerlen} means "material" [John Stilwell: would that be
like "primary"?] Well I'll give you an example and you tell me. It's a very difficult
word, but it's not a difficult idea. When you plant a tree, when you plant, what
are those trees out, Oak trees, where I live? [student: yeah]. When you plant a
ac... what is it? [students: acorn] It's an acorn? Yeah, okay, so the, the acorn is
the {nyerlengyigyu} for an oak tree. Why? Because it's the stuff that turns into
the tree. It's the thing... in Tibetan they say "flop over." It's the thing that goes
"da-da-da-da-da" and then flops into a tree. It's called {unclear}. It literally mean,
you know, it, it goes through it's life cycle, the acorn, and then at one point it
transforms into the tree. It's the stuff that turns into the tree, and by turning into
the tree itself... disappear. So you imagine that moment when the acorn is
sprouting and it's become a small tree. So the acorn, the s... the acorn is the
material that turns into the tree, that's why I call it "material cause." There's a lot
of other meanings of material cause in western philosophy, I don't know what
they are. But when I say material cause, I mean the stuff that turns into the
result. [student: a seed? Unclear] Well, like in the case of a pot, a clay pot, what's
the stuff that turns into the pot, what's the {nyerlengyigyu}? [student: clay.] The
clay. Okay. In the case of a ceramic pot the {nyerlengyigyu} is the clay, okay,
and like that. What are the {kyen's}, what are the other conditions that are
around when, when an oak tree grows? [Fran Dayan: you mean water, sun].
Yeah, water, sun, fertilizer, earth. They don't directly turn into the tree, I mean,
there, you can find some of the nutrients that were in the soil turn, are in the
tree, but they are not the main thing that flops over into the tree. There's always
some similarity between the {nyerlengyigyu} and its result. There's always some
thing in common, some characteristics in common between the {nyerlengyigyu}
and its result. That's why you don't plant tomato seeds to get oak trees. There's
something about an acorn that is some kind of similar stuff to the oak tree, and
that's the, that's another quality of a {nyerlengyigyu}. There's some similarity,
there is some kind of corresponding stuff between an acorn and an oak tree, and
that's the rule of all {nyerlengyigyu's}. There's always some similarity, and we
accept that when we go out into a field. If we didn't believe in {nyerlengyigyu's}
you would go out in a field and water and throw fertilizer and wait, without
planting a seed. And if we had a wrong idea about {nyerlengyigyu's} we would
go out and plant tomato seeds and wait for oranges to come up, and you wait
for a long time. It doesn't work that way. There must be some similarity
between the {nyerlengyigyu} and its result.                That's the nature of a
{nyerlengyigyu} [student: you need both though in order to...] You must have
both. The thing won't grow without both, but the main one which is important
is the {nyerlengyigyu}. We say {gyu tong na drebu dokpay kyab} It's that
unique cause which if it's missing or if you destroyed it, the result, what, could
never come up. Forget it. I mean without enough sunlight maybe the tree
would grow but it'd be wimpy. You know, without sufficient water it might be
skinny, without nutrients in the air it would be like the corn in my monastery,
you know. But without the acorn forget it. If you, if you damage the acorn or
you remove the acorn there cannot be an oak tree. That's a {nyerlengyigyu}.
[student: so how would you translate {kyen}?] {Kyen} I sometimes translate as
"factor" or "condition" or "secondary factor," and all those other things are
{kyen's}. The water, the sunlight, the nutrients in the earth, those are all {kyen's}.
[student: if you were to translate it as "primary cause" and "secondary cause"?]
Everyone translates them in different ways, but you know what they are now,
okay. I, I would say, I like "cause" and "factor" because you say, you know, "it
was a factor but it wasn't the main cause." You know, it was a factor in the
accident but it wasn't the real cause. So like that. Now we want to find out the
{nyerlengyigyu} for a very specific objet, and that is the mind at the first moment
of conception, or wherev, whenever you believe the first moment of mind
occurs. According to Buddhism it's the, it's the moment that the egg and the
sperm meet, there is a, mind begins, consciousness begins. We want to find the
{nyerlengyigyu} for that. Our goal tonight is to establish the {nyerlengyigyu} for
that, for that first moment of consciousness. You can't remember it. You know
you had it, okay. I don't care whether you think it happened at that first
moment of conception, or whether you think it happened later on, you know,
after a month or after two months, but you have to agree, and you can agree
that there was a first moment of your mind in this life, that there was a first
moment of consciousness in this life. What was, what was the content of that
first moment of consciousness? Definitely very primitive. You know, you were
aware of heat. It was an awareness of heat, or an awareness of wetness or or
awareness of motion of the mother or something like that, but you can assume,
although you can't remember, that you did have a first moment of consciousness
in this life, and I don't think there's any western scientist that would disagree.
We accept that the mind is a stream, and that it had a beginning moment, and
and there must have been. So you, put your mind, focus your mind on that
moment tonight, you know, get that clear in your mind. There was a first
moment in this life of consciousness, of awareness, something, some kind of
very basic primitive thought, not even a thought, an awareness. Probably it was
a sense awareness of warmth or wetness, probably it was tactile I would guess,
you know it wasn't like a smell or hearing or something like that. It was some
kind of very primitive first consciousness in the, in the spaghetti noodle of your
mind that has come up to now. Do western people accept the idea of a stream of
consciousness? Of course. You send your children to first grade because you,
you believe that by the fourth grade they collect knowledge, that knowledge is
collected somewhere. And there has to be a connection between the mind in the
first grade and the mind in the fourth grade, or you wouldn't send your children
to school. You you you wouldn't have grades, you wouldn't have second, third,
fourth grade because there'd be no reason if there wasn't a mind stream, so we
accept the mind stream. You know, you don't go to the school and say to the
teacher, "I don't like the stuff you're putting in my kid's mind stream right now,"
you know, but, but actually that's what you mean when you go and complain
about what they're teaching your kid. It's the idea of a mind stream, you're
accepting the mind stream. So we're talking about the first moment of that mind
stream in this life. What was the {nyerlengyigyu} for that? Not talking {kyen's},
not interested in {kyen's}, okay. Not talking about the water and the earth and
the sunlight, the other factors, the secondary conditions that were going on. We
want to know the stuff that flip flopped into mind, into the first moment of
consciousness. [student: unclear] Excuse me? [student: unclear] No westerner
can answer that, no westerner can say that, I mean according to our western...
[student: I'm surprised how many westerners believe in reincarnation these
days, not in quite the same way as Buddhists...] Oh, but not, but people who do,
and even Tibetan Buddhists, and I'd say ninety-nine percent of Tibetan Buddhists,
have no idea why it's correct. It happens to be correct, but they have no r, no,
they have no logical reason for it. They just, their mommy told them that and
they believe them. I was in Russia, and, and somebody said, "religion is like
language
- you just do whatever your parents did." [laughs] You know, she says, there's a
lady and she's very eloquent, she said, you know, "I speak Russian because my
parents spoke Russian. If my parents had spoke English, I'd be speaking English,
and, and our religion is the same." It's whatever they, whatever they did, you
do, and there's no better reason than that. And even Tibetan Buddhists who
happen to believe, believing in the right thing have no idea why, in most cases,
seems like. So Kyedrup Je does a thing, it's called a proof by elimination, okay.
He's going to go through all the possible things that that first moment of
consciousness could have come from, and he's going to eliminate them one by
one. So to do that you have to have this big outline of all the things that exist,
and he does, and it's not so big... You've had this before in another class I think,
but we'll go through it again. Say, {sheja} [repeat] {sheja} [repeat]. What does
{she} mean? What's the {she} in {ye-she} for example? [student: {sherab}]
[student: consciousness] "To know," okay, and {ja} means "something you can
know, knowable thing." {sheja} means "knowable thing." The newspaper, the
magazine that His Holiness's office puts out every month in Dharhamsala is
called {Sheja}. It means "stuff to know, news, knowable object." {sheja} It's the
synonym for all knowable things. Anything that can be known. Why do you
think it's a synonym for all existing things? [student: unclear] Is it true that all
things that exist are know by someone? [student: The Buddha]. The Buddha,
okay, according to us. Therefore existence and the thing which is known are
equal because there is a being in the universe who knows everything {sheja}.
Two kinds of {sheja's}

[silence]

