ACI 4 «Доказательство будущих жизней», занятие 11

Class Eleven – Course Review
October 3, 1994

Transcriber - Su Foo
Proofread – Linda Salmon
[cut] really should study all the quizzes, you know, I might get one or two,
[laugher] I might study one and start arguing, you know how that goes, not on
purpose. [Student: number what?] [Laughs laughter] [Unclear] learn all this
stuff…your mind is like an illusion that’s why I didn’t have [unclear]. Okay, of
course the question would probably be, name the words for correct or valid
perception in Sanskrit and Tibetan. What is it in Tibetan? {tse-ma} and in
Sanskrit? Pramana. And, and just you know, these are all the things that you
know I wish you would always remember from this course. I mean this last
course because these are…you know, somebody ask you what’s pramana then
what do you say? Not, not perception, hinayana perception is wrong. You
should say valid perception. Of course all you know now is correct perception.
When you get to Madhyamika Prasangika its more valid perception. They’re
difference between correct and valid we’re thinking of both. But correct just
means…almost all the perceptions you ever have in your life are {tse ma} okay?
And basically {tse ma} is useful for only saying the right thing, you know; you
shouldn’t say anything unless you have a {tse ma} about it. That would be
refreshing. Guess everyone in the world…. I know I don’t it and I, and I meet
people who do have that quality and I admire them. So I think its very good
quality to develop. Only talk about when you have {tse ma} and if you don’t
have a {tse ma} about it you say ‘I think’ you know. I think Franklin said…
Benjamin Franklin said…in his younger days used to be very opinionated and
later he got older he decided he would attach ‘I think’ to everything and it saved
him a lot of grief. Think…just imagine how many cases there are when you…it’s
pretty sure that you know but you don’t really know and then you have to be
careful. That’s {tse ma}. {tse ma} is when you actually know the truth. You have
actually seen it or perceived it and logically it’s okay but it has to be airtight
which is difficult. [Student: say I believe certain things to be the case. Based on
what I am, in so far….] Yeah that’s fine. [Student: Michael I would also like to
matter of being truthful all the time as well] That’s what {tse ma} means. Okay.
What is Buddhist definition of existence? We’ll go around. What’s the definition
of existence? [Student: that which [unclear] pramana] okay anything which is
perceived by {tse ma} you see I know it exist because I, I saw it or I thought
about with a {tse ma} everything else you don’t know is pretty slim. You don’t
know if a Buddha exist really unless you hae a {tse ma} right now. You don’t
know if Buddhahood exists; you don’t know if a bodhisattva exist, really.
[Unclear] they can and maybe if you study long time you could argue for it. A
lot of difficulty.
Okay, Ellen [unclear] what does the Buddha say himself…what does the Buddha
himself say it’s the perfect of Buddhist logic, remember? [student: [unclear]]
Yeah okay. So far so good. Should not what? Only he or she…[student: should
not judge another] can another. Only a Buddha {Tibetan} unless you’re Me or a
person like Me, meaning you know you can read the other person’s mind,
don’t…a normal person shouldn’t judge another person because you will fall.
You will fail. And after the break I’m going to tell you a little bit about that.
that’s the most…that’s the first thing we learn in logic in the monastery, age
fifteen normally, they teach that line, they never even know where it comes
from. They have no idea what scripture it came from. They just memorize it
and…[student: what does that got to do with logic anyway?] That’s an excellent
question, I’m glad somebody [unclear]. No, logic is the deductive process by
which you will see the {tse ma}, by which you could judge another person.
[student: but you can normally judge another person when you a Buddha
[unclear]] Only a Buddha can have a {tse ma} about it, maybe…[student: only
Buddha can have a {tse ma} Uh, you can read a person’s mind before that.
[student: are you saying a regular person can do this?] Well lets say that it looks
to you…you know like…somebody might do an extraordinary thing for special
reason and you always have to keep in the back of your mind that this person
might be doing this for a special reason, you know, or, or something like that;
something that looks strange to you or…what I’m saying is…[student: what has
got to do [unclear]] that’s understanding logic because logic is knowing that
you don’t know unless it’s logical; unless there’s the three parts of the proof…
you know, he’s, he’s a bad person because I saw him to that, right?
What are the three parts of the [unclear] in the proof. He did that –true. If he
did that it’s a bad person – true. You know but did he do that for that reason or
some…you see you have to have logic…you have to analyze the three parts to
the idea. We didn’t get into logic…that’s whole another…we gonna study it
someday. I’m afraid to make people dropout. [Student: so were just saying, I
just say somebody do something, what I saw is normally done by bad people,
that person could be a bad person but..] That’s all right [student: but not
necessarily] but I don’t know for sure. [Student: I don’t know for sure] and I
don’t know his motivation was maybe he’s going to save somebody from hell
you know, I don’t know, could be a bodhisattva, you know I don’t know.
[Student: [unclear] what I saw was done by bad people usually doesn’t mean this
person is bad] Right. [Student: Michael why would a bodhisattva or a Buddha
choose something that is destructive like killing someone, hurting someone
instead of using some kinder way because kinder things perpetuate kinder
things] Normally, normally they would. They say that about the subject of
violence in, in…even as a protection they say pretend the person is your own
mother, pretend she went out of her mind temporary; pretend she picked up a
knife and went at you…you know, you wouldn’t try to kill her or break a leg or
you know, you would try to disarm her or talk to her or stop her somehow, you
would think of any other way than to hurt her. [Student: [unclear] with it that
there’s a Buddha killing that guy in the ship, why didn’t he tie him up? Why did
he have to kill him? He could’ve tied him up, he couldn’t kill anybody] It’s
explained in such a way that he had to make choice at the moment; he saw with
every kind of {tse ma} it’s only way to stop him at that moment. Somebody said
to His Holiness Dalai Lama in LA, if you’re standing next to the guy and he had a
button on the atomic bomb and he’s going to let it off, do you kill him? And
Dalai Lama let know [unclear] [laughter, laughs] something like that, okay.
[Student: is the word hell of fall] and it’s meant in the literal sense, you go down
to hell and you will see why, I’m going to tell you a little story. [Student: I still
don’t understand the direct connection between logic and how using logic or not
using logic will cause you to fall] What it means is don’t, don’t, don’t believe
assumptions; don’t think… we have studied it {yi chu} assumptions or
presumptions or explanations or approximations are not {tse ma} [student: so is
he saying…] he’s saying if you don’t have [tse ma} don’t, don’t judge other
people. [Student: don’t use logic to judge other people?] No, you can if it is
airtight logic – this is a bad person because I can read his mind. [Student: so the
inference here is… so the inference here is if you have accurate logic it’s okay to
judge?] Oh yeah. That’s what {Tibetan} if you have {tse ma} but, but do you
ever have {tse ma} that’s the point. Unless you’re like the Buddha, unless you
can read his mind. And that’s the past implications that the very highest teaching
of Buddhism and that’s…to follow that code will be very good from now ‘cos
there’s no reason not to; it’s logical to do that now. [Student: so are you saying
then if you could have airtight logic you should follow it to judge people but we
can’t have airtight logic so we should never judge people?] Normally that’s the
situation…unless you’re like a Buddha. [Student: you could judge [unclear] alos]
It doesn’t mean follow them if they’re evil; it doesn’t mean don’t resist them if
they’re evil. You’re required to if they’re evil but, but just realize that you don’t
know…you know you just, you just think to the best of your knowledge but
you must resist and, and as you get better and if you follow your vows more
carefully you must, you must resist. Okay.
Kiley, two levels of {tse ma} [student: oh dear] what are the two kinds of {tse
ma}? What two ways to perveive them. [Student: oh with your eye?] No.
[Student: when you see…when you ..] One is obvious, like the wall. [Student:
Yeah] that’s what? That’s direct. What’s the other way? [student: indirect]
Yeah indirect meaning..? [Student: by logical deduction.] Number two is totally
good, valid, cool, you know, use it. You need it. So number one – direct
perception, how many kinds are there? [Student: uh three] Well you could say
your eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and then your thoughts, your direct
thought. Those are all direct perceptions, okay. When they’re correct they are
direct {tse mas} Now what if you use deduction? That’s, that’s only mental. You
can’t use deduction with your eyes and your ears and your nose, okay. Your
eyes, your ears, your nose can never be indirect. They can never be deduction.
Yeah logic and you use logic constantly. Every moment of the day you’re using
logic. You’re not aware of it or you don’t think of it as logic but all day long you
make decisions based on logically fact. Even when you speak you’re using…
grammar is based on logic. Okay.
What two levels of reality do those two are they use for? [Student: the obvious]
Yeah, evident reality and? [student: and hidden reality] Hidden or deeply
hidden, goes into the second category. So all this reality is like, this color or the
feel on your armor smell of my dog, something like that. That’s evident, too
evident and then hidden, hidden things okay are like…real subtle
impermanence, emptiness, the workings of karma – those are hidden. Even
what’s behind my table is hidden from me right now. What’s inside my table
here is hidden from you; you don’t know what’s inside. You can’t see and you
can’t deduce it perfectly, okay. You don’t know what I got what I got under
here. So that’s…for you now that’s hidden. All right. Yeah? [Student: working
of karma as an example of deeply] Yeah, we’re including hidden and deeply
hidden together as something as that has to perceive as what? [Student: indirect]
Indirect – that’s right, logical. That’s the whole point of this class actually.
Spiritual thing you can’t establish with your direct sense. I mean the real
important spiritual principle you must establish with logic. You must think it
over carefully and then come to a point where you understand, oh yeah there
must be a past life; there must be a future life. [student: but what about likes for
example when you believe that good things will bring good things and you’re
adopt that kind of… thought] Depends if it’s done by belief or by logic. I think
at the end of the karma class, especially the last two classes you will receive an
explanation of karma, how it’s stored in your mind…that’s very uh acceptable, at
least it’s very exciting to me and I think then it will become a deduction for that
you should have…you should have good because you understand the process
by which seeds are stored in your mind every moment of your day and they
must come out later. So when you get that explanation I think you will be
following karma out of deduction and but right now it’s just out that you’re
attracted to Buddhism, you studied in your past life and you, you feel some…
you feel that it’s good or right you know, you don’t really have any proof. And
that’s a dangerous situation to be in. Someone could talk you out of it. [Student:
what happens if you adopt that kind of thing and you notice that in reality is true
if you do good then you…] If it’s based on your experience…I don’t think…they
say that establishing karma with your personal experience this life is very
difficult because you can have very sweet disaster happening from your old
karma. So it doesn’t look…. you know what I mean? You can be good for years
and then you have cancer, you know, people give up Buddhism because they
think it’s…that’s not true…that doesn’t prove anything, you know, you see what
I mean? But you can be evil your whole life and still get rich and you see that.
Well you see what appears to be that. [Student: [unclear] my question was the
deeply hidden object can even produced by…. produced they have to be taken
faith?] Yeah actually they, they are kind of…taken on faith is kind of deduction.
That’s a sub-category of deduction. [Student: right, can you make the distinction
in the class then?] Okay. It’s a sub-category of deduction. Okay. All right.
Oh number…give the text of Master Dignaga’s famous opening statement.
[Student: I bow down to the one who turn correct, who helps all beings, the
Teacher, the one who went to bliss and our Protector.] Yeah okay. It’s not just
the…I mean if you read that in the opening of some book from Wisdom or
Snow Lion you just skip it. Sounds pretty boring. [Laughter] They all… all
those Tibetan books start with that kind of thing. Now you know each word has
a…it’s a code word, you know, hopefully one day you’d be able to explain to
somebody. The whole process by which you become Buddha is imbued in those
words right? Very important. so you really should know it. If somebody says,
‘what you studying?’ And you say, ‘I studied pramana.’ “Well do you anything
by Dignaga?” “Well I know these two lines, you know” and that’s enough,
that’s, that’s the most famous thing he ever said. So that’s the only thing you
know about Dignaga, that’s a great one to know. All the Buddha…all the path to
Buddhahood is revealed in those lines if you know how to read them. [Student:
if we were recite this out of order it will be incorrect wouldn’t it?] We studied
that in the third class I think. There’s very good order to and there’s a reverse
order to it. There’s two ways to go and it’s not [unclear] struggled with. All
right.
Stillwell, you were here for this one. Give the definition of valid perception; by
the way it’s not anyone’s fault that… I mean, I don’t make fun anybody who do
not, could not come to all these classes. I won’t kick out anybody who, who…I
mean if you attend a reasonable number of classes and you passed the finals,
you pass. Just this time. Next time we’ll go back to normal because I’m not
working [unclear] okay. Can’t go to India for [unclear]. All right. Definition of
‘valid perception’ [Stillwell: fresh, unmistaken preception] Yeah, very simple –
fresh, unmistaken perception. [Stillwell: are you using valid perception as
different than pramana here?] No, it’s pramana. I, I vacillate between correct
perception and valid perception. I think correct perception gives that correct
perception to a normal person quick, more quickly. It’s actually valid perception
but we didn’t go into that distinction in this class. We will in another class when
we get to Prasangika. All right. Actually it should be valid but I don’t want to
get into it.
Wilma, describe the term…what does it mean to say {tse may kyebu} person of
valid person; basically what’s the basic meaning of that?          [Student: he’s a
Buddha] Yeah and? No. And the other thing is, the other thing you should add
is that He cannot lie; He’s incapable of lying. Okay. He, he only has valid
perception and He only speaks about what He really knows about and that’s a
Buddha. It’s sometimes used for other kinds of great you know, spiritual
masters who, only… I mean theoretically any Buddhist philosopher should only
speak about what he knows…whether he has {tse ma} or not. It doesn’t have to
be a direct {tse ma} but he should have some kind of {tse ma} about stuff that
he’s talking about or he shouldn’t talk about it or he shouldn’t say I know. All
right.
Amy, you did really good in this course, one of the best pupil, in this particular
course, must have been a logician. I see if I can give you a question that you get
wrong [student: you will] What are the three main methods for normal person
to determine a Buddha is totally correct about the deep teaching He gave? Three
methods to see that the Buddha is correct about ultimate truth. We had another
question that is similar later. What was that? [student: doesn’t contradict…
reality] what you know to be true directly …your directly perception. If the
Buddha comes up and say this wall is red then you say, “no, not true. I can see
it’s not red.” [Student: unless someone become color blind though] and I’m not
crazy. Yeah number two. [Student: know that He’s not inconsistent…a) it’s not
into subconscious [unclear] selfconscious] Yeah internally subconscious that’s
number three actually. Number two is what? Another one was…[student: isn’t
number two if it shocks you….] No, that’s a different one, different set of three;
two sets of three. The other one is coming. [Student: oh, sorry. I don’t know.]
Easy, you said, “direct perception” then [unclear] [student: direct and indirect]
Good – that’s all. Doesn’t offend your…doesn’t contradict what you know to be
true directly. Doesn’t contradict what you know to be true indirectly or by your
own logic. You know if I say if I have an elephant back there, I have a real life
size elephant behind here you know, that, that contradicts or offends your, your
deductive logic because if there were an elephant here it should not fit into this
little box. So it’s not true. You can’t confirm what I said. And the third one is,
that’s probably most important, should be in term consistent. What He said at
one point doesn’t contradict what He said later. And there’s suppose to be this
point and you’ll appreciate it someday where every single statement in Buddhist
scripture is consistent…totally consistent with every other statement in Buddhist
literature and you’ll reach a point someday when you appreciate it, you know.
Right now I’m sure there’s some nagging ones that you think are contradictions.
And that’s okay. It proves you’re thinking about it. But I think, as your study
gets deeper you will come to a point where you’re are comfortable with every
single statement in Buddhist scripture. Okay.
Robyn, three ground rules for interpreting the Buddha. Like how do we know
when the Buddha is speaking figuratively and not literally? [Student: well if what
he says appears to contradict [unclear]] that’s one of the tests – it offends your
knowledge what you know to be true. That’s actually number two [student: the
first one is by [unclear] the attention behind] Yeah I mean what was He really
trying to say when He said {suk to mo…} what he said “form is emptiness. The
color is emptiness and emptiness is color” What did he really mean? Oh color
has emptiness and emptiness is the quality of color. He didn’t mean that color is
emptiness. If color were emptiness you and I would be aryas, you know, right
now. We could see it directly. So that’s… yeah there must be something…He
must be trying to say something. What was His true intention. That’s the first
one. Number two is – it offends your…what you know. And number three
was? [Student: [unclear]] Number one is, is what was He really trying to say
and number three is why, why did He choose to do it this way. In another…in
one way is for shock value you know, He always states something, exaggerates
something. He says “kill your father and kill your mother” You will never
forget that . If I say, you know well please try to have renunciation. You forget
that by that time you take your break. If I say kill your father and kill your
mother, you, you’ll always remember that I said that.            Hopefully you’ll
remember that it means renunciation, doesn’t mean to kill your father and
mother. But, but there’s a reason, you know, when the audience is going to
sleep you…you exaggerate, you say something you know, outrageous to get
just to get people to pay attention and to remember what you said. Those are
the reasons why He might say that. He said all of the school, the four…the three
and half schools that are not the highest Madhyamika School are all figurative.
There are major points in them which are not true. There are many points which
are true and which are shared by the highest Madhyamika. But all their other
ideas about emptiness are wrong and He said them for a reason. In that case it
was that people couldn’t handle the higher explanation. He spoke it on a level
that people could handle. That’s another common reason for Him to use
figurative descriptions ‘cos people just were’nt ready to hear the higher one.
They, they would freak out and I, I have seen it. I’ve seen people have that
reaction. [student: Michael, is there a connection between the breakdown of
interpretive and…] That’s exactly that. that come from that. The reason I
brought this up in this class because you will have a whole course devoted to
that subject which is one of Tsongkapa’s favorite subjects, he wrote the definitive
work for it. The reason why I brought it up in this class because I want it to…we
have just said that He never contradicts Himself and I knew people would say,
“well it sounds this contradicts that” So I thought I’d better teach you the
ground rule for when He wants to say that. And that’s why I stuck it in here.