Say {takpa}[repeat] {mitakpa} [repeat] {takpa} [repeat] {mitakpa} [repeat]
{Takpa} means "unchanging" and {mitakpa} means "changing." {Takpa} means
"unchanging" and {mitakpa} means "changing." Don't get confused by the
negative in the Tibetan, the {mi}, don't get confused by it. It's a long story and if
we had all night I could tell you. [student: Isn't {mitakpa} impermanence?]
Excuse me? [student: Isn't {mitakpa} impermanence?] Yeah, I don't like that
word. I mean I don't like that translation. I think it's wrong and I'll, you wanna
know why? [laughs]. Just briefly why I don't use that word. This wall, this wall
is {takpa} or {mitakpa}? [students: {mitakpa}] Excuse me? [students: {mitakpa}]
It's {Mitakpa}, it's a changing thing. It's impermanent, if you will. What about
the emptiness of the wall? What is the emptiness of the wall according to the
highest school? The fact that it's not anything else than my naming an image in
my mind, that negative thing. Don't write that down. It's not the point of
tonight's class. But when, and that's {takpa} or {mitakpa}? [students: {mitakpa}]
{Takpa} It's unchanging. The emptiness of the wall is unchanging. The
emptiness of the wall is unchanging. [student: but it's not permanent.] Coming,
coming. It never changes in its quality. Its, its nature never changes the least
tiny bit. This wall is an ob, as long as this wall is ever here, it will always be
nothing more than my naming a mental image. Therefore its, its emptiness is
{takpa}. Now when I destroy the wall is there still an emptiness of the wall?
[student: no]. No. The basis of the emptiness is gone. Therefore that emptiness
is no longer there. That emptiness is, is still fine. That's why I don't use, like the
word permanent. The emptiness of the wall is not permanent, in my opinion,
'cause when the wall is destroyed the emptiness goes away, but it is unchanging.
It never changes in its quality. As long as it exists, it's constant. It's always the
same thing. It's never more or less empty. So that's why I don't use that word.
In the Lam Rim when you're talking about death and they use the word
{mitakpa} "impermanence" is fine. That's, that's correct. Anyway, and by the
way, you'll, you'll understand that one day in deep meditation. You'll have a
direct perception of this distinction, and that's not a perception of emptiness, but
it's a very deep thing that can only happen to you in meditation, and, and you'll
see the subtle meaning of, of "impermanence."                [student: what's that?]
Changingness. Anyway, now we ask, could that, by the way, is the mind, we're
assuming the mind has to have a cause. Is that correct? I mean is that much
correct? Is it true that the first moment of consciousness has to have a cause?
Could it be causeless? [student: yeah but I asked once what the difference, what
things were uncaused, and you said you weren't going to talk about it right now.
Can you... ]. Oh, I can tell you. Space, empty space, and emptiness, and it's a
long, its quality never [student: But emptiness I understand. What about
space?]. No, space is easy, it's quality never changes. Space is not the void
outside, and space is not the place between these two walls. It's a wrong
explanation, and you'll hear people say that in Dharma teachings. It's incorrect,
and, and it's taught in the first chapter of the Abhidharrmakosha. Space is the
place where this pen is, and when I take the pen out of the space, does anything
happen to the space? Does it ever change? When I fill the space does it ever
change? It never changes, it quality. It doesn't become more or less spacy, okay.
It never changes its quality. That's why space is, is one of the th, one of the few
things in the universe which is unchanging, and uncaused. Long story. We'll get
in, we'll do it some day when we do... [student: space seems inadequate]
[laughs] I think you gotta say empty space, you know, it's a long story. There
are, in the Abhidharmakosha some non-Buddhist and even some Buddhist con
men try to present wrong ideas of space, for example, that it's the black stuff out
there that the planets are resting in, and that's wrong, and then you see more
sophisticated people say it's the place between the two walls, and that's wrong.
So its, its a little bit tricky. Anyway, not tonight's subject. {takpa, mitakpa} So, so
first of all can we agree that the mind at the moment of conception, or whenever
you believe it started, does it have to have a cause? It has to have a cause.
[student: emptiness is not space] Well, I think the main reason you could say is
that it's, what, what were the arguments we already had? Why did omniscience
have to have a cause? Why did omniscience have to be changing? Do you
remember? Because it was focusing on a changing object, and therefore it was
always changing in its quality, and also because it has, anything which is variable
has to have a cause. [student: why?] I'll say it again. Anything that's variable has
to have a cause, because something is making it, as the cause loses its power, the
thing changes. So anything ch, there, therefore anything changing has to have a
cause. I'll say it again. Anything that changes has to have a cause. There's
energy behind it, and that energy is fluctuating, and as long as the thing that's
throwing it into existence is fluctuating, that thing is changing, and the thing is
getting less or more or here or there or farther or closer or bigger or smaller. It's
fluctuating. [student: unclear] We didn't prove that yet. No, but each moment
of mind has to have a cause, because the mind is changing. For example, I, I just
changed your mind, okay [laughs]. This, this object stimulates certain kinds of
visual consciousnesses in you, and as I remove the object and present the object
your visual consciousness fluctuates, it changes, and and mind is, that's the
nature of mind. It's not unchanging. If it were unchanging there'd be no
Buddhahood 'cause you could never get rid of your {nyomo's}, your bad
thoughts. You might as well give up, you know. It is changing. It fluctuates and
you experience that even as I speak, it's fluctuating by the instant. Anything that
fluctuates has a cause. So, assuming that you agree, by the way, everything I say
tonight you won't agree to, and I don't expect you to accept everything I say
tonight, but it starts the process of your doubting the bias you were given when
you were a child, which happens to be wrong, and which is a great obstacle to
your achieving Buddhahood. So as this course goes on, if it ever does [laughter]
you will, at least it will put a few cracks in your belief, or you'll start thinking,
"where did that first moment of mind come from," and and and as you get more
exposed to these arguments, which you won't accept the first night or the second
night, you will start to doubt the position that you have now which is only
because of your birth. It's that Russian language thing, you know. It's only
because of where you grew up that you believe that, okay, and as you start to
doubt it your behavior should change because if we're talking billions of years of
future, or rather than twenty years left at best, things change, you know, like, I'd
like to clean out my mind. If I'm going to be stuck with this mind for millions of
years then let me clean it out, you know. Then it becomes a different priority,
and you'll start to experience that. It will become, hopefully this class, I mean
hopefully these arguments will start to have that effect on you, okay. If I'm
going to be around indefinitely, rather than just for the next twenty years and
and then get some kind of a, what do you call it, there's a Greek word for
mindlessness, I don't know, "lethy," or something, I don't know. You know, if
you could reach a place after death, subconsciously every one in this room
believes that they're gonna die and at that moment the mind just kind of goes
away and you won't have to be around anymore, and whatever bad time you're
having now will end, but if it were the other way and, and if anxieties you have
in your mind now, and whatever indecisions and whatever torments by desire
or doubt or anger you have in your mind now are gonna go on indefinitely if
you don't do something about them now, that changes the, that changes things,
you know. Then it's in your interest to clean up your mind now, because if I've
gotta have this kind of mind forever, that's quite unpleasant [laughs], you know.
So, is that cause, {nyerlengyigyu}, of the first moment of consciousness, put your
mind back on the first moment of this life, of your consciousness. Is the, can the
cause be {takpa}? Can that cause be {takpa}? Can that cause be something
unchanging? No. We had it when we discussed the creator. When the creator
creates he has to change. The creator five minutes after he created the universe
and the creator five minutes before he created the universe are different guys.
He had to expend some energy. He has to be different, okay. The cause cannot
be unchanging. By delivering the baby the mother changes. By delivering the
result, the oak tree sprout, the, the acorn changes. It must change. The thing
we're looking for, which is, what? What are we looking for tonight? [student:
{nyerlengyigyu}] {Nyerlengyigyu}, the thing that flopped over into the first
moment of consciousness in this life cannot be {takpa}. We can eliminate that
one. [student: Michael, is there actually a point at which the cause ceases and the
next... ] Big debate, big debate in the monastery. Huge fights. When you really
put your mind on it, when you try to imagine the moment that the cause
stopped being the cause and became the result, that's actually one practice for
recognizing emptiness. You can't. It's inconceivable. Something, that concept, if
you really put your mind on it, can lead you to the perception of emptiness,
because it's impossible, it's an impossibility. We live on it, we believe in it, you
know, but, but if you try to imagine it, if you try to conceive of it, you can't, and,
and it can lead you to a perception of emptiness. It is one method of perceiving
emptiness. Long story. [student: So you're saying it's an artificial distinction on
some level? That has some sweeping ramifications, karmically, it certainly does.
Laughter] Yeah, it does, it really does.

[silence]

Basically, and I say basically, when I say basically, it means there's an exception,
like a logician has to say that, but basically {mitakpa}, there are two kinds of
{mitakpa's}. Say, {bempo} [repeat] {shepa} [repeat] {bempo} [repeat] {shepa}
[repeat]. Okay. I'm gonna change this one, I mean it's not the one, this is a
synonym but I wanna put a different word in. Say {bempo} [repeat] {rikpa}
[repeat]. Same thing, same thing. {Shepa} and {rikpa} are synonyms, but I prefer
this one because he used it. {Bempo} means "matter, physical matter." Its
definition in Tibetan is {tuldu drupa}, that which is composed of atoms, it's
composite matter, physical matter, {bempo}. And {rikpa} means, do you know
{rikpa}? I think some, some Dharma, some Dharma group uses it as a name.
[student: Sogyal Rinpoche?] Yeah, {rikpa} literally means just "mind" as opposed
to {bempo} which is, what? "Matter." Mind and matter. Okay, we have the
word in English, mind and matter. {bempo} is matter, {rikpa} is mind. Basically,
and there are a few exceptions, all changing things are either mind or matter.
[John Stilwell: So when you refer to energy, would that be an exception, is it
more subtle?] There are certain kinds of, "John Stilwell" is an exception. He's a
changing thing which is neither mind nor matter. [John Stilwell: a combination?]
He's a, he's a concept, actually, so I'm not going to get into it, but basically mind
or matter, basically mind or matter. We're gonna look at matter first, all right,
because we know the punch line is over there, all right? [laughter] [student: are
you going to go off the board]. Yeah, we'll probably go off the board, I usually
do, right? We're gonna look at {bempo}, two kinds of {bempo}.

[silence]

Say {wangpo chisuk} [repeat] {wangpo chisuk} [repeat] {wang} you know, right?
{wang} means what? Empowerment, right. {wangpo} means a sense power, the
five sense powers. So the root is the same, the root that's used as the tantric
empowerment, {wang}, is the same as {wangpo}. Generally both of those words
mean "strength," like energy or power. So {wangpo} refers to the five sense
powers, and {chi}, well we'll get into {chisuk} later. So what are your five
{wangpo's}? They're stated in the heart sutra, {mikme, nawame, name, cheme,
lume}. It's the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, and the skin, the body,
responsible for sensing visual objects, audible objects, gustatory objects, I don't
know, olfactory, gustatory, and tangibles. Anyway, things you see, things you
hear, things you smell, things you taste, and things you feel. In the Abhidharma,
and in Buddhist philosophy in general, it's believed for example, that at the back
of your eyeball, there's a small patch of cells that can sense visual objects, and as,
as an object changes in front of that group of cells it senses a difference and it
conveys that difference to eye consciousness. It is not eye consciousness. It's a
patch of cells that has a sense function, it has a sensitivity to changes in color and
shape, and that's called the power of the eye, the sense power of the eye. So it's
not your consciousness of the eye, its, its a physical group of stuff in the eyeball,
the back of the eye. We call it the optic nerve that senses changes in colors and
shapes, and, and sends, transmits that data to the, and actually helps stimulate a
consciousness of the eye, consciousness of colors and shapes, not mind. It's
physical stuff. It's living matter, so you can say {wangpo} here refers to living
matter. It's not mind. It's physical stuff. It's sensitive, but it's not knowing.
[John Stilwell: Why couldn't you say that the mind is simply that accumulation or
compilation of all that sensing stuff which is processing?] It's a long story. In the
Abhidharma the mind comes a moment later. You're always a moment in the
past, you know. The object has been presented to the optic nerve, and the mind
is only aware of it the next moment, after it is stimulated by a conjunction of an
object, the sense power, and then that stimulates a mental awareness. So it's a
different thing to sense colors and to be aware of colors. The optic nerve has
some kind of sensation and it sends it to the, it stimulates a consciousness, but it's
not the consciousness, it's the physical stuff. If you scrape off, you know, the
back of the eyeball, you can't see any more, the pow, there's no more sensing of
colors and shapes. So, that's one option, for what? What are we looking for?
[student: the cause of the mind] We're looking for the thing that flopped over
into the first moment of your consciousness. Where did it come from? I mean,
you don't spend your nights worrying about it, right, but this is the key to, to
finding past and future lives. We don't accept in normal Buddhism the method
of saying, "oh, some people remember their past lives." We don't accept it.
Why? It cannot be communicated to me in a logical way. I cannot perceive past
lives based on this person saying "oh, I remember my past lives." I can't have a
{tsema} about it, based on someone coming up to me and saying "I remember
my past life" doesn't help me. I cannot have a valid perception of my past life
based on someone else claiming that he remembers his past life. So we're not
interested in that kind of proof. It's not a proof, is what I'm saying. We need
something like this. This is not just an exercise. It's airtight. If you follow with
me and if you accept each step, by the end of this evening you must accept that
you had a past life, and you can go home and worry about the details, or say
that I don't accept one of these things up here, but if you're really a reasonable
person, a reasoning being, you don't have any choice but to accept that there
was a, some kind of {nyerlengyigyu} of mind before that, and that's, and you
won't believe it, and you won't change tonight, but it'll affect you, and that's the
id, slowly it should affect you. [John Stilwell: It's not clear to me why the sense
powers aren't... ] Aren't mind itself? [John Stilwell: ... valid. Well maybe I'm
taking this a step farther. The way you're describing sense powers as a
conglomeration of...]      Active, living cells [living cells interacting with its
surroundings, as you describe that as a sense power, why can't that same
definition apply to mind as a conglomeration of living cells interacting, you
know, amongst themselves and with the external environment?] That's a tough
question for me. I don't know, but I'd say that basically, the basic difference
between mind and matter, you're asking the difference, what's the difference
between mind and matter in Buddhism. Matter consists of atoms, matter is not
aware. It doesn't have awareness. Does it have life? Yes, it can be living, and the
sense powers are living, and and and physical things, it's interesting, the
definition of, for example, visual objects are anything I can point to as a visual
object [laughs], you know, it's that basic. So I'd say the differences are many and
it'd take a long time, but basically matter is composed of atoms, matter is not
aware, matter is not crystal clear, which awareness is. [John Stilwell: In a way,
are you saying then that in a way awareness is produced as a result of the
interaction of all the organic matter.] Yeah, the confluence, and the joining
together of and object and the sense power, and it's actually in the wheel of life,
one of the links which is, {shipa minsu...drupa rikpa} Number six. That's the
confluence of those two things. [student: in experimental psychology they make
the distinction between sensation and perception, I mean they emphasize
[unclear] sensation is a physical thing that can be measured very easily, how
much light gets into the pupil or something like that. There's a part of the brain
that does interpretation of all the senses, and they make the same distinction. I
don't know if that answers your question.] [John Stilwell: Yeah, it does]. OK.
We'll get into the definition of mind. You'll study mind, you'll study Buddhist
psychology at some point. So {wangpo} is living matter, and {chisuk, chi} means
"outer, outside," and {suk} means "form." {chisuk} means "out, outside, outside
physical stuff," okay. Not, not included into a living being. So it'd be like the
wall, the carpet, the smell of my dog. Those are {chisuk}. I wish they were more
{chisuk} [laughs] {Chi} means "outer" and {suk} means "form." These are the two
kinds of physical matter and we're going to try to, what, eliminate them. We're
going to try to eliminate them, because we want to, we want to prove that, that
the cause of that first moment of mind is is {rikpa}, over on the other side of that
tree. So take a break now. Come back in about ten minutes, and...[student: You
said it was not included]. Right. Well there's a big dibate, okay. The tip of your
hairs and the end of your fingernails, 'cause they don't sense. The powers don't
reach that, so are they outer form or not? And they're considered to be outer
form. Once your fingernail grows so long that you can't feel it anymore it's
considered outer form. That's a debate. [student: Point of clarification: You said
awareness is produced by the confluence of an object and its sense
consciousness.] Sense power. [student: Sense power]. Not, and then the sense
consciousness is, is generated by that, it's inspired by that. [student: But is there
any other form of mind that exists outside of this confluence of those two
things?]     Mental consciousness. {John Stilwell: Say that again.]           Mental
consciousness does not depend on a physical sense organ to be stimu, to occur.
[John Stilwell: So you're saying it exists independently of the mind, the brain?]
Long story. Didn't say that. But what I mean is you could have a person who is
totally blind, deaf, couldn't smell and taste, and couldn't feel anything, and they
would still have a mind, and that's actually what a form realm being is. Have
some tea.