It’s not part of Dharmakirti’s argument. [student: but how do you know that
[unclear] covering all the ground. This way you cannot say He was contradicting
Himself. Now if He says something that is something contradictive because He
was trying to do something else. But if He says His always trying… because He
means that. So no matter what He says He’s always trying…] He’s always
covered, right? [student: Yeah He’s always covered. [unclear]] I think you
study…you study them deeply and then you’ll appreciate the need for them and
how they can help people at different levels. You, you will get to where…there
might come a day when you’re at work and somebody ask question about
Buddhism and it dawns on you that if you tell them the correct answer it will
never help them. So you…you decorate it a little. You know, you change it a
little bit and then you just became a figurative speaker of Buddhism you know.
There was a compelling need. If you had told him the truth, he, he would have
said, “well this is crazy. Buddhism is silly” you know. [Student: couldn’t the
Middle Schools and lower schools say, “oh He only taught the higher school
because people of that intelligence] Oh they do. Oh they do. Yeah, sure they
do. [Student: So] That’s all. But you…you study the higher school and then you
can corroborate it yourself. You can come to a realization that it’s correct by
studying it carefully. That’s the whole purpose to have classes, you know, that
you could actually establish emptiness intellectually and then you can go and
meditate and to see it, you know. And that’s the whole purpose to have a class.
If, if the subject is taught correctly and if the speaker of the subject is correct
then, then you should be able to just come to class to learn it and go home and
know it, you know. That’s the idea of the class. Okay.
What does the person have to know in order to be all knowing. Omniscient,
according to Buddhism. [student: something about pure side and [unclear]]
Yeah, what you should take up and what you should give up. The things that
you should take up and the things that you should give up. And the Four Noble
Truths break down quite nicely between the two. How do they break down?
[student: the suffering and the cause of suffering is what you should give up.
And cessation of suffering and the path – should take up] Yeah, okay. So what’s
he’s saying is…Dharmakirti has that beautiful verse. He says, “it’s not enough to
create some big special ship that goes down the bottom of the ocean and takes
pictures of all those little creatures there and that makes you omniscient. Or you
get a telescope and you see all the stars out there and you name them all and
you know where they will be going and who is going to hit who in thirty years,
you know, that’s no omniscient. That doesn’t qualify” It is something…. it’s to
know what is suffering and to know how to get out of suffering. You know
perfectly. This is something useful. This is something meaningful. You know if
you’re going to give me an omniscient person give me this kind of omniscient
person. I don’t care about a person who has seen every physical object there is.
That doesn’t…that doesn’t for me makes him omniscient. That doesn’t help
anybody. [Stillwell: that would also be a subset of the other] Actually it would
be. Actually it would be. But [unclear] [student: should give up suffering you
said?] If you break, if you break out things that you should take up and things
you should. …what John is saying is of course the Buddha would know all those
things by the way. I mean, if you want to know all those bacteria in the bottom
of the ocean He could tell you but, but He wouldn’t tell you that point. He
would start telling you why they’re going to die in thirty seconds and why you
might be born with them and you know…. Frame it that way. Two of the Four
Noble Truths are to be abandoned, are to be given up and that’s suffering and its
causes. Meaning suffering and bad thought. And then two of them are to be
taken up, is the path and the cessation. The ending, permanent of all your bad
karma. [student: okay. thank you.]
Mr Tom Kiley, what evidence do we have that the Buddha is unerring? I
changed the homework questions slightly. Quiz question said, you know how
do we know…. why is the Buddha unerring or something like that. And I think I
prefer to frame it this way – what evidence does a normal have that the Buddha
might be unerring? [Tom: because of the purpose of description that Buddha
gives in the first aryan truth of suffering] Yeah. So I mean you can confirm that
all your suffering comes from your bad thoughts. Right away, you can confirm
that. You can’t confirm the subtle workings of karma. You cannot confirm that
there is a cessation, that there’s a nirvana. That you can confirm that acting a
certain way morally and with meditation and with wisdom that you might be
able to reach that state. That takes time to confirm all those things but you can
absolute quickly confirm that the Buddha of all the beings that ever live on this
planet gave a excellent description of suffering and a very subtle description, you
know all three kinds of suffering – suffering of suffering, you know, obvious
suffering which all religious teachers have basically addressed; suffering of
change which many religious teachers have addressed, you know that anything
good turns sour and then suffering of…the pervasive suffering – suffering that
just by being alive, you suffer and you must suffer. He stated that very clearly
and He explained why. And that’s…. just that description of suffering, especially
the third one, it’s quite attractive, I think, to any thinking person. Any person
who’s been alive for a while has to know these few things, you know. [Student:]
excuse me? [Student: [unclear]] It is the…it’s actually some times described as
the fact of your aging. It’s the fact that…the five parts to you…your five heaps
are inherently bound to collapse and to deteriorate and that’s basically {Tibetan
kyab pa kyi (cheky unclear)dugnyel}that’s pervasive suffering; that’s the
meaning of pervasive suffering
[Student:[unclear]] Yeah, but, but no, not really. Not a thing exactly, it’s a part
that’s related to you, you know.
Laura, oh wait we got Mrs Kiley. Oh I’m going to do the next one. The next one
I messed up when I explained it to you – I gave two different explanations.
What’s the difference between normal compassion, great compassion and holy
great compassion? Correcting the homework was very much a suffering for me
[laughter] I realize that… I realize that I didn’t explain it very well and I gave
two different schools view point which are totally different. It’s actually three
mixed up there. So I reread it and re studied it and I remember debating but I
don’t remember what we did. So this is the answer I want on the quiz – this is
the official line, okay. Normal compassion, regular old compassion means
wishing that people close to you, your friends and relatives should not suffer.
Wanting to see your friends and relatives get out of suffering, people like you
like. Great compassion, mahakaruna {nyingje chenpo} that is the desire that all
beings … I stop wait – that comes in two flavor okay; and you have to write two
different flavor okay. Two different kinds of great compassion. The kind which
is …had also by Hinayana practitioners, okay, that’s the first kind is call the
{Tibetan}. {Tibetan} means wishes that all beings could be free of suffering.
That’s the first kind of great of compassion; it wishes that all beings could be free
of suffering. And Hinayana practitioners can have it. And now another sub
category of great compassion is call the great compassion which wishes to
protect those beings yourself. It’s like taking responsibility to actually go and
save those beings from that suffering. That’s the {kyap de} and that’s only by…
Mahayana track people; technically they’re not even bodhisattvas yet because it’s
equivalent to {hlaksam namdak} step number six in the seven steps, for you
people who were in other course. It’s just before you achieve bodhicitta. You
get the real wish to take on that personal responsibility to, to do it yourself even
if no one helps you; even if people obstructs you; even if people don’t care what
you do; even people talk bad about what you do; even though there’re other
Buddhas and bodhisattvas to do it you say, it’s my job to do and I’m going to do
it. And that’s the last step just before you achieve bodhicitta. [John: it’s going to
be a fine point but you know, so this is the motivation, you have this motivation,
you get this motivation I’m personally free everyone from suffering but lets say
you never on it, what’s [unclear]?] That’s the distinction between {dom sem}
and {je sem} we had three kinds of three bodhicitta [John: sugar care] One is
like…no…one is…they’re both real bodhicitta, but one is swearing to do it and
the other is actually going out and doing it. There’s that distinction. [student:
aspiring and engaging] Yeah, it’s aspiring and what’s the other one? [Student:
engaging] Engaging, yeah it’s like that. [John: wouldn’t aspiring be the same as
the Hinayana?] No, because it already assumes the other [unclear]
Oh, holy great compassion okay which is called {tuk je chenpo} in Tibetan instead
of {nyingje chenpo} they use the honorific word for mind instead of the normal
word for mind – heart. So it means great honorific heart, rather than great
heart. {tuk je chenpo} holy great compassion is distinguished from regular old
great compassion by what, what do you think? [Student:] Yeah only Buddhas
have it because only Buddhas have the ability to do what the last one we talked
about wanted which is what? [Student: help them….] Help… wanted to be the
one to save them. Okay. So only the Buddha has the ability to save them.
[Student: What do you define here?] [John: you’re saying the action…] it’s the
kind of great compassion only possess by a Buddha i.e. only by a person who
actually has the ability to save people. So that’s the key thing in holy great
compassion. The being who has in his mind stream also has the ability to
actually save people and a Buddha has that. [Student: seems we have a gap here
because the previous one [unclear] great compassion lead us up to but not
including becoming a bodhisattva right?]          Well they describe it as being
Mahayana okay. It’s technically the step just before bodhisattva but it would
include bodhicitta who are not Buddha, you know.               [Student: where is
bodhisattvas in there?] Ah, obvious in number two of the great compassion.