[break]

We're trying to decide whether or not, you know, focus your mind again on
what we're trying to figure out. Focus your mind on the first moment of
awareness in this life, and then we're trying to figure out what caused it, what
flopped over into it. We're trying to see if it was physical, and right now we're
trying to see if it was something living, one of your five sense organs, five sense
powers, and Kyedrup Je's argument is "If you say that it's one of the five sense
powers that flopped over in the way that the acorn flops over into the oak tree,
if you say that it's that that caused your mind at the first moment of conception,
then do all five have to be together, or is any one enough?" So he's actually
giving another choice, right, and I'm just going to write it in English. All five, or
any one. He says, "Do all five have to come together, or is any one okay." He
says, "If you say it has to be all five, then suppose a person's optic nerve is
damaged or something, then are you saying that that mind wouldn't occur?" So
if, if the combination of all five organs is what turns into mind, then if a person
lost his eyes, would he lose his mind, would his mind stop? If you say that all
five have to come together for mind to occur, then you're saying that as soon as
a person ever loses his eyes, his mind stops? And you say no. So he eliminates
that one. Then he says, "How about any one?" And he says if, let's take mind,
let's take optic nerve, okay, the eye organ, the eye sense power. He says, "If that
were enough to flop over into mind," this is according to Kyedrup Je okay, "the
quality of that sense organ is that it perceives colors and shapes very distinctly,
then it should also be a quality of the mind, independently of the, of anything
else, independently of the eye, to, to capture colors and shapes as distinctly as the
eye does." [student: And in the same way] And it doesn't. In other words, when
you try to, you know, you can see your apartment right now, you can see your,
your refrigerator, in, in your mind's eye you can imagine your refrigerator at
home, but you will never have as clear of an image, as clear shapes, and as clear,
and as vivid colors as you do when you look at your refrigerator. The mental
image is always less distinct and less vivid than the physical perception, and, and
Kyedrup Je says, "Since causes and results have to have a similarity, then if the
optic nerve were the cause of your mind, then your mind would have to be able
to capture colors and shapes with the same vividness that your eye does, but
that's not what happens." And the same applies for hearing and tasting. You can
imagine the taste of cotton candy right now, but it doesn't match up to the, you
know, the experience of cotton candy by the sense organ, so he says, "therefore
no one of them can be either," and that's his argument. [John Stilwell: So
Michael, in the division, the {bempo} division there of physical matter, I mean it
seems by saying the sense powers and things outside of our senses, external
physical matter, that leaves out the inner organs and other organic matter of the
body, by just saying the five sense consciousnesses] The five sense organs.
[John Stilwell: Okay, five sense organs doesn't include the whole totality of our...]
The physical body, yes, it does. There's nothing about your physical body that's
not related to one of those five sense organs. Every one of your physical organs
is tactile, I mean at least. [John Stilwell: So you're saying like the brain, the lungs,
the inner organs...] Yeah, you can feel, all of those things can feel. [John Stilwell:
But is the feeling nature of that organ the sum nature of that organic matter?]
No, no. [John Stilwell: And so is it really, if you're only talking about the sensory
aspect of the organs, and not the whole totality of the organ's aspect as organic
matter, well it seems like we're leaving out some of physical matter]. No,
because he did say all five. He gave you a choice, all five together, yeah, all five
sense organs together. [John Stilwell: But what I'm saying is is any of the five or
all of the five sense organs don't seem to me to be a complete description of say
the lung]. Yeah, you have to get used to that idea, it's Abhidharma. It's the first
chapter of Abhidharma. You have to get used to perceiving yourself as a
conglomeration of those five sense powers, your physical bodies is. There's
nothing outside of that that's not that. You're hung up on the visual appearance
of the lung. You know, your western conception of the body is "this many long
things, this many round things, this many short things." It's not what the body
is. The body is the sum of those five organs, and that's just, it takes time. An
organ can be the object of another organ. I mean, you can feel the shape of your
lung. You know, it could act as an object of the sense powers, that's true. You
could see the veins in your arm. [John Stilwell: Those five senses don't seem to
describe the complete functioning of say a lung.] They do. You just gotta get
used to it. It takes time, it takes time. That's Abhidharma. When you study
Abhidharma really well, you start, your vision of yourself starts to change, and
that's why Abhidharma is useful even though it's hinayana. So that eliminates
{wangpo}. Then he goes to {chisuk}, okay, outside form, outside matter, and I'm
not going to go into it too much 'cause I don't, I want to finish on time. The ba..

[flip to side B of tape]

... okay, the four elements. We'll talk more about them next week. Did Buddhist
scholars, or the Buddha himself, who supposedly could see all objects, did he
really believe in this primitive idea that there's little fires going on in you, and
there's dirt in your arm, and, you know, there's lakes in your arm. I mean, the
four elements, is that primitive idea really acceptable to Buddhism. Yes, very
much, and you'll learn more about it next week. They are not, they are, the
word, {sachumelu}, the word, earth, water, fire, and wind, they are just
metaphors. They didn't believe there was little pieces of dirt in you or little
pieces of fire in you or something like that. They describe basic types of energy
that would be perfectly acceptable to a scientist, and it's people that don't, that
haven't studied Abhidharma that explain it wrong, and it sounds weird, and stuff
like that. It's certain characteristics of physical matter that you can accept, any
westerner can accept easily. Those are the four elements. So what he says, he
uses the same process of elimination. Do you mean to say all of the four
elements have to act together, or is any one of the elements sufficient? Which
would imply that if one of the elements were, or or if any of the atoms were not
present then the mind wouldn't occur. You know, if one of the atoms happened
to be missing would mind never occur, or are you saying any one of the atoms
could have created mind, could have flopped over into mind? Are you saying
that all those atoms have to be present together, in which case if one of them
happens to be missing, there's no mind? Or are you saying any one of them can
turn into mind, and the others are just helping? And neither one is correct. It's
the same argument. If they all have to be present for the mind to start in your
mommy's tummy in the first moment of your awareness, then the minute one
of them weren't there, your mind should go away, and that's not what happens.
Or if it's any one of them turns into mind, then how does the mind resemble that
one? You know, is the mind hot if it comes from the element of fire? Or is the
mind more feric if it comes from iron atoms? You know, there's no similarity
between the iron atom and the mind. If, if the iron atoms flopped into the mind,
the mind should resemble iron in some way, in the way that a tree resembles an
acorn. There has to be some similarity, and there isn't. [student: But there, are
they considered secondary factors?] Is it, is it thought that the mind, that
changes in the physical constituents affect the mind? Yes. Can they be a factor?
Yes. Are they {nyerlengyigyu}? No, and we get hung up on the secondary
factors. Western people get hung up on the chemicals that happen, that happen
to be present when mind starts, and they mistake that for the {nyerlengyigyu} of
the mind. The mind in no way resembles matter. There's no similarity at all.
Mind is, is invisible, crystal clear and aware, and physical matter is the opposite.
There's no similarity. It's, it's, it's, it's, to a Buddhist philosopher it's red, it's, it's,
it's a, it's a laughing, what should say, it's a, it would, it would be a joke to laugh
about for someone to come and say, you know, all these chemicals in your body
could turn into these crystal clear, ineffable, invisible, unaffectable, knowing
thing called mind. They just think it's silly. Who, who would ever imagine that?
The mind is, you could blow up an atom bomb next to a mind and it doesn't
move a half an inch. The mind is different. The mind is not affected by, by
matter. You can't push your mind to the left or to the right. You can't split your
mind up, you know. You can't say that the left side of the mind is different from
the right side of the mind. You can't dis, distinguish its boundaries. The mind
can stretch to, to Kansas right now, the moment you think of Kansas. The mind,
the stuff of mind is totally different from matter, and, and it's just some kind of
funny thing that we grew up with that we, we think any other way. The mind is
invisible. The mind is ineffable. The mind somehow hangs around the body but
it's in no way restricted by the body. The mind can, the mind can go anywhere
right now. [John Stilwell: Is it appropriate to be kind of taking it to that almost
metaphorical level of comparing the physical nature of the body to the physical
nature of the mind to say that if it's not physically resembling it, it doesn't come
from that. I mean is that just a, not a relevant... ] It's just a nature of a
{nyerlengyigyu} There should be some similarity. [John Stilwell: I mean it
should look the same, in appearance... ] Must be some similarity. Same
characteristics. Now do the characteristics have to be physical? But in this case,
yes, because you're talking about matter [student: Michael, I'm really confused.
What is the definition of mind, because when you say... ] The definition of mind
is very simple. It's {sel shing rikpa, sel shing rikpa}, "clear and knowing, clear and
aware." [student: So this is like sort of Buddha mind you're talking about, not our
ordinary consciousness?]           No, absolutely talking about your ordinary
consciousness. It only has two qualities, clear, ineffable, and it's aware. [student:
But, like a lot of us don't feel particularly clear or aware right now. Laughter]
Clear in the sense, you see, that the word "clear" in Buddhism even is very
difficult. People, when they try to translate it, the word "clear" in the definition of
mind is very difficult. Does it mean that you can't see it, or does it mean that it's
always clear of bad thoughts or clear of confusion? Obviously it can't be the
second one. Obviously your mind is often confused or unclear. So I, I should
say it refers more to its quality of being ineffable. "Clear" here means "can't see it,
can't touch it, can't taste it, can't move it, can't squish it, can't make it bigger. It's
just not like that. It's different stuff. It's a totally different stuff. It doesn't
resemble physical stuff at all. It's a different material, and, and, and that's a very
important distinction. In Buddhism you have to become aware, the mind resides
somewhere in the vicinity of the body, right, it's somehow related to the body,
and we'll talk more about that, but, but it's difference, I mean a Buddhist
philosopher at a certain point in his training would say "What are you, you
know, why, why, what, how could you possibly think that mind could come
from anything physical? They're completely different." You know, you can't
shoot the mind, you can't squish the mind, you can't make a hole in the mind,
you can't... The mind is a different thing. Mind is different, mind is totally
different stuff. Where is your mind? [student: The thing is, I'm really confused
because there's the mundane definition of the brain. I mean, you can destroy
somebody's brain]. Brain is some, is some gray color and round shape. [student:
Right, and if you squish that their mind won't work.] Are you sure [laughs]?
[student: Well maybe in their next life... ] I'm not asking, it's not a facetious
question. You're assuming the mind [unclear]. [student: Well, there are people
that let's say were in a car accident, and their mind never works the same way
afterwards, so... ] You don't know that. [student: Nobody says their brain, mind
dead is, is brain dead] [student: Right, if they go into a coma, I mean we don't
really know what they're thinking about, but it appears to us... ] It, it appears,
and the Charvakas have the same argument. They said, "It seems to be that if
the body undergoes a certain level of shock, that the mind stops, and until that
level of shock is, is, is made to the body, the mind continues," and if you beat the
brain, or if you hit the head at a certain ki, level of force, it appears that the mind
stops, and that's all you can say. You don't know that the mind stopped.
[student: No, but that person will have a very hard time functioning in this
incarnation, their next incarnation... ] [laughs] Oh, no, yeah, obviously there's
some relation between, that's a {kyen}, some, some conditions for the
functioning of the mind have been altered. The mind, is the mind made less
mind? No, and, and we gotta talk about it, and I'll give you a fore, a foretaste,
okay. Dharmakirti is going to try to argue that not only does the mind not rely
on the brain, the brain relies on the mind. That's gonna be his argument, and I,
I'll get into it next week. But you've reached mentally a very important point
because he, he, he must bring it up. By the next class he's going to bring it up.
[laughter] Does the mind rest on the body, or perhaps the body rests on the
mind, and, and that's, we'll do that next week. [student: Where does sensory
consciousness fit in in relation to the mind?] It's, it's, the mind is composed of six
consciousnesses acting together. Five sense consciousnesses and one mental
consciousness. [student: But you said that the mind is something that couldn't be
influenced or altered and when the sensory... ] Its, its nature is not, no. But we
had said before it's like a mirror. You know, if you present, if you, if you put this
blue, if you put a blue wall in front of the eyes, the
mind takes on some kind of blueness, and we accept that. It takes on some kind
of, like, like a glass, or, or like when you, when you take water and, and, when
you paint a bottom of a swimming pool blue, and then you pour water into the
swimming pool, the water takes on some kind of blue appearance. It's not blue,
but it, it takes on some kind of blue tint. It's not that the water got blue, it's the,
the blueness is being reflected in the water. They say the mind is the same way.
[student: So if you damage one of the sensory powers, organs, the mind doesn't
change?] No. [John Stilwell: The content changes, but not the mind]. The
content changes. You can't have a blue color any more, but actually you can...
[student: So sensory consciousness in itself is what? In other words...] It's a clear
and aware about, about, okay, we gotta, she has to leave... But, we'll talk about
it. You have to study first chapter Abhidharma. It's a long long story. The first
chapter of the Abhidharma presents this, and it's almost a quarter of the whole
book. It has eight chapters and the first chapter is so important, that it's about a
quarter of the whole book, and it explains the six sense, the six consciousnesses,
and it's accepted by all the other schools pretty much. We got one more place to
go.

[silence]

He says, now, "the last choice is mine." The last choice for what? [student:
{nyerlengyigyu}] Good, {nyerlengyigyu}. What flopped over into the first
moment of consciousness? What, what's right behind the door that, that pushed
this consciousness through the door at the moment of birth, at the moment of
conception? What, what was behind that unknown? You know, what shoved
our mind into the first moment of this life? He says, now, now you have no, if
you accept all of my arguments, which you don't, which you probably shouldn't.
Yeah, I mean, I, I, I think we all have some trouble with some of them. I, I'm
presenting, you know, Kyedrup Je's arguments, but I think they need to be
cooked, you know, but if you, let's say you accept all those arguments, then the
only place left to go by the process of elimination is that it had to have been
mind that flopped over into mind, that became mind. Now Kyedrup Je says
"Was it your mind or someone else's mind?" And not a silly question. I mean, we
generally, I think, believe that somehow our life, you know I've been thinking
about it because I have to teach it, but I think somehow you think that life has
been transmitted to those, to those cells from the parents, that somehow there's
this stuff you call life, and in a certain point in the child's development it gets
transferred to those, to that jelly, you know [laughs], and it comes from the
parents, you know. I mean you, I, I think you really, if you're a scientist you're
probably over here I think. It's chemicals. Certain chemicals under certain
conditions become mind, and if your, you know, mommy, [laughs] I don't
know, you know, all, all the, the living parts of my body have become life, you
know, or me and husband's body have become life, and, or, or maybe you think,
you know, somehow the father and the mother's mind have flowed, flowed into
the little spot of jello. [student: So it's them thinking that the things they base on
in their life are going to determine what's in their child's mindstream]. Well, no,
but that the child of the mind came from the minds' of the father and mother. I
mean, Kyedrup Je says "that's your, I'll give you two last choices." This is where
he wants to go, right? This is his, the whole object of the whole thing tonight.
This is where he wants to prove, that it came from your own mind from the
past, but he's allowing you, okay, maybe it was your mommy and your daddy.
Now how does he argue against that? He says "sometimes the father is a master
carpenter, and the kid can't do anything with his hands. Sometimes the father is
an idiot and the kid is brilliant." So he says "It can't be." And it sounds simple, and
it sounds childlike, and some of the, some of Dharmakirki's arguments are going
to sound very childlike, but I warn you maybe they are true, and maybe they
are very deep, and maybe they're right [laughs]. So, you know, you can't go to
the office and give these arguments to everybody there, but if you really think
about them, you might conclude that you did live before. [student: But it seems
to me a lot of these things [unclear] like very often in these discussions the
distinction isn't made between mind as something that animates the brain, the
body, everything the body's composed of, and is in some sense the spirit, let's
say, to be called that also, that animates this body that is separate from genes,
from which, you know, by means of which you may inherit certain physical
characteristics, certain talents, certain whatever, so that there isn't necessarily a
contradiction between acknowledging that there is something besides body, and
the mind and the body are not equivalent, or, you know, are they integral parts
of one another.] Yeah, I understand. I had a, I sat with a psychologist on the last
flight [laughter]. No, we talked a lot about this. It's part of his work, and he said
ultimately they don't really understand, you know, they can't really affect certain
genes and the child is more intelligent or something. Right now they can't do it,
but anyway... [student: So how does, what's the argument then... ] So the
argument, he's saying that, that's his final argument, okay, and that's nine o'clock
too [laughter]. He's saying, you know, it's not true that the child is more or less
intelligent according, in other words the condition of the child's mind doesn't
necessarily have any similarity to the condition of the parents' mind, and, and
one of the rules of a {nyerlengyigyu} is that it should have some similarity. A
acorn has to somehow have oakness in it or else it would make a lemon, it might
as well make a lemon tree, but it doesn't, does it? There's some similarity, so, so
he eliminates that one. Therefore, you came from your previous mind. [John
Stilwell: But how does, how do, you know, how does he support that the mind is
retained intact, you know, how is that explained to travel from last to next].
We'll, we'll talk about it, we'll talk.      That'll be next week.      We'll get to
Dharmakirti's own arguments, but it has to have been a previous state of mind
of your own, and, and the last thing I'll say is once you've proved that last
instance, that once you've proved the existence of a single moment of mind
preceding the first moment of mind in your mommy's womb, then your lives
are beginningless and your lives are endless. Period. Your mind is beginningless
and your mind is endless. It's a necessary conclusion. Once I can prove a single
instant of your own consciousness prior to your first consciousness in this
mommy's womb, it might as well be beginningless, in fact, and in fact it has to be
beginningless. [student: I keep coming back, and somehow it comes out as... ]
Okay, last question because I know some of you want to go. Go ahead, go
ahead, say, say, say [student: You know, I can understand that emptiness is a
concept so it's ge, it's generated, it's being generated shall we say] Wha, wha,
what? [laughs] [student: Well, it's, it's, I mean the emptiness, the emptiness of
something is our labelling it, our naming it] No. The emptiness is negative, so
how would you say it negatively? [John Stilwell: It's the lack of naming it, is its
emptiness.] It's the lack of not naming it, okay. [student: Right, right, but, but,
so that doesn't, I don't have a problem with that, as a permanent... but space, I
thing I asked this before when we were talking about creators.] How is space
unchanging? [student: How does space, what's the explanation for the existence
of space, I guess I'm asking.] Where did it come from? [student: Yeah, I mean to
say that it's always being... ] No. It's defined as an absence of something.
[student: Okay, so it's just, in a sense it's like... ] It's totally {gaksang} is the
definition of space, "the simple absence of anything concrete." [John Stilwell:
Then when you put the pen in that space, you said the space isn't changed, and
yet there's a concrete object in the space.] Yeah. If it weren't absent of any
concrete object the pen couldn't get in there. [John Stilwell: Yeah, but so when
the pen's there it's no longer space, is my point, in which case it is changing.]
And the answer to that by a Buddhist philosopher is that since the pen is there it's
absent. [John Stilwell: The space is absent?] No, the concreteness is absent,
because if it were already occupied you couldn't put the pen in there. [John
Stilwell: Right, so the fact that it is occupied, and not space at that moment...] If it
weren't space, the pen couldn't stay there. If the space went away you wouldn't
have a pen occupying it. A pen couldn't stay there because there wouldn't be
any space there to occupy. [student: So when a female that is pregnant [unclear]
not to have these good pure thoughts it's to have an indirect effect upon their
child's mind] Yeah, right. The mind doesn't come from that gross thoughts,
doesn't turn into those things. Those thoughts don't turn into the mind.
[student: But they affect the environment?] Absolutely. {umdzela...}

[prayer: short mandala] [prayer: dedication]

Note: the discussion continues between Geshe-La and students for a couple
minutes after these prayers, with background conversation.
TYPING TWO OF CLASS SEVEN

Proof of Future Lives
Class 7 Part 1
Transcribed by: Karen Becker

(prayer: short mandala)

(prayer: refuge)

(student: (unclear))

There's three three verses, and in fact it's explained in the
commentary of Pabongka to (unclear), he would be here and

(student: Could you spell that?)

Yeah, you see it spelled many different ways, in fact I have a
handout now that I think of it. This one's just two pages long,
no, four pages long. That's four pages. Kedrup Je's generally
known for his tantric commentary and the other great student of
Tsongkapa's who...)

(student: Gyeltsup Je)

Gyeltsup Je (laughter) and he's known for his logic commentaries,
but both of them wrote about logic and both of them wrote about
tantra, so we're gonna study Kedrup Je's presentation, and Kedrup
Je's presentation about past and future lives hinges on what we
call (nyer len gyi gyu). Say (nyer len gyi gyu) (repeat) (nyer
len gyi gyu) (repeat) (nyer len gyi gyu) (repeat) as opposed to
(kyen). Say (kyen) (repeat) (kyen) (repeat) (kyen) (repeat) all
right. (Gyu) means "cause". (Gyu) means "cause". And (kyen)
means "condition". Or secondary factor. And in Buddhism it's
very important. A lot of books like (b:Abhidharma) talks about
it and other books. What do you think is the...well, let me let
me finish the meaning. (Nyer len, nyer len) means, I call it
"material cause", okay. (Nyer len) means "material"

(student: Would it be like primary?)
Well, I'll give you an example and you tell me, okay? It's a
very difficult word, but it's not a difficult idea. When you
plant a tree...when you plant...what are those trees out over
the...oak trees?

(student: Unclear)

When you plant a ac...what is it?

(students: Acorn)

It's an acorn, yeah, okay, so that the acorn is the (nyer len gyi
 gyu) for an oak tree. Why? Because it's the stuff that turns
into the tree. It's the thing, in Tibetan they say "flop over",
it's the thing that goes duh-duh-duh-duh-duh and then flops into
a tree. It's called (nga wa tse chung wa) and (chi lo so chung
wa). It literally mean...you know,it it goes through it's life
cycle the acorn, and then at one point it transforms into the
tree. It's the stuff that turns into the tree and by turning
into the tree itself (laughter) disappears.

(student: Oh)

So you imagine that moment when the acorn is sprouting and it's
become a small tree. So the acorn is...the acorn is the material
that turns into the tree. That's why I call it material cause.
There's a lot of other meanings of material cause in western
philosophy, I don't know what they are. But when I'm when I say
material cause I mean the stuff that turns into the result.

(student: Seed? That the (unclear))

Well, like in the case of a pot, a clay pot, what's the stuff
that turns into the pot, what's the (nyer len gyi gyu)?