They want to save…they want to be the one to save people but technically
speaking you could have the wish to save people and not quite yet have reach
bodhicitta. Technically speaking there’re such people, don’t worry about it. It’s a
Mahayana motivation. [Student: there are those other than Buddhas?] Right.
Yeah you could say that. [Students] [Student: you can say His Holiness has
[unclear] great compassion] You can say those, those other than Buddha who,
who are Mahayana. Only Mahayana people have that. [Student: you just said…]
the second kind of great compassion….[student: but I’m talking about the third]
that one only Buddha has. [Student:] because they do have the ability to actually
carry it out. [Student: but they both have [unclear] have it in their mind stream]
Yeah sure. Buddhas have both and bodhisattvas have both kinds of great
compassion [unclear] they want to see people out of suffering and they also be
the one to get them out. [Student: the great compassion that…it’s only which
where there’s no engagement there] You could have the engagement but you
don’t have to the engagement.           [Student: and you don’t have the ability to
[unclear]] You’re engaging but you don’t have the perfect ability to [unclear].
[John S: you’re trying but you’re messing the occasion]            Well there’s a big
debate about it, I mean, some people say you’re no good to anybody until you a
Buddha[unclear] [laughter] No there’re arguments like that in the scripture that
until you can read a person’s psyche, you know, his spiritual psyche perfectly,
you don’t really know what to do to help them. There’s a big argument like
that. [Student: [unclear]] Yeah. Yeah. [Student: so then I guess then finally the
holy great compassion which is only had by a Buddha I mean….a Buddha would
also be acting that out all the time as well, right….] By His nature. [Student: you
can’t be a Buddha and sit passively with this ability ] No. there’s a famous verse
by Tsongkapa it’s…..{Tibetan} I can’t remember…we recite it every Sunday {ma
tak tong…} which means you know…{Tibetan} which means you, you all
Buddha, you don’t have…two mental functions you’re incapable of – not
knowing the trouble we’re in and not caring about it and the reason I haven’t
been able to make contact with you directly is by own bad deed. There’s a line
like that in Tsongkapa description of the Buddha, you know.             Which means
yeah, He’s always aware of your situation; he’s always waiting around, He or
She. He’s always, you know, right around you, waiting to help you but you
keep messing up and creating this karma that prevents them from helping you.
[Student: while at the same time doing that and many, many other things]
there’s a debate about that in the Abhidharma. That’s a whole subject. Okay
next, basically yeah, on any…millions of planets one Buddha can act, yeah and
does act.
Cold? [Student: it is cold] Too cold. Okay. I’ll put it on a lower setting. Okay.
[Student]
Ariel, you there? Okay. Three reasons why the Shravakas believe the mind dies
and the body dies. [student: mind is part of the nature of the body and mind is
the same quality of the body [unclear]] and then the mind is the result of the
body and they should be in this order okay. the order is – that the mind is a
quality of the body, the quality of the body and secondly the mind is part of the
nature of the body and we’re going to talk about the difference between them;
and then thirdly the mind is the result of the body. [Student: [oh the mind’s the
result of the body] I think this is the order. Uh I’ll explain it different and I do it
this way which is nice I think. Don’t forget the example for the three. Mind
being the quality of the body was…the example was what? [Student: [of the
nuture] The quality was different. Yeah like the ability to intoxicate and alcohol.
What do you call it like the intoxicablity….the potential to intoxicate in alcohol
and alcohol itself, the, the ability to make you drunk is the quality of alcohol; it’s
like an innate quality of alcohol – it has it. If doesn’t it doesn’t qualify as alcohol.
It has the quality to make you drunk. That’s a quality. The second example
was…part of the nature…the example was a drawing on a wall. Drawing on a
wall, design on a wall is part of the nature of the wall. And I have to study it
more. I did not study it perfectly. The Tibetan words there are not different.
{Rang zhin} and { chun nyi} or something like that. They’re not, they’re not
different words but I take it to be a dependence relationship –the way that a
painting depends on a wall, okay, the way a drawing depends on the wall, okay,
that it’s on and I’ll explain why. And then thirdly the mind is…is the result of the
body and that’s like what? [Student: lamp] Yeah the light and the lamp that it
comes from. I mean you can’t see but when you turn the light on it takes a few,
you know, milliseconds for the light to get from the lamp to your eye. You have
to assume that you can’t see it right? So the light is really result of the light…
lamp. By the time the light reaches your eye that moment of the lamp is already
passed right. And that’s the nature of cause and effect. Now I ask you and I’ll
start with Amy because she’s looking up. Don’t look down all the time this is
better [laughter] Which of those three do, do we believe as westerners. I mean
which one were you brought up to believe. [Student: all] What’s that? [Student:
all three] I think all three but how so? Like discuss maybe how do you think
mind [student: oh the result if you get kicked if your brain is damaged, you die]
Yeah I would say…. I would say, I would say if you ask most Americans…we
have a Friday night class we have… Friday night classes’ people just wander in,
they don’t know any Buddhism and you say, “where did the mind come from?”
And they, they sit and said, “well you know your cells, your mummy and daddy
stuck it together and that cell split and then until there’s a nerve…until there’s a
line of nerve cells and then an impulse passes down the line of nerve cells and
there’s your first thought.” And that I think what most of us grew…you know
that’s what they told us as we grew up. They told us that’s how it works. That’s
how mind starts and in that case mind is what? Is the result of the body? I mean
the body gets pretty well developed and the mind can come. That’s what a lot of
westerners…that’s pretty much what I was told when I was a kid anyway.
[Student: body can get undeveloped and mind will stop] Apparently. Okay, by
the way, no proof, absolutely no proof of that [student: now what I’m saying the
way was a mistake] Yeah, yeah.            And then what about the nature one?
[Student: what one?] Lets say the dependence one like the painting on the wall.
By the way dependence is always simultaneous. This, this is supporting the
other at the moment. They both exist at the same moment. The body is holding
up the mind. When the body collapses the mind oops out. That’s, that’s pretty
much what our vision of death is, I think. I think we…you know I believe it
shifts over to painting on the wall when it gets to death because we believe that,
we believe the mind is resting on the body or on the brain cell or whatever and
when the brain cells you know, pulled out like the table cloth then the thing falls
down. And that’s…that will be number two and number one I think describes
how what we believe about life and living cells. Living, living tissue. We believe
that life is an innate quality of, of living cell. You know, we believe that once
there’s a cell, you know, a living tissue there then those cells have life and that’s
the quality of those cells, you know, that’s the very nature of the cell. Cell has
life. It a cell of life, you know, I, I think that would cover the alcohol and
the….you know that seems to be a very quality of living cell is life. [Student: is
this the definition of the lower sentient is this that hasn’t been defined that as
sentient ?] Yeah. [Student: so we’re defining both Buddhism and…?] Ah…it’s a
long story. But what I’m saying is that…. what I’m trying to say is that as I think
about and it’s not obviously not Dharmakirti is that we believe all three really.
You know we believe everything except the right one which is what by the way?
What is the relationship between body and mind? [student: mind cause the
body] The mind cause the body [laughs] the mind cause and the body. The
body and the mind continue and are caused by the mind, your past karma. We
had that in the last two classes, right? Dharmakirti is like pulling a complete….he
says not only it’s not the three ways that you described Shrarvakas, the truth
has the opposite. The reason you have a body right now, the reason you didn’t
die yet and the reason your mind is still flowing on it is because of, of former
instances of mind. [student: you didn’t take about what if the mind will be the
brain, you know, I don’t think I remember before thinking about it] That if you
believe the mind is the brain you believe one of those two Shravakas arguments
– either it’s the mind…the brain is supporting the mind…[student: …it is proving
that’s not it] Difficult. The main key we’ll get to. What’s the question now? In
fact the next question. Whose turn is it? Laura, explain the meaning of material
cause – {nyer-len gyi gyu} [student: it’s the stuff that turns into the result and the
example is the acorn turning into thes oak tree; it’s the prime cause as oppose to
secondary factor] Yeah so material means I, I hate to keep using the word stuff
and obviously you can’t you use the word ‘stuff’ and scholarly complications
[unclear] it happens use a nicer description of what’s happens It’s the stuff that
turns into your mind and, and, and you know I leave you…I mean if all you
remember from this whole class is that according to Dharmakirti and according
to all Buddhas, you cannot make a mind from a rock, impossible. Different
stuff, cannot happen, never will, never did. Just [student: why don’t it just
remain] I know what remain means [laughter, laughs] People are totally kind in
the war[laughs] It really means relative right? [Student: [unclear] if you really
get back to what it really means originally means, so it’s the same stuff] Okay,
yeah. It’s, it’s the material [unclear] yeah that’s great, I love that, I mean
shouldn’t the Shravaka come to say, “Dharmakirti come on, don’t be a fool”,
you know, you have been arguing that it has to be the same stuff and now
you’re saying that mental stuff causes physical stuff you know. You’re just
making the same argument we did. [Student: so, so how…] We have to talk
about it. When we talk about the Mind Only School, basically, it, it’s not creating
physical stuff. I mean in the highest levels of Buddhist philosophy, it’s, it’s a
perception creating the [unclear] creating the physical stuff right?          It’s a
perception, previous perception creating perception of physical matter, not
physical matter. [Student: where is the physical matter?] You are your
perception of you. Your body is your perception of your body, that’s and that’s
Dharmakirti’s only way out. [Student: [unclear]] It doesn’t uh….oh, oh, that
level then {nyen-len gyi gyu} the body is the element. Yeah. It’s chemical. Body
[unclear] from chemical, what do you want? {nyen-len gyi gyu} of the body is
the element according to Dharmakirti too. He only said what? Mind was special,
unique bases. If you read your notes, if you read the reading he says basis…he’s
very careful to use a different word. He says “unique basis” because they have
arguing that the body is a unique basis of the mind; the body has a intimate
relationship with the mind such that the mind comes from it. And Dharmakirti
says no. And they’re more stressing what goes on during life, you know, not
where it came from so much. But what keeps it going. All right.
Helen, why can’t the cause of your mind at birth be living physical matter?
[student: because the mind [unclear] can’t be living physical matter because
before five senses were the sense powers [unclear] and what would happen lack
of one or more [unclear] one not the other] Yeah I lost a few students from this
question from the other class [laughs] okay. Difficult question. You must split
the answer okay. You must split the answer Kedrup Je splits the answer.
Dharmakirit splits the answer. Why, why doesn’t your flesh, why doesn’t your
living tissue of your body cause your mind? Why is that not the case that the
living tissue in your body causes your mind? And the first thing you have to
understand is that all the living tissue in your body has to fit into one of those
five sense powers. You don’t think of that way but think about it for a minute
and there’s no part of the living tissue of your body which is not either your
visual organ or your tactile organ or your taste organ or your feeling organ or
your smelling organ. All the living tissue of your body has one of those
functions [student:] [unclear] I mean it covers…you have to imagine yourself as
these patches of tactile…of these patches of senses of self, that’s what you are;
that’s what your living tissue is. There’s an argument in Buddhist scripture
therefore…what about the end of your finger nails and the end of your hair, not
the root. You pull out your hair and it hurts. And they decide that it’s not part
of living tissue of your body. But when you get down to quick nail it is. Yes
Madam? You’re going to tell me about some….[student: I don’t know about
where seperate possible causes [unclear] we’re on number uh…] by the way
the arguments…if you want a quick exit then we should really go on. They, they
do overlap. We’re not meant to be…[student: your argument it’s not the same
stuff] that’s the main idea [student: [unclear] give some example of that?]
[Student: but why are we waste…you know what I’m saying?] Because it’s
another…that argument covers everything. All of those arguments are sub
arguments of the big argument, which is just different stuff, that’s true. [Student:
but then by definition…] this is just making it more interesting [student: …
material cause, the whole thing is…] true, true, the moot point. [student: yeah]
anyway remember where that reasoning came, it was reasoning by what?
Kedrup Je’s reasoning is what? Elimination. He has to cover all possibilities. He
has to go down the tree of possibilities until there’s only one way left to go; so
don’t forget why it’s coming that way.
Okay, so why can’t it be… you have to break the question into two, the answer
into two. The first part of the answer is if these were all five senses, if it took all
five senses for mind to occur, if the mind was a result of all five senses collected
together then anyone who lost one of those senses will lose their mind, I mean,
we got our minds, which is not the case. [Student: is that the case where if you
lose one sense you lose twenty percent of your mind, theoretically?]             Yeah
[student: okay] and then on the other hand if any one of the sense powers, lets
take the most powerful one, lets take the main one – visual sense power, your
eye sense power. If it alone could create mind, then mind should have some
kind of similarity to that sense power and the mind itself should be able to see
with the same vividness that the eye faculty does and it can’t. [student: you
mean to imagine as…] Yeah when you imagine that Buddha, you know, you
look at the thangka and when you close your eyes and imagine it, it should be
every detail and every color, everything as vivid when you’re starring at it with
your eyeball and that’s not the case. [Student: not the case right now but it can
be developed, no?] Probably, eventually it could be. [Student: what I mean is
that with all the practices] Only Buddha, Buddha can do it. [Student: you just
jumped from the moment of breath to mind. We’re talking about two different
things] Uh, this is an argument for…you can say mind as birth. It’s a question is
mind at birth. [Student: so if it’s just as vivid does the Buddha even have that
distinction as looking as something and seeing [unclear]] That’s a very nice
question and [unclear] fact is that His senses are indistinguishable from his mind
sense. In other words with his little finger, the Buddha sees the universe. That’s
something inconceivable. [Student: I mean if your mind is capable why would
you even need the sense powers?] I [unclear]. The Buddha isn’t actually…well;
I’m not going to get into it. That’s eighth chapter [unclear].
We got to go quick. Why can’t the cause of the mind at birth be outside physical
matter? I’m going to answer it okay. Split the question again. And use the same
reasoning okay? Use the same reasoning, if it’s all four elements together, in
other words, if every kind of chemical has to be there, then any time one of the
chemicals is missing then the mind shouldn’t occur. And on the other hand, if
any one of those chemicals could create the mind, then the mind should have
some similarity to that chemical. It should stink if it were sulphur you know, it
should ‘irony’ if it’s iron. [Student: isn’t true that if you have no water on earth
you wouldn’t really have a body] He’s talking in a, in a substantial amount. I
agree. According to Buddhist theory all atoms have to have all [unclear].
[Student: I don’t understand] Remember he’s talking to non Buddhist. It’s hard.
It means basically this. Basically it’s very interesting. If, if all those chemicals
together are what creates mind then, then to put it in normal English, you should
be able to put those chemicals in a teaspoon and, and a mind should occur and
those chemicals should disappear as a result. That’s the meaning of a {nyen-len
gyi gyu}. And the opposite is so ridiculous that Buddhist have trouble thinking
of it. You know, to believe anything else it’s hard for Buddhists…. you know I
mean a person is a good Buddhist scholar, why, why would you ever think that
you could put certain chemicals together in a spoon and then something totally
foreign, as foreign as mind could come out and those elements go away,
chemicals go away. Well, who, who ever think that out, you know, why would
anybody think that? And then…oh he say, well you don’t have to have all those
chemicals every one of those chemicals, any one of those chemicals. Then he
says, well every time those chemicals got together by accident you know, some
truck comes along, falls over, over on the New Jersey turn pike and those
chemicals mix together and they say all these minds should pop up you know, it
was a big truck, truck or trailer. And then…and then you say, well it only
takes…. what do you think it only takes one of those chemicals you know, and
his acid enough you know does the body somehow resemble acid, I mean the
mind. Come on. [student: and, and so why does the material cause has to have
[unclear] that if it disappears?] It’s the nature of all causes that’s true. All causes
disappear as the result comes out. [Student: as the?] When the result comes out
the cause must be thereby destroyed. That’s just something we didn’t think
about much. Even the soil around a tree. The part of the soil which nourished
the tree has disappeared by the time the tree has [unclear] so that’s why the soil
gets lousy in India, after you plant corn and the things just threw up. It’s
happening to the Tibetans. Yeah? [Student: [unclear]] It’s a long, long story.
[Student: projecting cause?]                There’s five…there’s many…there’s
Abhidharmakosha second chapter, we won’t study it here. Many causes…kinds
of causes and kinds of [unclear]. [Student: … we were talking about other than,
than material causes, it seems to me, aren’t are talking about something else
when we talk about…] No, he’s talking… he’s talking the main, the main cause,
the stuff that turn into mind. Okay, I shouldn’t tell you [student: … said
something about suggesting] that comes much later, that comes later. And that’s
when Buddhas are giving their own argument. That’s, that’s has to do with the
desire that triggers the karma. [student: right, prove number] Different thing.
Yeah, we’re involved with that. We’re way back with truth number three. We’re
talking about outside physical matter. [Student: okay, I’m sorry I’m looking
ahead, I thought you were …] You’re too far ahead. All right. This is a easy
question, if cause of mind. if the stuff turns into mind happens to mind why does
it have to be your mind and not someone’s mind. And Dharmakirti said, “well
then you know, children of piano geniuses will be able to play piano perfectly
from the first moment.” And you know that’s so simple that lot of people
project it too on their homework and don’t, don’t take it silly. It’s, it’s true. But it
maybe take some time to cook it. All right. Should be similar [student: what is
the question again, if mind’s…] If you get down this Kedrup Je’s charter of
elimination until finally he figured out that the most convenient thing to believe
is that mind created mind; mind flipped over into mind; mind of some moment
before turn into your mind at the first moment of your life [student: right then?]
if you reach that point then just to nail things down he says well would it be your
mind or someone else’s mind? You know could your mommy and daddy’s
mind flop over into your mind at the first moment of your life and some
westerners believe that. That’s part of our belief system. [student: but if you put
it that way wouldn’t the mind that was the cause disappear when it flops over?]