(students: Clay)

The clay. Okay. In in the case of the ceramic pot, the (nyer len
gyi gyu) is the clay, and like that. What are the (kyens)? What
are the other conditions that are around when a when an oak tree
grown.

(student: Sun, water)

Yeah, sun, water, fertilizer, earth. Okay. They don't directly
turn into the tree. I mean, they... you can find some of the
nutrients that were in the soil turn are in the tree, but they
are not the main thing that flops over into the tree. There's
always some similarity between the (nyer len gyi gyu) and it's
results. There's always something in common, some
characteristics in common between the (nyer len gyi gyu) and it's
result. That's why you don't plant tomato seeds to get oak
trees. There's something about a acorn that is some kind of
similar stuff to the oak tree, and that's a that's the another
quality of a (nyer len gyi gyu). There's some similarity. There
is some kind of corresponding stuff between an acorn and an oak
tree. And that's the rule of all (nyer len gyi gyus). There's
always some similarity. And we accept that when we go out into a
field...if we didn't believe in (nyer len gyi gyus), you would go
out in a field and water and throw fertilizer and wait, without
planting a seed, and if we had a wrong idea about (nyer len gyi
gyus) we would go out and plant tomato seeds and wait for oranges
to come up and you wait for a long time. It doesn't work that
way. There must be some similarity between the (nyer len gyi
gyu) and it's result. That's that's the nature of a (nyer len
gyi gyu).

(student: Do you need both (unclear) or separately?)

You must have both. The thing won't grow without both. But the
main one, which is important, is the (nyer len gyi gyu). We say
(gyu dong la drup me do bi ta), it's that unique cause which if
it's missing or if you destroyed it, the the result what?

(student: Couldn't come up?)

Could never come up, forget it. I mean, without enough sunlight,
you know, maybe the tree grow but it would be wimpy, you know,
without sufficient water it might be skinny, without nutrients in
the earth it would be like the corn in my monastery. (laughs)
You know. But but without the acorn, forget it. If you if you
damage the acorn or remove the acorn it can not be an oak tree.
That's a (nyer len gyi gyu).

(student: How would you translate (kyen), contributing factor?)

(Kyen) I sometimes translate as "factor" or condition or
secondary factor, and all those other things are (kyen). The
water, the sunlight, the nutrients in the earth, those are all
(kyens).

(student: Do you ever translate it as primary cause and
secondary cause?)

Everyone translates them different ways (laughs) but you know
what they are now, okay. I I would say, I like "cause" and
"factor" because you say, you know, it was a factor but it wasn't
the main cause, you know, it was a factor in the accident but it
wasn't the real cause. Now we want to find out the (nyer len gyi
gyu) for a very specific object. And that is the mind of the
first moment of conception. Or where whenever you believe the
first moment of mind occurs. According to Buddhism it's the it's
the moment that the egg and the sperm meet...there is a...mind
begins, consciousness begins, and we want to find the (nyer len
gyi gyu) for that. Our our goal tonight is to establish the
(nyer len gyi gyu) for that for that first moment of
consciousness, okay. You can't remember it, you know you had it,
okay, I don't care whether you think it happened at that first
moment of conception or whether you think it happened later on,
you know, after a month or after two months, but you have to
agree and you can agree that there was a first moment of your
mind in this life. That there was a first moment of
consciousness in this life. What was what was the content of
that first moment of consciousness? Definitely very primitive.
You know, you were aware of heat...it was an awareness of heat or
an awareness of wetness or or awareness of motion of the mother,
or something like that, but you you can assume although you can't
remember it, that you did have a first moment of consciousness in
this life. And I don't think there's any western scientist that
would disagree, you know. We accept that the mind is a stream
and that it had a beginning moment, and and there must have been.
 So you...put your mind...focus your mind on that moment tonight,
you know, get that clear in your mind. There was a first moment
in this life of consciousness, of awareness, something ver...some
kind of very basic primitive thought...not even a thought, an an
awareness, probably it was a sense awareness, of warmth, of
wetness, probably it was tactile, I would guess, you know, it
wasn't like a smell or hearing or or something like that. Some
kind of a very primitive first consciousness in the sp in the
spaghetti noodle of your mind that has come up to now. Do
western people ac accept the idea of a of a stream of
consciousness? Of course. You send your children to the first
grade because you you you believe that by the fourth grade they
collect knowledge. The knowledge is collected somewhere. And
there has to be a connection between the mind in the first grade
and the mind in the fourth grade, or you wouldn't send your
children to school. You you wouldn't have grades. You wouldn't
have second, third, fourth grade because there'd be no reason if
there wasn't a mindstream. So we accept the mindstream, you
know. You don't go to school and say to the teacher, I don't
like the stuff you're putting in my kids' mindstream right now,
you know, but but actually that's what you mean when you go in
and complain about what they're teaching your kid, it's the idea
of a mindstream. You're accepting a mindstream. So we're
talking about the first moment of that mindstream in this life.
What was the (nyer len gyi gyu) for that. Not talking (kyens).
Not interested in (kyens), okay. Not talking about the the water
and the earth and the sunlight that the other factors, the
secondary conditions that were going on. We want to know the
stuff that flipflopped into mind, into the first moment of
consciousness.

(student: Previous moment of consciousness.)

Excuse me?

(student: Previous moment of consciousness. (laughter)

No westerner can answer that. No westerner can say that. I mean
according to our western...

(student: I'm surprised how many westerners believe in it,
reincarnation these days (laughter)

(student: It's not quite the same (unclear) when the Buddha's)

Oh but not...people who do and even Tibetan Buddhists, and I'd
say ninety-nine percent of Tibetan Buddhists, have no idea why
it's correct. It happens to be correct. But they have no re...
no they have no logical reason for it. They just, their mommy
told them that and they believe it. I was in Russia and and
somebody said religion is like language. You just do whatever
your parents did (laughs), you know, she says...it was a lady and
she she was very eloquent...she said, you know, I speak Russian
because my parents spoke Russian. If my parents had spoke
English I'd be speaking English, and and our religion is the
same. Whatever they, whatever they did you do, you know, and
that... there's no better reason than that. And even Tibetan
Buddhists who happen to believe believing in the right thing have
no idea why. In most cases. (laughter) Seems like. So Kedrup
Je does a thing it's called a proof by elimination, okay. He's
going to go through all of the possible things that the first
moment of consciousness could have come from and he's going to
eliminate them one by one. So to do that you have to have a this
big outline of all the things that exist. And he does, and it's
not so big. We've had this before in another class, I think, but
we'll go through it again. Say (she ja) (repeat) (she ja)
(repeat). What does (she) mean? What's the (she) in (yeshe)
come from?

(student: cognizance)

(Sherub)

(student: Consciousness)

To know. Okay. And and (ja) means "something you can know -
knowable thing". (She ja) means "knowable thing". The
newspaper...the magazine that His Holiness' office puts out every
month in Dharamsala is called (Sheja). It means "stuff to know;
news". Okay. Knowable object. (She ja) It's a synonym for all
existing things. Anything that can be known. Why do you think
it's a synonym for all existing things?

(student: It exists. Someone has (unclear))

Is it true that all things that exist are known by someone.

(student: The Buddha.)

The Buddha, okay, according to us. Therefore existence and thing
which is known are equal, because there is a being in the
universe who knows everything. (She ja) Two kinds of (she ja).
Say (tak pa) (repeat) (mi takpa) (repeat) (tak pa) (repeat) (mi
takpa) (repeat) (Takpa) means "unchanging" and (tak pa) means
"changing"...(takpa) means "unchanging" and (mi takpa) means
"changing". Don't get confused by the negative in the Tibetan,
the (mi), don't get confused by that. It's a long story and if
we had all night, I could tell you.

(student: For some reason I (unclear) permanence?)

Excuse me?

(student: Isn't (tak pa) permanence?)

Yeah, I don't like that word. I mean, I don't like that
translation, I think it's wrong. And I'll...if..you want to know
why? (laughs) Just briefly, why why I don't use that word.
These wal...this wall is (takpa) or (mitakpa)?

(students: (mi tak pa))

Excuse me?

(student: (Mi tak pa)

It's (mi tak pa) It's a changing thing. It's impermanent, if you
will. Okay. What about the emptiness of the wall. What is the
emptiness of the wall according to the highest school?

(student: (mi tak pa)

The fact that it's not anything else than my naming a an image in
my mind. That that negative thing, okay. You got...don't write
that down, it's not the point of tonights class. But when
you...and that's (takpa) or (mitakpa)...the emptiness of the
wall?

(student: (mi tak pa)

(Tak pa) It's unchanging. The emptiness of the wall is
unchanging.

(student: But but when the wall disappears...)

The emptiness of the wall is unchanging.

(student: But it's not permanent...)

Coming, coming.

(student: Oh (laughter))

Okay. It never changes in it's in it's quality. Okay. It's it's
nature never changes the least tiny bit. This wall is (unclear)
As long as this wall is ever here, it will always be nothing more
than my naming a mental image. Therefore it's it's emptiness is
is (takpa), okay. Now when I destroy the wall, is there still an
emptiness of the wall?

(student: No)

No. The basis of the emptiness is gone. Therefore that
emptiness is no longer there. That emptiness is is still
(takpa). That's why I don't u...like the word "permanent". The
emptiness of the wall is not permanent in my opinion. Because
when the wall is destroyed the emptiness goes away. But it is
unchanging. It never changes in it's quality. As long as it
exists, it's it's constant. It's always the same thing. It's
never more or less empty, okay. So that's why I don't use that
word. In in a (lam rim) and you're talking about death and you
use the word (mi takpa), impermanence, is fine. That's that's
correct. Anyway, and by the way you'll you'll understand that
one day in deep meditation and you'll have a direct perception of
this distinction. And that's not a perception of emptiness but
it's a very deep thing that can only happen to you in meditation.
And and you'll see the subtle meaning of of impermanence.
Changing is...anyway. Now we ask, could that, by the way, is the
mind...I we're assuming the mind has to have a cause, is that
correct? I mean is is is that much correct? Is it true that the
fist moment of consciousness consciousness has to have a cause?

(student: Yeah but you, I asked...)

Can it be "causeless"?

(student: I asked once what the difference...what things were
uncaused, and you said you weren't going to talk about it right
now.)

Oh, I have to tell you...space, empty space

(student: But how do you explain it? Can you explain it?)

And emptiness. And it's a long...it's quality never

(student: But emptiness I understand (unclear))

No space is easy. It's quality never changes. Space is not the
void outside and space is not the place between these two
walls...it's a wrong explanation and you'll hear people say that
in Dharma teachings. It's incorrect. And and it's taught in the
first chapter of the (b:Abhidharmakosha). Space is a place where
this pen is. And when I take the pen out of this space, does
anything happen to the space? Does it ever change? When I fill
the space does it ever change? Never changes it's quality. It
doesn't become more or less "space"
(student: I'm not asking about place we're talking)

Okay, it never changes it's cause, that's why space is is one of
the thing...is one of the few things in the universe which is
unchanging and uncaused. Long story. We'll get it...we'll do it
some day when we do...)

(student: Space seems inadequate.)

(laughs) Em...I think you ought to say "empty space" maybe,
that's you know, it's a long story. There are...in the (b:
Abhidharmakosha) some non-Buddhist and even some Buddhist come
and try to present wrong ideas of space. For example, that it's
the black stuff out there that the planets are resting in. And
that's wrong. And then you see more sophisticated people say,
it's the place between the two walls, and that's wrong. It's
it's a little bit tricky. Anyway. Not tonights subject. (Takpa
mi takpa). So so first of all can we agree that the mind at the
moment of conception or whatever you believe it started...does it
have to have a cause?

(student: Yes)

(student: Why?)

It has to have, huh?

(student: Why?)

(student: Emptiness is (unclear) (laughter)

Well, I think the main reason you can say is that...it's what
what were the arguments we already had, why did omniscience have
to have a cause, why did omniscience have to be changing?
Remember. You...Because it was focusing on a changing object.

(student: Right)

And therefore it was always changing its' quality. And also
because it has...anything which is variable, has to have a cause.
(student: Why?)

I'll say it again. Anything that's variable has to have a cause.
Because something is making it...as the cause loses its' power
the thing changes. Anything chan...there therefore anything
changing has to have a cause. I'll say it again (laughs).
Anything that changes has to have a cause. There's energy behind
it and that energy is fluctuating and as as long as the thing
that's throwing it into existence is fluctuating, that thing is
is changing, and the thing is getting less or more, or here or
there or farther or closer or bigger or smaller, it's it's
fluctuating.

(student: (unclear))

(student: The mindstream has never been more (unclear))

We didn't prove that. (laughter) No, but each moment of mind has
to have a cause. 'Cause the mind is changing. For example, I I I
just changed your mind, okay (laughs). (laughter) All right.
This this object stimulates certain kinds of visual
consciousnesses in you, and as I remove the object or present the
object, your visual consciousness fluctuates, it changes, and and
mind is...that's the nature of mind. And it's obvious. It's not
unchanging. If it were unchanging there would be no Buddhahood
because you could never get rid of you (nyo mos), your bad
thoughts. Might as well give up. It's it is changing. It
fluctuates. And you experience that even as I speak, it's
fluctuating. By the instant. Anything that fluctuates has a
cause. Assuming that you agree...by the way everything I say
tonight you won't agree to, and I don't expect you to accept
everything I say tonight, but it starts the process of your
doubting the bias that you were given when you were a child,
which happens to be wrong. And which is a great obstacle to your
achieving Buddhahood. So, as as this course goes on (laughs) if
it ever does, (laughter)

(student: What does it mean?)
You will...at least you'll...it'll put a few cracks in your
belief where you'll start thinking of where did that first moment
of mind come from. And and and as you get more exposed to these
arguments, which you won't accept the first night or the second
night, you will start to doubt the position that you have now
which is only because of your birth, it's that Russian language
thing, you know, it's only because of where you grew up that you
believe that. And as you start to doubt it your behavior should
start to change, because if we're talking billions of years of
future or rather than twenty years left at best, things change,
you know, like I'd like to clean out my mind, if I'm gonna be
stuck with this mind for millions of years then let me clean it
up (laughs) you know. Then it becomes a different priority, and
you'll start to experience that, it'll become so...hopefully this
class...I mean hopefully these arguments will start to have that
effect on you. Okay. If I'm gonna be around indefinately rather
than just for the next twenty years and then get some kind of,
what do you call it, there's a Greek word for "mindlessness"
(unclear ), mente or something, I don't know. You know,if you
could reach a place after death...subconsciously everyone in this
room believes that you're gonna die and at that moment the mind
just kind of goes away and you won't have to be around anymore,
and whatever bad time you're having now will end. But if it were
the other way, and and if, whatever anxieties you have in your
mind now and whatever indecisions and whatever torments by desire
or doubt or anger you have in your mind now are going to go on
indefinitely if you don't do something about that now, that
changes the, that changes things. You know. Then it's in your
interest to clean up your mind now. Because if I gotta have this
kind of mind forever, that's quite unpleasant (laughs) you know.
So, okay. So, is that cause (nyer len gyi gyu) of the first
moment of consciousness...put your mind back on the first moment
of this life, of your consciousness, is the...can the cause be
(takpa)? Can that cause be (takpa)? Can that cause be something
unchanging?

(student: No.)

No. We had it when we discussed the creator. When the creator
creates, it has to change. The creator five minutes after he
created the universe and the creator five minutes before he
created the universe are different guys. He had to expend some
energy. He has to be different, okay. Cause can not be
unchanging. By delivering the baby, the mother changes. By
delivering the result, the the oak tree sprout, the the the acorn
changes, it must change. So tha tha the thing we're looking for,
which is what...what are we looking for tonight?

(students: (Nyer len gyi gyus))

(Nyer len gyi gyu), the thing that flopped over into the first
moment of consciousness...in this life, can not be (takpa). We
can eliminate that one.

(student: Michael? Michael? Is there actually a point at which
the cause ceases and the)

Big debate.

(student: the next)

Big debate in the monastery.

(student: I mean)

Huge fights. When you really put your mind on it and you try to
imagine the moment that the cause stopped being the cause and
became the result, it that's actually one practice for
recognizing emptiness. You you you can't. It's inconceivable.
Something...that concept if you really put your mind on it can
lead you to a perception of emptiness. Because it's impossible.
It's an impossibility. We live on it. We believe in it. You
know, but if but but if you try to imagine it, if you try to
conceive of it, you can't. And and it can lead you to a
perception of emptioness. It is one method of perceiving
emptiness. Long story. Okay.

(student: So you're saying it an artificial distinction
(unclear)? (laughs) (laughter) That could have sweeping
ramifications.)

Yeah, it does. It really does.

(student: Karmically it certainly does.) (laughter)

Basically, and I say basically...when I say basically it means a
perception, like a logician has to say that, but basically, (mi
takpa) there are two kinds of (mi tak pas). Say (bempo) (repeat)
(she pa) (repeat) (Bempo) (repeat) (she pa) (repeat). Okay. I
want to change this word. I mean it's not the one... this it's
synonym but I want to put a different word. Say (bempo) (repeat)
(rikpa) (repeat) Same thing. (She pa) and (rik pa) are the same
word. But I I prefer this word 'cause he used it. (Bempo) means
"matter; physical matter". It's definition in Tibetan is ( dul
de dru pa), that which is composed of atoms. It's composite
matter, physical matter. (Rikpa) means...do you know (rikpa)...I
think some some Dharma some Dharma group uses it as

(student: Sogyal Rinpoche)

Yeah. (Rikpa) literally means just "mind" as opposed to (bempo),
which is what?

(student: Physical matter)

Matter. Mind and matter. Okay. We have the word in English.
Mind and matter. (Bempo) is matter; (rikpa) is mind. Basically,
and there are a few exceptions, all changing things are either
mind or matter.

(student: So when you refer to energy, would that be an
exception? 'Cause is more subtle than mind?)

There's certain kinds of... John Stilwell is an exception. He's
a changing thing which is neither mind nor matter.

(student: Combination)

He's a he's a concept, actually. But so...I'm not going to get
into it. But basically mind or matter, okay, basically mind or
matter. We're gonna look at matter first. All right, 'cause we
know the punch line is over there, right (laughs) (laughter) so,

(student: (unclear) probably go off.)

Yeah we'll probably go off the board, I usually do that. We're
gonna look at (bempo), two kinds of (bempo). Say (wangpo)
(repeat) (Chiy suk) (repeat) (Wangpo) (repeat) (Chiy suk). Okay.
 (Wang) you know right? (Wang) means what?

(students: empower)

Empowerment, right. (Wangpo) means "a sense power", the five
sense powers. The root is the same. The root that's used as a
(tantric) empowerment (wang) is the same as (wangpo). Generally
both of those words mean strength or energy or power. So
(wangpo) refers to the the five sense powers. And (chiy)...well
we're gonna do (chiy suk) later. (Wangpo) So what are your five
(wangpos)? They're stated the (b:Heart Sutra)...(mik may nawa
may nam me chen may may), okay, the eye, the ear, the nose, the
tongue and the skin... the body responsible for sensing visual
objects, aud audi audible objects, gustatory objects (laughs) I
don't know, olfactory and gustatory and tangibles, okay...anyway,
things you see, things you hear, things you smell, things you
taste and things you feel. In in the (b: Abhidharma) and in
Buddhist philosophy in general, it's believed, for example, that
at the back of your eyeball there's a small patch of cells that
can sense visual objects, and as as an object changes in front of
that group of cells it it senses a difference. And it conveys
that difference to to eye consciousness, it is not eye
consciousness, it's a patch of cells that has a sense function,
it has a sensitivity to changes in color and shape, and that's
called the power of the eye. Sense power of the eye. So it's
not your consciousness of the eye, it's it's it's a physical
group of stuff in the eyeball...the back of the eye...we call it
the optic nerve that senses changes in colors shapes and and and
sends, transmits that data to the...and actually helps stimulate
a consciousness of the eye. Consciousness of colors and shape.
It's not mind. It's physical stuff. It's living matter. So you
can say (wangpo) here refers to living matter, okay.




It is not mind, it's physical stuff. It's sensitive but it's not
knowing.

(student: Why couldn't you say that the mind is simply that
accumulation or compilation of all that sensing stuff which it's
processing and)

It's it's a long story. In the (b: Abhidharma) the mind comes a
moment later. You're always a moment in the past, you know, the
object has been presented to the optic nerve and the mind is only
aware of it the next moment. After it is stimulated by the
conjunction of an object to the sense power and then that
stimulates a mental awareness. So it's a different thing to
sense colors and to be aware of colors. The optic nerve has some
kind of sensation and it sends it to the...it it it stimulates a
consciousness. But it's not the consciousness. It's a physical
stuff. Why? If you scrape off, you know, the back of the
eyeball you can't see anymore. There's no more sensing of of
(laughs) colors and shapes, okay. So. That's one option for
what? What are we looking for?

(student: (unclear) Oh we're looking for (unclear)

We're looking for the thing that flopped over into the first
moment of your consciousness in this life. Where did it come
from. I mean you don't spend your nights worrying about it,
right? But this is the key to to finding past and future lives.
We don't accept, in normal Buddhism, the method of saying, oh
some people remember their past lives. We don't accept it. Why?
 It can not can be communicated to me in a logical way. I can
not perceive past lives based on this person saying "oh I
remember my past lives". I can't have a (tse ma) about it, based
on someone coming up to me and saying, "I remember my past life",
doesn't help me. I can not have a valid perception of my past
life based on someone else claiming that he remembers his past
life. Can not. Okay. So we're not interested in that kind of
proof. It's not a proof, what I'm saying. We we need something
like this, you let...just this is not just an exercise. It's air
tight. If you follow with me and if you accept each step, and by
the end of this evening you must accept that you had a past life.
 And you can go home and worry about the details, or say that I
don't accept one of these things up here, but if you're really a
reasonable person, a reasoning being, you don't have any choice
but to accept that there was a some kind of (nyer len gyi gyu) of
mind before that. And that that you won't believe and you won't
change tonight. But it'll affect you and that's the id...slowly
it should affect you. Yeah.

(student: It's not clear to me why the sense powers aren't...)

Aren't mind itself?

(student: valid. Well, maybe I'm maybe I'm taking this a step
farther. The way you're describing sense powers as a
conglomeration of..)

Active ce...living cells.

(student: living cells interacting with its' surroundings, as you
described that as a sense power, why can't that same definition
apply to mind as a a conglomeration of living cells interacting,
you know, amongst themselves with the external environment?)

That's a tough question for me. I don't know. But I'd say that
basically, the basic difference between mind and matter...you're
asking the difference in...what's the difference between mind and
matter in Buddhism...how...matter is...consists of atoms, matter
is not aware, doesn't have awareness. Does it have life? Yes,
it can be living. And the sense powers are living. And and and
physical things...it's interesting, the definition of, for
example, visual objects are anything I can point to as a (laughs)
visual object, it's that basic, so I'd say the differences are
many and it's take a long time, but basically matter is composed
of atoms, matter is not aware, matter is not crystal clear which
awareness is.
(student: In a way...are you saying then in a way awareness is
produced as a result of )

Yeah

(student: it's interaction of all the organic matter?)

The con confluence, the joining together of an object and the
sense power. And it's actually in the wheel of life. One of the
links which is...(shi ba ming dze rab (unclear) kei che tuppa
rikpa), number six, it that's the confluence of those two things.

(student: In the in the some of the psychology you made the
distinction between sen...sensation and perception. I mean they,
even the scientists backs it up too, this sensa...sensation is a
physical thing which can be measured very easily, like how much
light gets into the pupil and something like that, there's a part
of the brain that does interpretation with all the senses and
they get the same (unclear)

We'll get into the definition of mind...you'll study mind.
You'll you'll study Buddhist psychology at some point.