It did. You died. [student: she means wouldn’t your parents drop dead instead
of…] The mind of the mind of the moment of giving birth is gone by the time
the child is born. We’re talking moments by moments. [student: ] turns into…
and I’m talking about very specific minds.             The first moment of your
consciousness in this life. What came…what was the first…what was behind that
black door the moment before? If we can establish one millisecond prior to that
point of mind, our problems are over. What happens the millisecond before
that? What turn into that mind? I mean ask yourself. That’s the whole point of
this class, I mean, go home and worry about it, you know. First moment of
consciousness in your mommy’s womb, very first instant of your mind, what
came in the instant before? Okay.
[Student:[unclear]] it’s called [unclear] definition of a direct cause. That thing
which {Tibetan} means like flipping a pancake over. [Student: but…so why is the
[unclear]] This is…comes fourth class, we’ll talk about it, next class. By the way,
this class does flow into next class and that’s why that question is why. That’s
why we’re doing [unclear]. That’s the next natural thing you should be thinking
about. If that last moment stops and the present moment starts then how come
there’s any continuity. [Student: can you say as far as the parents mind flopping
over to the child’s mind can you use similar to the acorn and tree where the
mature mind of the parents has something like a seed which then comes to
fruition as it grows in a child and just like a tree gives a seed to the ground, the
parents mind gives a seed of itself then the infant which grows into…]
Dharmakirti’s argument is that you don’t get…Jesus said the same thing…you
don’t get lemon tree from apple seed, impossible. [Student: yes so parent’s mind
go into baby’s mind] there’s this wonderful correlation between you know, this
expectation that you can have, you think…think how chaotic it will be if you
have to grain store and buy seeds and now know what would come out of them.
that would be…Dharmakirti says according to you guys this is the way life
would be. You say something totally dissimilar can give a result – you say that
the body can produce a mind or you say that a parent’s mind can produce a
child’s produce mind. You’re postulating a thing….you, you therefore believe
that result can come from things which don’t resemble them, so boy, you better
not plant those corn seeds you never know what you might get. You might get
watermelon popping out, you could get horses jumping out…[student: if you
saying, if you’re saying the child’s mind is [students] ] [cut] that thing has to
have come before. [student: cause by definition is something that comes from
before] But you westerners are talking about…oh no, there’re kinds of causes
that don’t come before according to Abhidharmakosha. [Student: well then you
got to think of a different word than ‘cause’ because in English by definition
cause comes before] yeah it’s difficult. [student: what kind of things do not
come before?] they postulate two – mind and mental function. Basically…what
do you call it? Symbiotic cause – where one thing is helping one thing and the
other thing is helping thing at the same time. [Student:[unclear]] Yes it is. I
mean the other schools….[student: it’s not a causal relationship] well if you took
it away then the one would go away – and that’s cause. Okay. The higher
school don’t accept that. [Student: so it has to come from something similar and
it has to come…] something previous. [Student: not from the body] Not from
what? [Student: not from the body alone] He didn’t say that but he just… that’s
the underlying principle. That’s the main idea. You know it had to come before,
it had to come before the first moment of instant of consciousness in your
mommy’s tummy. Something came before and that something had to be
similar there go you have a past life; ergo you have many future lives; you
better be good, it’s a long trip. You might as well clean it up now. All right.
Explain why the mind, a normal person at the moment of death crosses over
into another state of mind [unclear] what makes the cause of…[student: desire]
Desire, okay. That’s the argument. That’s all he says. [student: say that again.
Because he has desire is the reason why?] and it took us three hours to explain
what that means. And you people who cannot come to this class… you know
the key; by the way the key is beautiful. The key is not just plain old desire, has
to be mixed up with grasping to self-existent and that’s a long story. We…we
studied the three types desire that can trigger kind your karma. We studied the
two types of karma and get through them; we studied how it [unclear] when
you lie and we studied how to stop which is of paramount interest for all of us.
All right, number twenty – uh ooh… [Laughs]                 three parts of Master
Dharmakirti’s main proof of future life. That’s actually the same as the last one.
Just a statement. [Leigh: oh consider the mind of a normal person at the
moment of death, it will cross the line into a future mind because it possesses
desire] that’s all, that’s his main proof of future life. Okay I’m almost finish and
we’re going to take a short break and come back and I’ll tell you five minutes
promise – I’ll let you out by nine if you come back in five minutes.
All right, name and describe three types of the eighth link in the chain of
dependence from the Wheel of Life. This is the … what the eighth link…link
number eight in that Wheel of Life – the guy…what was it? The monkey
grabbing a fruit, [student: that’s nine] that’s ninth, I’m sorry. The guy pigging
out. All right. [Student: [unclear]] Miss Wilma. [Student: what was the question
again?] What are the…three kinds, that eighth link is called craving, what are
the three kinds of craving? [Student: oh, desire craving; fear craving and craving
for existence. And the first one is wanting to…desiring only not to lose
attractive things; wanting to lose unattractive things and desiring for existence
itself, here or at that moment of the self] Yeah. By the way he uses the word
that I was struggling to translate that day. {do pa). (do pa) means an
unreasonable fear; an unfounded fear; a false fear. And I was trying [unclear] in
English with that’s translation. It doesn’t mean the fear that you are finishing it
means the false fear that you’re finished, you see what I mean? There’s a word
{do pa} Tibetan means like paranoia. {do pa} is what you do at your office when
you think people are talking about you and that’s {do pa}. {do pa} is why you
don’t want to step under a ladder, you know, a superstition. It’s all tied to a
stupid fear; an untrue fear. [Student: unfounded]          Unfounded fear. You’re
not…[student: [unclear] to existence in that sense that if you…if it were
unfounded fear then you shouldn’t be afraid because [unclear] go on and…]
Yeah you see the {do pa} means….he grasp to existence meaning the five parts
to himself because he thinks he’s going to stop. Thinks…you know in English
‘thinks’ means ‘but he’s not really, we know right?’ But you know that’s why
people scream when the airplane starts to go down. People…we all do, we all
will you know, you think you’re going to end. [Student: is something like well
founded fear of ninety nine or a hundred people going directly to hell] we’re
getting there but what did we say about that first two kinds of desire which I’m
very adamant about. Is it wrong, is it the eighth link of dependant origination,
you know, is it such a nasty, horrible, trigger in this series of rebirth to, to not
want something that’s undesirable and to want something that’s desirable?
[Student: it has to do with your attachment to that thing] Not so much
attachment but it has to do with what? Your perception of what…of the self
existence of the thing and that’s….it’s fine to want paradise, you, you…[student:
you better] I hope so that’s why you’re suppose to be here, you know. The
result of this class is eventually you know, you will get a very nice paradise, you
know, no suffering and your desire to escape this lousy life before you get older
and everything you’ve worked for falls apart and, and you die. I mean that’s the
whole point of this class. But you must perceive yourself in the right way and
that’s…the person that you don’t want to suffer and the person that you want to
reach paradise, you better be perceiving him or her the right way because if
you’re not you’ll do the wrong deeds, you know. To get happy you will
struggle and fight and hurt other people. And to avoid pain you will, you will
hurt and that’s absolutely the opposite of…it’s the correct perception.
[student: a double question. one time when I had reason to think that I was
going to die pretty soon but I had still a few minutes left and I…all my
consciousness went inside my body because I was incapable of moving and I
found this to be a very interesting experience and not fearful – part a. part b
suppose we in this class subscribe, really believe that our consciousness is a
continuum and that when this body dies we really are going to flop into
something else, what about the first one and will the second one militate against
a bad reaction.
Uh first question. You didn’t get to level of death where hallucinations and the
terror starts. [Student: okay] Your elements didn’t collapse at that point. If
they had you will be touch and go. And then second question which was…oh
yeah, actually the study of future lives in the lam rim structure, where does it
come? Why is it there? Why does Dharmakirti get his little place in the lam rim
there? He only comes there, where they talk about past and future lives. Well
it’s to become a person, is to reach the level where you’re concerned about
what’s going to happen after you die. No big Buddhism stuff. I mean no big
paradise, no big nirvana stuff.         You’re suppose then…once you have a
perception of yourself streaming one, you’re suppose to worry that you don’t
turn out like Mr Bean chooses, you know, did you see that movie it was great,
it’s really good. [Laughter] No, the man and wife they’re on a normal drive to
the countryside, they get a car accident and then suddenly they’re in this fantastic
chaos of, of all this hell and stuff and in the next moment, in the next second
they’re in this horrible frightening chaotic word that has no reason or rhyme and
the people are burning and people are…the houses you know…and that’s
exactly what happen. So that’s suppose to be…you know the study of future
life is suppose to be that you start to….you’re, you know, three breaths away
from that happening at any given moment. Could happen. Could likely
happen. It will happen one day. [Student: excuse me about that question. So if
we genuinely subscribe to this how does that affect our response at the moment
of death?] Long before that you have eliminate that kind of desire, which is,
aimed at self-existence self because that will make you act right. Then you won’t
have that problem, you’ll probably be in Paradise before that [unclear] yes
Ma’am. [Student: I transferred together one [unclear] be happy when you get
something, unhappy when you don’t etc etc. And I’m trying to put together this
thing [unclear] what you seem to be saying is that the quality unless I
misunderstand you, it’s not the quality of grasping or craving per se but it’s the
problem is the object] Absolutely [student: where I would assume that the
kind…what you feel when you want to achieve Buddhahood or whatever or
once you have seen emptiness directly and is of a different quality and you’re
not saying it’s not, it’s the object] I’m saying that if the object were correct, you
would be there. [Student: so where does that happy and unhappy fit in?] It’s a
different…it’s a different [student: but you’re pointing attachment to something
even the object…] what’s wrong with attachment? What’s wrong with being
attached to nirvana [student: it’s not even the object, it’s the way you perceive
the object to exist] well that’s we haven’t reached that but what I’m saying is I’m
perfectly attached to reaching Vajrayogini paradise. I’m looking forward to it,
you know, [laughs, laughter] [student: [unclear] go on a roller coaster because
of your quality of your attachment] I hate that idea; I don’t think, I reject that
idea. I think that’s a poorly formed contradiction of people who, who haven’t
thought very carefully about Buddhism. It’s not that you’re, you’re not suppose
to reach a state where you don’t care anything and that’s nirvana. No, you
know, it’s not like that. I mean then these alcoholics over here did it. [Student:
I’m not talking about not caring, I’m just talking about that clutching quality, that
unhappy, happy, that…] Yeah, no, that’s, that’s a phenomenon that… that’s a
concern but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a good, healthy,
cognizant, clear minded desire to be out of suffering and reach everlasting
pleasure. I have it and I’m happy for it and I don’t think you will be here if you
didn’t have it. That’s your goal. And that’s in the back of everyone’s mind when
they study. And it gets clearer as you get older. [student: so you’re saying
there’s no…there’s no such thing as studying something…or having an object
with the wrong emotions or the wrong reason because as long as it’s correct]
But what I’m saying is…I’ll say it very clearly and very concisely. So long as you
misperceive the object your desire or hatred you will have the wrong kind of
desire and wrong kind of hatred. [Student: we all do] Yes we do, because we
have the wrong perception. What’s the good perception? I mean temporary,
intellectually, remember that object is blank, could have been pleasant, could
have been bad and the reason it’s bad and you want you get away from it or the
reason it’s pleasant and you want to get it, is that, that otherwise blank object
you have created into something pleasant or unpleasant. And you’re forced to
do that by your bad…past karma. If you don’t like it don’t resist it, just change
your karma. Stop acting bad, you know. And it will change but do it with
knowledge. [Student: but then what’s grasping then? I thought grasping was the
personification of craving] It’s a strengthening of craving [student: right]
Grasping is craving brought to a new height. In the eighty and ninth links of the
dependant origination.
Very quickly because we’re not going get our snack properly, someone has
brought a lot of nice snacks. Craving [laughter, laughs] I’m about to grasp
[student: that’s the perception of object as being sort after, change in some ways
the nature of the craving or does the Buddha crave to be free from suffering in
the exact same way we would crave to win the lottery?] No. [Student: okay.]
No, I don’t know. [Student: I know you’d like to say you don’t know, and
Rinpoche used to say that desire in itself is bad] I explained it the class [unclear]
but it’s a mistranslation. He’s thinking of the word {der cha} instead of the word
{der pa} and in English they’re both the same word {Kyel do} and {kyam de} the
words desire appear in the definition [unclear] great compassion. And the other
word {der char} is always a bad word. In English they’re both translated as
desire. That’s just translation problem. [Student: so I can’t get enough of it, I
gotta have to have it all the time it’s also experience by a Buddha?] It’s two
different words in Tibetan that are translated into English, desire; desire you to
get away from self existent bad object and desire to reach Buddhahood and
understand [unclear] are totally different words in Tibetan and that’s what
Rinpoche gets hung up on that. Just a translation problem. Just say {der pa} and
{der cha}. Anyway we’ll go on. It’s a similar emotion, lets put it that way. I
mean it’s the desire to get something nice. And that’s fine. That’s why you are
here. You want to get to nirvana. [Student: so then the Buddha doesn’t suffer
because He, Shee just happens to be lucky enough to have a ever, present,
continuing stream of these nice things] the Buddha has {der pa} to see… He has
the desire to see all beings free of suffering. He would like to see that. He has
desire to see all beings free of suffering. [Student: and He doesn’t suffer because
even though all beings are not free of suffering He doesn’t really have desire for
that] He doesn’t have the kind of desire which misperceives the object and
therefore causes bad karma and causes bad results. [Student: which is the same,
exact desire that we have it’s just the object is perceived incorrectly by us] I’d say
that. I would say that’s the difference between [student: because I thought there
was another quality.] ‘cos I think…what I’m trying to say it’s the whole key…
what you’re trying to do. Why you’re here? You want to get free of suffering.
There’s a word for wanting to get free of suffering and the word wanting to help
us sentient beings by the Buddha, is the same word, for a reason, the desire to
get that object. Is the want, is the desire, it’s a wish. That’s why they’re the same
one. So think about it. Cook it.
Okay, last question. The key to why craving triggers your existing karma at the
moment of death is how it focuses upon yourself. Describe the four levels of
focusing upon yourself and explain which ones can trigger this karma. I’ll, I’ll
answer this one, it’s a little difficult. First one of the four, it’s called ordinary
conventional perception of yourself, thinking, Ariel thinking as Ariel as me; I
thinking of myself as me and this is just unexamined perception of yourself and
even the Buddha has this. So that should tell you whether or not it can trigger
future life in samsara. Okay. No, everybody has it. The Buddha thinks of his
robe as His. If somebody came to you know, Varanasi and took the Buddha’s
robe, the Buddha will think someone has stole my robes and that’s direct
quotation from the scripture. Okay. So that’s okay, nothing wrong with that.
Just unexamined me. And that’s what lots of Buddhist you know, they teach
you there’s no me and you get confuse and you go home and worry about this
wrong…think about Helen [unclear] you know, we spend a few years on that,
you’re just confuses. That’s fine you are yourself, you have a {tse ma} about it,
you have a pramana, nothing. [Student: so you say it triggers existing karma?]
That does not [student: it does not] at the moment of death.                That one
everybody has that and that’s no problem. [Student: [unclear] Oh yeah, are you
not yourself? Are you not Robyn? [Student: yes but I’m not the Buddha and
you said that only the Buddha can have a {tse ma}earlier] [Student: all the time]
All the time. [student: all the time?] Yeah, yeah. [Student: all the time] only {tse
ma}. [Student: so this is going to [unclear]] No ‘cos the Buddha has it. If it
triggers then the Buddha will have a samsaric rebirth, impossible. Okay, next
one – you believe and also see a self-existent you. That describes any person
who has not yet seen emptiness directly. [Student: how’s that different from the
first then, ordinary perception of yourself] The explanation is that, at this point
you’re more thinking about the nature of yourself. I said unexamined before,
now I’m saying examined. But it’s that you’re consciously examining. So that’s
enough. So that describes a non-arya right? Number three is anyone who is an
arya but not yet a Buddha [student: [unclear] this one triggers?] Oh yeah, it does
trigger rebirth. Number three is a person who is an arya, he did see what?
[Student: emptiness directly] Emptiness directly, okay. He’s not yet a Buddha,
he says himself as self-existent but he doesn’t believe it. He knows he’s crazy.
He knows his wrong but he can’t stop it. He sees himself as self-existent but he
doesn’t believe his own eyes anymore. He doesn’t believe himself anymore.
[Student: he sees the self, as not self-existent but doesn’t believe it?] No, yeah
[laughs]…by the way I’m talking about when he comes…after he comes out of
his great vision, okay, maybe you’re confuse; post great vision, okay, after his
great vision, until the point he becomes a Buddha he neither…he does not
believe that he’s self -existent because he knows he’s not but he can’t stop seeing
it that way, except for times when he’s in the direct perception in meditation of
emptiness. All other time he still sees things as self…they still appear to him as
self-existent but he doesn’t believe it any more. He knows it’s wrong. He
knows his own perceptions are wrong. His perception of himself is…also going
to trigger a rebirth that’s why even after you see emptiness directly, until you
become an arhat you must take rebirth. [Student: would the second one include
intellectually understanding about emptiness or not necessarily?] Yeah you can
have some very advanced intellectual understanding of emptiness and still…and
still be at number two. And number four…[student: can you be at number two
without [unclear]] you must not be an arya to be at number two. [Student: I’m
asking a further question]         Can you be non arya at number three? No.
[Student: so and then intellectual understanding…] is not enough? Direct
perception.
Okay number four – neither sees nor believes [student: neither sees?]            Nor
believes. [Student: oh in self existent] in a self-existent me. That describes two
kinds of beings – Buddhas all the time and who else? [student: arhats] well
arhats are joined with Buddha. Who else? [Student: aryas while they’re in….]