(student: Michael?)

So (wangpo) is living matter and (chiy suk), (chiy) means "outer;
outside", and (suk) means "four". (Chiy suk) means "out...outside
outside physical stuff", okay (laughs) not not included into a
living being. Something like the wall, the carpet, the smell of
my dogs (laughs) (laughter) okay, those are (chiy suk), okay. I
wish they were in more (chiy suk) (laughs)

(student: What does (chiy) and (suk) (unclear)?)

(Chiy) means "outer". And (suk) means "four". These are the two
kinds of physical matter. And we're going to try to what?

(student: Prove them?)

Eliminate them (laughs). We're going to try to eliminate them.
'Cause we wanna, we wanna prove that that the cause of that first
moment of mind is is (rikpa). Over on the other side of that
tree. And a...

(student: You said it was not included in the (unclear).)

Right. Well, there's a big debate, okay. Tip of your hairs and
the end of your fingernails, okay, 'cause they and they don't
sense. There's no...the powers don't reach that. So are they
outer form or not? They're they're considered to be outer form.
Once once your fingernail grows so long and can't feel it when
someone goes like that, it's considered outer. That's the
debate.

(student: I'm so...point of clar...point of clarification, you
said that awareness is produced by the confluence of the object
and its' sense consciousness?)

Yeah, sense power.

(student: Sense power.)

Not it...and then the sense consciousness is it's generated by
that.

(student: Okay)

It's inspired by that.

(student: But is there any other form of mind which exists
outside of this confluence of these two things?)

Mental...the mental consciousness.

(student: Mental consciousness.)

(student: Say that again? Mental consci...consciousness exists
outside...)

Mental consciousness does not depend on a physical sense organ to
be stimulated, to occur.

(student: Depend on...)

(student: So you're saying it exists independently of the
mi...the brain.)

Long story. Didn't say that. But what I mean is, you could have
a person who is totally blind, deaf, didn't couldn't smell and
taste and couldn't feel anything and they would still have a
mind.

(student: Okay)

And that's that's actually what a formless realm being is. Have
some tea, okay.

We're trying to decide whether or not...you know, focus your mind
again on what what we're trying to figure out. Focus your mind
on the first moment of awareness in this life. And then we're
trying to figure out what caused it. What flopped over. And we
decided...we're trying to see if it was physical, and and right
now we're trying to see if it was something living, one of your
five sense organs, okay, your five sense powers. And Kedrup Je's
argument is if you say that it's the five sense powers that
flopped over in the way that the acorn flops over into the oak
tree, if you say that it's that that caused your mind at the
first moment of conception, then do all five have to be together
or is any one enough? So he's actually giving another
choice...go ahead...and I'm just gonna write it in English. All
five or any one. He says do all five have to come together or is
any one okay? He says if it's...if you say it has to be all
five, then suppose a person's optic nerve is damaged or
something. Then you're saying that the mind that mind wouldn't
occur? So it it it isn't if the combination of all five organs
is what turns into mind, then if a person lost his eyes, would he
lose his mind? Would his mind stop. If you say that all five
have to come together for mind to occur, then you're saying that
as soon as a person ever loses his eyes, his mind stops? You
say, no. So he eliminates that one. Then he says, and how about
any one? And he says if...let's take mind...let's take optic
nerve, okay? The eye organ, the eye sense power. He says, if
that were enough to flop over into mind...this is according to
Kedrup Je, okay? Then the quality of that sense organ is that it
perceives colors and shapes very distinctly. Then it should also
be a quality of the mind, independently of anything else,
independently of the eye, to to capture colors and shapes as
distinctly as the eye does.

(student: And in the same way.)

And it doesn't. In other words, when you tried to...you know,
you can see your apartment right now, you can see your your
refrigerator, in yo..in in your mind's eye, you can imagine your
refrigerator at home, but you you will never have as clear of an
image as clear shapes and as clear...and as vivid colors as you
do when you look at your refrigerator. The mental image is
always less distinct and less vivid then the physical perception,
and and Kedrup Je says, since causes and results have to have a
similarity, and if then...optic nerve were the cause of your
mind, then your mind would have to be able to capture colors and
shapes with the same vividness that your eye does. But that's
not what happens. And the same applies for hearing and
tasting...you can imagine the taste of cotton candy right now,
but it doesn't match up to the, you know, the experience of
cotton candy by the sense organ, so he says therefore, no one of
them can be either, and that's that's his argument.

(student: So Michael, in the divis...the (bempo) division there
of physical matter, I mean it seems by saying the sense powers of
things outside of our senses, external physical matter, that
leaves out the inner organs and other organic matter of the body
by just saying the five sense consciousness doesn't)

Five sense organs. (unclear)

(student: Okay. five sense organs doesn't include the whole
totality of our...)

Physical body, yes, it does.
(student: It does?)

There's nothing about your physical body that's not related to
one of those five sense organs. Ev...every part of your physical
body is is tactile, just I mean (unclear)

(student: So you're saying like the brain, the lungs, the)

Yeah.

(student: inner organs)

You can you can feel, all those things can feel.

(student: yeah. But is the feeling nature of that organ the sum)

No, no

(student: nature of that organic matter?)

No, no.

(student: And so is it really, if you're only talking about the
sensory aspect of the organ)

Yeah

(student: and not the whole totality of the organ's aspect as
organic matter, well it seems like we're leaving out some of
physical matter.)

No, 'cause he said all...he did say all five. He gave you a
choice.

(student: All five)

All five together.

(student: sense)
Yeah, all five sense organs together.

(student: But what I'm saying is is any of the five or all of
the five sense organs don't seem to me to be a complete
description of say, the lung.)

Yeah, you have to get used to that idea. It's (b:
Abhidharma)...first chapter of (b: Abhidharma). You have to get
used to perceiving yourself as a conglomeration of those five
sense powers...your physical body is...there's nothing outside of
that that's (unclear). You're hung-up on the visual appearance
of the lung, you know, your your western conception of the body
is is this many long things, this many round things, this many
short things...it's it's not what the body is. The body is the
sum of those five organs, and that's just...takes time. An organ
can be the object of another organ. I mean, you can feel the
shape of your lung. You know, you could...it could it could act
as a as an object of the sense power, that's true. You could see
your...you could see the veins in your arm.

(student: Those five senses don't seem to describe the complete
function in which they (unclear), or do they?)

They do.

(student: Yeah?)

You just gotta get used to it. Takes time. Takes time. That's
(b: Abhidharma). When you study (b: Abhidharma) really well you
start...your vision of yourself starts to change, and that's why
(b: Abhidharma) is useful. Even though it's Hinayana. So that
eliminates (wangpo). Then he goes to (chiy suk), okay, outside
four, outside matter). And I'm not going to go into it too much
'cause I don...I wanna finish on time, but, okay the four
elements. We'll talk more about them next week. Did Buddhist
scholars or the Buddha himself, who supposedly can see all
objects, did he really believe in this primitive idea that
there's little fires going on in you, and the dirt in your arm,
and you know, some lakes in your arm, and, I mean, the four
elements, that...is that primitive idea really acceptable to
Buddhism? Yes, very much. And you'll learn more about it next
week. They they are not...they are...the word (sa chu mei lung),
the word earth, water, fire and wind, they are just metaphors.
They didn't believe there's little pieces of dirt in you or
little pieces of fire in you, or something like that. They
describe basic types of energy that would be perfectly acceptable
to a scientist. And it's people that don't...that haven't
studied (b: Abhidharma) that explain it wrong, and it sounds
weird and stuff like that. It's it's certain characteristics of
physical matter that you can accept...any westerner can accept
easily. That...those are the four elements. So what he says, he
uses the same process of elimination. He says, you mean to say
that all four elements have to act together or is any one of the
elements sufficient...which would imply that if one of the
elements were...if if or or any of the atoms were not present
then the mind wouldn't occur? You know, if one of the atoms
happened to be missing, would mind never occur? And...or are you
saying that any one of the atoms could have created mind, could
have flopped over into mind. Are you saying that all those atoms
have to be present together in which case if one of them happens
to be missing there's no mind, or are you saying anyone of them
can turn into mind and the others are just helping? And and
neither neither one is is correct. It's the same argument. If
if they all have to be present for the mind to start in your
mommy's tummy in the first moment of your awareness, then the
minute one of them weren't there, your mind should go away. And
that's not what happens. Or if it's any one of them turns into
mind, then how does the mind ressemble that one? You know, the
is the mind hot if it comes from the element of fire or is the
mind more ferric if it comes from iron atoms, you know,
what...there's no similarity between the iron atom and the mind.
If if if the iron atom flopped into the mind, the mind should
ressemble iron in some way, in the way that a tree ressembles an
acorn. There has to be some similarity. And there isn't.

(student: Are there...are they considered secondary factors?)

Is it is it thought that the mind that that changes in the
physical constituents affect the mind, yes. Can they be a
factor? Yes. Are they (nyer len gyi gyu)? No. And and we get
hung up on the on the secondary factors. Western people get
hungup on the chemicals that happen that happen to be present
when mind starts, and they mistake that for the (nyer len gui
gyu) of the mind. The mind in no way ressembles matter. There's
no similarity at all. Mind is is invisible, crystal clear and
aware. And physical matter is the opposite. There's no
similarity. It's it's it's it's to a Buddhist philosopher, it's
it's it's it's it's a laughing, what you say, it's a it would it
would be a joke to laugh about for someone to come and say, you
know, all these chemicals in your body could turn into this
crystal clear, ineffable, invisible, unaffectable, knowing thing
called mind. They'd just think it's silly...who'd who'd ever
imagine that? You know, the mind is...you could blow up an atom
bomb next to a mind and it doesn't move a half an inch. Mind is
different. Mind is not affected by by matter. You can't push
your mind to the left or the right, you know, you can't split
your mind up, you know, you can't say that the left side of the
mind is different from the right side of the mind, you can't
dis...distinguise it's boundaries, the mind can stretch to to
Kansas right now, the moment you think of Kansas, the mind...the
stuff of mind is totally different from matter, and and it's just
some kind of funny thing that we grew up with that we we think
any other way. The mind is in visible. The mind is ineffable.

(student: It is...)

The mind somehow hangs around the body but it's in no way
restricted by the body. The mind can...the mind can go anywhere
right now.

(student: Is it appropriate to be kinda taking it to that almost
metaphorical level of comparing the physical nature of the body
to the physical nature of the mind, to say that if it's not
physically ressembling it, it it doesn't come from that. I mean
is that just a not in a relevant)

It's just the nature of a (nyer len gyi gyu). There should be
some similarity.
(student: And they should look the same)

Must be some similarity.

(student: In appearance...)

Same same characteristics. Now...do characteristics have to be
physical characteristics? No. But in this case yes since you're
talking about matter (laughs).

(student: Michael? I'm really confused. What is the definition
of mind, because when you say...)

Definition of mind is very simple in Buddhism, (sel shing rikpa).
(Sel shing rikpa). Clear and knowing. Clear and aware.

(student: So...So this is like sort of the Buddha mind (unclear)
and not our ordinary consciousness.)

No, absolutely, talking about your ordinary consciousness. It
only has two qualities. It's clear, it's ineffable, and it's
aware.

(student: But psychologically I don't feel particularly clear or
aware right now (laughter) (laughs)

Clear in the sense you see...the the word "clear" in Buddhism
even is very difficult. People when they try to translate it,
the word "clear" in the definition of mind it's very difficult.
Does it mean that you can't see it, or does it mean that it's
always clear of bad thoughts and and clear of confusion.
Obviously it can't be the second one. Obviously your mind is
often confused or unclear. So I I I should say it's refers more
to it's quality of being ineffable, you know, "clear" here means
can't see it, can't touch it, can't taste it, can't move it,
can't cut it, can't squish it, can't make it bigger, it's just
not like that. It's different stuff. It's a totally different
stuff. It it doesn't ressemble physical stuff at all. It's a
different material. And and and that's a very important
distinction in Buddhism, you have to become aware that the mind
resides somewhere in the vicinity of the body, right, somehow
related to the body, and we'll talk more about that, but but it's
difference...it's, I mean a Buddhist philosopher at a certain
point in his training would say, we...you know, why why what how
could you possibly think that mind could come from anything
physical? They're completely different, you know. You can't
shoot the mind, you can't squish the mind, you can't make a hole
in the mind, you can't...mind is different thing. Mind is
different...totally different stuff. Where's your mind? (laughs)



(student: (unclear) I'm confused because there's the mundane
definition of the brain, I mean, you can destroy somebody's
brain.)