Aryas while they’re in their vision. While they’re in the direct perception of
emptiness they don’t see us…they don’t see themselves as self-existent and they
don’t believe it either. [Student: but I thought they’re not able to tell…] They
don’t see that either [laughs] [student: so?] But it’s not like a guy like Mike
Tyson knocked out. That’s a different kind of not seeing and not believing.
[Student: so seeing and believing [unclear]] By the way as the courses go on
hopefully you start to see interlinks, hypertext and by the end of the five years
we will see everything links with [unclear] You’ll start to get ideas [unclear] have
a break for ten minutes, come back I just want to show you something for five
minutes. [Student: can we do those five minutes and then we do the break after?
People who want to stay for the break can do that.] Okay. [Student: no?]
Do you remember that the other class is translating something? [unclear]. It
was a story…do you remember the story, it was from a sutra. It’s call the sutra
of the Origination of the Unoriginated or something like that. And Asanga…it
was the favorite of Atisha. Atisha liked this sutra. And he quotes it in one of his
works, in the Tengyur and he says, I don’t know if you remember there was a
planet. It reads like science fiction. There’s a planet, on this planet a Buddha
appears, the Buddha teaches people all over and people actually turn on…the
whole planet, everybody on the body become either an arya, an arhat, you
know, they turn on to his teachings…there’s another Buddha in another era,
millions and millions of years ago, and the whole planet becomes a dharma
planet. And everybody is going to dharma classes and everyone is becoming
enlightened and meditating all the time – the whole planet. And, and then at
some point the Buddha, you know, his time passes and He decides to withdraw
that emanation and He appoints a certain monk to be his…did we get that far?
He appoints a certain monk…he lives for ten million years or something and
then He decides it’s time to withdraw this emanation and He appoints a certain
monk and He says, ‘this monk is going to my regent”. This monk will be the
first throne holder. So this monk is living in at a certain monastery and he has all
these followers.       And they start to go to the cities… they…you know a
monastery has to be five hundred {gyan taks} fathoms from a town. You’re not
allowed to have a monastery closer to a town than that. So, and this monk he
takes his followers everyday, instead of going for begging around the
monastery, they actually go into town and they start teaching the people in the
city which is unheard of. The monks are suppose to stay out the countryside and
not mix with city people and, and this other monks start to get…. he sees one of
the followers touch a lady or with a lady or something like that. So he assumes
that this is why everyone is going to the city and he starts to have meetings to
say, “no monks should go to the city, this is very bad” even though those monks
are teaching people bodhichitta and people actually reaching bodhichitta and
things like that. So he has a big meeting and they all decided that this monk and
his followers shouldn’t go into the city anymore [student: the regent monk?]
Yeah, the second monk who is not the regent says that the regent is corrupt and
he’s going to the city and this is why he’s going to cities and he…he does this
long meeting. Out of respect, not wanting to cause a division in the sangha, the
regent stays in the monastery. And then the city people don’t get taught and no
one is getting bodhichitta and things start to collapse. And then he says I, I can’t
stay away anymore. I’ll move another monastery then I’ll continue my work in
the city teaching the people. So he moves out of the monastery and goes back.
So the first…the second one? Right. The one that criticized him died and he goes
to hell for like billions of lives, for having assumed this about the regent without
knowing, you know, and he…then he…for millions of lives he loses his robes.
He becomes a monk and he loses his robes [unclear]. And then for millions of
lives he’s born as a very stupid person who can’t understand any dharma, you
know, no matter how many times you explain it to him he can’t get. That means
tens of millions of lives this goes on because of the grave karma that he collected
by making an assumption without knowing. And then the Buddha in the last
line of the sutra which I….you know it’s here but I, I just described He says, “
and don’t think that the first monk was just a normal person. He’s the Buddha
{[unclear]} He become a Buddha like a few million years ago. He, He was the
Buddha {[unclear]}. He later become the Buddha {[unclear]} and the monk who
criticize him, who went to hell was me.’ [Student: me who?] The Buddha
[student: Shakyamuni?]         Shakyamuni…[unclear] experience. Shakyamuni is
saying, “ I was that monk and I made that mistake and because of that I have
that I had to live all those lives in hell…. don’t think it’s somebody else that you
never heard of. It was me and I’m telling you from experience” And then he
says {Tibetan} and that’s the source of that and nobody in the monastery knows
that. I mean….[student: why don’t you tell?] [Laughter] this is the cool thing
about the computers, you can ask that can to back to a hundred thousand things
and more and look and that’s where the Buddha says that - don’t judge other
people you will fall if you’re not me. And that’s the source of the quotation and
He’s talking about Himself and that’s the neat….[student: [unclear] judge when
you see…] You have to judge on the….you have to say according to what I can
see it looks bad and I cannot follow that, I reject it and I resist it but you
can’t….you know you have to be careful to say, ‘I know’. But of course if
something looks bad…you know, this came up with something with certain
teachers they drink or stuff and say…look I don’t know. People ask me about
this and that. I say, “I don’t know. I really don’t know. I can’t do it. I know it’s
not right to do it and I won’t do it myself. I…. can I judge a person? No. Should
you follow that person? That’s up to you I can’t tell you that. [Student: but
Michael [unclear] having a thought or was it because he created the schism in the
sangha] I think the thought…merely the thought. They don’t stress the fact
[unclear], he just moved later. It seems like [unclear] [student: so basically like
the whole thing that we studied in this class if the Buddha was there [unclear] to
be mindful or not, at that moment and have the best pramana that he was
capable of having at time which was …to say to himself, “gee it really looks bad”
but instead of going making a [unclear] and saying it is bad, he states that it
really looks bad and it could actually be bad or it could actually something very
high, I can’t tell the difference yet at my level. He presumably could have
avoided all that] Yeah, yeah. It says by the way, just a statement, he is that, I
know him to be that is the [unclear], without at {tse ma} This is what it is
[student: sort of points to the relativity of all these rules, I mean…] Gyaltsab Je
in his commentary says, you know, we do this all the time. He says, we should
take it to heart. And it’s beautiful, at the end he says, it’s a beautiful at the end.
He says…therefore a person… it’s very beautiful. He says…. don’t worry about
other people. A Buddhist practitioner, his main object of his practice is not to go
around correcting everyone else in the world. His…the main job, the task which
you know to be…with {tse ma} to be necessary if you’re whom you seem to be
it’s to clean out your own mind. So he says therefore a really good Buddhist
practitioner should go to his room, go to his home, do his practices for himself;
clean up his mind and reach Buddhahood. And then he says a very interesting
thing and in the scripture he says, and the person who does that is more…is
higher than all the bodhisattvas on such a planet going and teaching people the
ten virtues and getting them to follow them. The person who goes to his own
room, in his own privacy and tries to work on himself is higher because he will
reach Buddhahood. That person will, will clean up his mind and that person will
reach Buddhahood and a Buddha is higher than all those Bodhisattvas, he said
that. What I mean to say is…I mean if someone says, “why do Buddhist study
logic?” You say, “well the main purpose is that we try to realize that we must
learn from ourselves and not worry so much about other people” You have to
be concern, you have to help, you have to contribute. You have to resist evil but
the main…your main dharma career is in your own mind and in your own
room. [Student: it sounds like emptiness] it’s call, it’s called eating the meat
yourself. [Laughter] which is the lam rim and there’s a man start…you know the
story? The man is starving, his family is starving, he finds a big chunk of meat.
He realizes that if he eats it he will have enough energy to go get more food but
if he splits up with everybody they’ll all die. So he eats it, the whole thing you
know and then…. the main thrust you get, it’s not…it’s not obviously not
saying, don’t be compassionate, don’t care…it’s not saying that. He’s saying
work on yourself. You can’t…you cannot know the level of the people around
you. Maybe when you get to a very advanced state you might learn something
different about the people around you but, but for now just worry about yours
[cut]

Mandala offering
Dedication

              Course IV: The Proof of Future Lives, RAW TRANSCRIPT



PAGE


PAGE 242
Say {sen, sen} [repeat], {sen, sen} [repeat]. {Sen sen} means “how do
you define something.” What’s the definition of definition? And it’s
very important in Buddhism; we operate by definitions. You need it
for clarity, you need it for accuracy, you need it to know what you’re
talking about.       I met a guy today, he wrote a book on
{Prajanaparameter}, I didn’t want to embarrass him and ask him,
“What’s the definition of {Prajanaparameter}. You know, what is it’s
basic description, what is it? And it’s very precise, it’s the “perception
of {shunyata} under the influence of {bodhichitta}.” But, I, I, very
much doubt you can find ten people in New York who can tell you
that and everyone talks about {Prajnaparameter} this is the
beauty of definitions; you need the definition; you need to
understand definitions. That’s the first subject in the {dura}; the
{Dura} has about fifteen, twenty, I’m only giving you three, okay,
the next one is