Brain is some is some grey color and round shape.

(student: Right. And if you squish that their mind won't work.)

You sure?

(student: Well maybe (laughs) in the next life it will (laughs)
(laughter) work but (unclear) (laughter))

But anyway, I'm not asking...not fasetious question. You're
assuming the mind doesn't work.

(student: Well, there are people that but they're in a car
accident their mind never works the same way afterwards, so)

You don't know that.

(student: Nobody says they're brain-dead...mind-dead...they say
they're brain-dead)

(student: A brain and a mind are still the same thing.)

(student: Right. (unclear) still goes into a coma, we we don't
really know what what they're thinking about, but it appears to
us they're in...)
It it appears and the Charvakas had the same argument. They said
it seems to be that if the body undergoes a certain level of
shock, that the mind stops, and until that level of shock is is
is made to the body, the mind continues, and if you beat the the
brain, or if you hit the head at a certain kin...level of force,
it appears that the mind stops. And that's all that you can say.
 You don't know that the mind stops.

(student: No, but that person who has a very hard time
functioning in this incarnation, their next incarnation (laughs)
(unclear) but

Oh no. Yeah. Obviously there's some relation between...that's a
(kyen). Some some conditions for the functioning of the mind
have been altared. The mind...is the mind made less mind? No.
And and we gotta talk about it. And and I'll give you a fore...a
foretaste, okay. Dharmakirti is going to try to argue that, not
only does the mind not rely on the brain, the brain relys on it's
mind. That's gonna be his argument, and and I I'll get into it
next week, but you've reached mentally a very important point,
because he he he must bring it up by the next class, he's going
to bring it up (laughter)does...does the mind rest on the body or
perhaps the body rest on the mind? And and that's...we'll we'll
do that next week.

(student: Where does sensory consciousness fit in in relation to
the mind?)

It's it's...the mind is composed of six consciousnesses acting
together. Five sense consciousnesses and one mental
consciousness.

(student: But you said that the mind was something that couldn't
be influenced or altered, and when the sensory...)

It's it's nature is not, no.

(student: It's nature)
But we as said before it's like a mirror, you know. If you
present...if you if you put this blue...if you put a blue wall in
front of the eyes, the mind takes on some kind of blueness and we
accept that. It takes on some kind of a...like like a glass or
or like when you when you take water and and when you paint the
bottom of a swimming pool blue, and then you pour water into the
swimming pool, the water takes on some kind of blue appearance.
It's not blue but it takes on some kind of blue tint. It's not
that the water got blue. It's that the blueness is being
reflected in the water. And then...they say the mind is the
same.

(student: So, if you damage one of the sensory (unclear), the
mind doesn't change.)

No.

(student: The content changes)

The content changes. You can't have a blue color anymore. But
ah actually you can.

(student: But a sensory consciousness in itself is what? In
other words...)

It's a clear and aware about about, okay we gotta...she has to
leave at nine, but we'll talk about it. You have to study first
chapter (b: Abhidharma). It's a long long story. The first
chapter of the (b: Abhidharma) presents this and it's almost a
quarter of the whole book. It has eight chapters and the first
chapter is so important that it's about a quarter of the whole
thing. And it explains the six sense...the six consciousnesses.

(cut)

And it's accepted by all the other schools, pretty much, you got
one more place to go. He says, now, the last choice is mine.
The last choice for what?

(student: (nyer len gyi gyu))
Good. (Nyer len gyi gyu). What flopped over into the first moment
of consciousness. What...what's right behind the door of the
that pushed this consciousness through the door at the moment of
birth...at the moment of conception? Wha wha what was behind
that unknown, you know, what shoved our mind into the first
moment of this life. He says, now now you have no...if you
accept all of my arguments, which you don't, which you probably
shouldn't yet, I mean I, I I think we all have some trouble with
some of them. I I'm presenting, you know, Kedrup Je's arguments,
but I think they need to be cooked, you know, but if you...let's
say you accept all those arguments, then the only place left to
go by the process of elimination is that it had to have been mind
that flopped over into mind, that became the mind. Now Kedrup Je
says, was it your mind or someone else's mind. (laughter)

(student: At another moment or the moment of (unclear))

It's not a stupid question. I mean, we generally I think believe
that somehow our life...you know, I've been thinking about it
'cause I have to teach it, but I think somehow you think that
life has been transmitted to those to those cells from the
parents. That somehow there's this stuff that you call life, and
at a certain point in the child's development it gets transferred
to those to that jelly, you know (laughs) and it comes from the
parents. You know, I mean, you..I I think you really...if you're
a scientist you're probably over here, I think, it's chemicals.
Certain chemicals under certain conditions become mind. And if
you're, you know, mommy (laughs) I don't know, you know, all all
the the living parts of my body have become life, you know, or me
and my husbands' body have become life and or or maybe you think,
you know, somehow the father and the mother's mind have flo
flowed into the into the little spot of jello.

(student: It's them thinking that the things that they've done in
the life are going to determine what's in their child's
mindstream.)

Well, no, it...but the...the child of the mind came from the
minds of the father and mother. I mean, Kedrup Je says, that's
your...I'll give you two last choices. This is where he wants to
go, right? This is his...the whole object of the whole thing
tonight. This is where he wants to prove that it came from your
own mind of the past. But he's allowing you, okay, maybe it was
your mommy and your daddy. Now, how does he argue against that?
He says, sometimes the father is a master carpenter and the kid
can't do anything with his hands. Sometimes the father is an
idiot and the kid is brillient, (laughter) so he says, it can't
be. And it sounds simple and it sounds childlike and some of
the...some of Dharmakirti's arguments are gonna sound very
childlike. But I warn you, maybe they are true, and maybe
they're very deep, and maybe they're right (laughs), so , you
know, you can't go to office and give these arguments to
everybody there. But if you really think about them, you might
conclude that you did live before.

(student: There seems to be a lot of these (unclear) very often
these discussions the distinction is made between mind as
something that animates the brain, the body, everything the
body's composed of and is in some sense the spirit, let's say,
you call that also.)

Yeah.

(student: The (unclear) that animates this this body that is
separate from genes from which, you know, by means of which you
may inherit certain principal characteristics, certain talents,
certain whatever, but there isn't necessarily a contradition
between acknowledging that there is something besides body and
the mind and the body are not equivalent or you know, are they
integral parts of one another.




Yeah, I understand, yeah, I had a...I sat with psychiatrist on
the last flight (laughter) no, we talked a lot about this...it's
part of his work. And he said ultimately they don't really
understand...you know, they can't really affect certain genes and
the child is more talented or something. Right now they can't,
but anyway
(student: So, why is...what's the argument then)

So the argu...saying that, that's his final argument, okay, and
that's nine o'clock too. (laughter). He's saying, you know,
it's not true that the child is more or less intelligent
according...in other words, the the condition of the child's mind
doesn't necessarily have any similarity to the condition of the
parents minds. And and one of the rules of a (nyer len gyi gyu)
is that it should have some similarity. An acorn has to somehow
have oakness in it or else it would make a lemon...it might as
well make a lemon tree, but it doesn't, does it. There's some
similarity. So so he eliminates that one. Therefore, (laughs)
you came from your previous mind.

(student: But ho ho, you know, how does he support that mind is
contained in tact, I mean, how is that explained in (unclear),)

We...we'll talk about it. We'll talk...it'll be next week.
We'll get to Dharmakirti's own ideas. But

(student: So it has to be the mind)

It has to have been

(student: of the moment before, the first awareness.)

It has to have been a previous state of mind of your, and and the
last thing I'll say is, once you've proved that last
instance...that...once you've proved the existence of a single
moment of mind preceding the first moment of mind in your mommy's
womb, then your lives are beginningless and your lives are
endless. Period. Your mind is beginningless and your mind is
endless. It's a necessary conclusion. Once I can prove a single
instant of your own consciousness prior to your first
consciousness in this mommy's womb, it might as well be
beginningless...in fact and in fact it has to be beginningless.

(student: I think, coming back, and this somehow comes out of a
(unclear))
Okay, last question, now, because I know some people want to go.
Go ahead.

(student: the idea of permanent. This is (unclear) the class)

Say, say, say.

(student: You know, I can understand that emptiness is a concept
so it's gen it's generating being generated, shall we say.)

Wha.a.a.a what? (laughs)

(student: Well, it's it's, I mean, the emptiness, the emptiness
of something is is our labeling, our naming it.)

No, the emptiness is negative, so how would you say it
par...negatively?

(student: It's the lack of naming it (unclear))

The lack of not naming it.

(student: Direct. Right. But but so that doesn't...I don't
have a problem with that at this time, the permanent thing, but
space, I think I asked this before, when we were talking about
creators)

How is space unchanging?

(student: How does space...what's the explanation for the
existence of space, I guess (unclear))

Where did it come from?

(student: Yeah.)

It's the absence

(student: I mean if you say that it's always being...)
It's...no, it's defined as an absence of something.

(student: Okay. So it's just...it's in a sense it's like)

It's (to lay got sum) is the definition of space, the simple
absense of anything concrete.

(student: Then when you put the pen in that space you say the
space hasn't changed and yet there's a concrete object in the
space.)

Yeah.

(student: So how can)

If it weren't absent of a concrete object the pen couldn't get in
that space (laughs).

(student: Yeah, but so when the pen's there then it's no longer
space? That's my point...in which case it is changing.)

And the answer to that by a Buddhist philosopher is that since
the pen is there, it's absent.

(student: The space is absent?)

No, the the concreteness is absent, because if it were already
occupied you couldn't put the pen in there

(student: Right. So the fact that it is occupied and not space
at that moment)

If it if it if it weren't space the pen couldn't stay (unclear)

(student: But I'm saying the fact that it becomes occupied and
unoccupied)

If the space went away... (unclear) the pen couldn't stay there
'cause there wouldn't be any space for it to occupy. Okay.
(student: But by definition)

Well (laughs)

(student: So when a female that is pregnant being taught to have
these good pure thoughts, does it have indirect effect upon their
child's mind?)

Yeah, right.

(student: Okay)

The the mind doesn't come from that those thoughts. Doesn't turn
into them. Those thoughts don't turn into the mind.

(student: But they affect the environment?)

Ab absolutely. (unclear)

(prayer: short mandala)

(prayer: dedication)

(student: Do you see what I mean though?)

(laughs) I do see what you mean.

(student: The definition of space is the absence of something,
then it's no longer absent, so then by definition,it's no longer
space.)

Simple absence...I'll say it a different way. The simple absence
of concreteness)

(student: Huh? The absence of concreteness)

Not the simple absence of a concrete (unclear)

(student: (unclear))
The simple absence of the quality of being concrete.

(student: Space is that)

Rather than simple absence of a concrete object.

(student: Space is the simple absence of a concrete object)

Of the quality (unclear)

(student: Of a quality of what?)

Being concrete. Physically concrete. As opposed to simple
absence of a concrete object, how's that?

(student: That's entirely different. That makes sense.)

Of course it's different. It's the only way I can (unclear)
(laughter)

(students: (All talking together.) Did you have the recorder on
for that? (laughter) (laughs) (unclear) listen to that over
again.

(student: So space is not composed of atoms?)

Well there's a debate about that if you want to know (unclear)

(student: Oh (unclear) this debate (unclear)

The physical part of (unclear) in a Buddha paradise.

(too hard to understand)
940922-1.aaa

Course Four: The Proof of Future Lives