ACI 6 «Сутра Алмазного Огранщика», занятие 9

Okay, this gets us to... I don't think I mentioned, except very briefly the two
realities, okay, true, two realities. They call it the two truths, okay, but it refers
to the two realities. There are two kinds of reality. One is the reality we're living
in now and it's all you've ever known if you haven't seen emptiness directly.
And then the other one is ultimate reality, okay, which is what you're seeing
when you perceive emptiness directly. I'm gonna give you just the names of
those two.

[silence]

Say, {kuntsok denpa} [repeat], {kuntsok denpa} [repeat]. The second one is
called... say {dundam denpa}[repeat], {dundam denpa}[repeat]. The things that
are going around you, that are going on around you are called {kuntsok dempa}.
{Kuntsok} means,"fake", deceptive, they are lying to you. {Kuntsok} means they
are lying to you. {Denpa} means, "truth" and in this case it means reality. And
there's a huge debate in the Madhyumika scriptures about, "How could there
ever be a thing called fake truth?". How could there ever be a thing like reality
which is unreal? How could there be a artificial reality? How could that be?
What does that mean? And, and, and the bottom line is this, and this is
Nagarjunas mantra and this is.. Tsongkhapa spent his life trying to convince
people of this. That even though things are your projections, even though they
are they are a result of that process of picking up clues, pasting them together
and calling them things, even though that's true, they still work. Okay, even
though things are empty, they still work, they're still real, they still affect us.
And in fact, it couldn't have been any other way. If they were not projections, if
they were not a result of that process, if they were not coming from your
karmic... the ripening of karma in your own mind, they couldn't be doing what
they're doing. Okay, not only are emptiness and the way that things work, not
only are they friends, they need each other. Okay, and this was a reaction Je
Tsongkhapa had to people who said, "If things were empty, they couldn't work."
Okay, "If things were empty, things couldn't cause other things." And he said,
"Are you crazy? Because they're empty they cause other things". Okay, because
they are empty, things cause other things. If they weren't that way they couldn't
do anything. Okay, now we gotta, obviously, from all the... all of those things,
we gotta talk about that, [laughs]. {Kuntsok denpa}, how is {kuntsok denpa}
fake? How is it, how is it fake? The main point in {kuntsok} is that; to a normal
state of mind, okay, to normal persons mind, the way things seem and the way
things are, are not the same, they don't correspond. That's what it means to be
fake. You know, the, the white liquid in the Howard Johnsons half way to
Washington looks like cream, but, but it's not and that's what artificial means,
that's what deceptive means. It looks like the real thing, but it's not. The way it
is and the way it looks don't match. Okay, that's what deceptive reality means.
For normal people, all of these objects that you are seeing are deceptive, okay,
they look like they are not coming from your own minds projections which are
being forced on you by your past karma. They look, they seem like that, but
that ain't the way it is, therefore they are {kuntsok denpa}, deceptive reality.
People mistranslate it as relative truth or something like that. Okay, that's not
the point, the point is not that you couldn't tell long without short or relativity or
anything like that, it's deceptive. Can a Buddha see deceptive reality?

[students: No. Yeah. Of course.]

[laughs] You guys debate, I'll come back later. [laughs]

[students: [talking to each other]]
No, don't forget my des... I'll give you my definition of {kuntsok denpa}, of
deceptive reality, fake, fake truth again and then you'll catch it. To the minds of
a normal person, its appearance and its reality don't match. So a Buddha can see
it, he can see it, but to him, of course, it doesn't look that way. It doesn't look,
the appearance and the way it is are not different for him, but my definition of
deceptive reality was to a normal person.             To a regular old person the
appearance and the reality don't match, okay. {Dundab dempa}, they do match.
The appearance and the reality do match, ultimate reality, emptiness itself, okay.
The example, and the only example of {dundab dempa}, the only example of
ultimate reality is that thing that you see while you're perceiving emptiness
directly. I wanted to talk today a little bit about how the schools up to the
Prasangika, up to the highest school, about some problems that come in their
schools because they don't under.. they don't accept the idea of projection. They
don't accept that whole concept. They think that some things must still have
some existence from their own side. Okay, they are still clinging to a few things
that must be existing from their own side. There must be, okay not too many,
maybe, but there must be some things that exist from their own side,
independant of our projections. What about the data that you are collecting
before you synthesize it? You know, what about the color of the pot? What
about the shape of the pot? What about that black thing hanging out? Aren't
those existing from their own side? You didn't have time to project onto them
yet, okay. Aren't those existing from their own side? What about the object
which triggers visual consiousness? That's before you even know you're seeing
anything, there has to be something out there trigger that consiousness. Doesn't
that exist from its own side? Can't, isn't that self existent? In other words, they
have, they don't have such a problem with saying, "Okay, I accept that
something like a stupa or a car, I understand how that has... it's a collection of
parts, I take some parts, I synthesize it, I make a nice mental image and I call that
car. They say, "Okay, I can agree with that, I understand that, I accept that, but
what about causation itself ? "What about even the karmic seed on your mind
that makes you project ?" Doesn't that have a reality from its own side? You
didn't have time to project onto that, that's causing the projection. Okay, so I
understand that maybe at the end it's making a projection, but before it makes
the projection, doesn't it exist from it's own side? I haven't projected onto it yet,
it hasn't even caused my projection yet, can't it have a reality from its own side?"
And they, they struggle with that idea. And I'll give you some of the ideas they
come up with because they don't understand emptiness perfectly, because
they're still clinging to, something must exist from it's own side. They come up
with a few wrong ideas. And, and this is getting very subtle, but it's important to
know. One example is...
[silence]

Say, {lopa} [repeat], {kuntsok} [repeat], {nyangdak} [repeat], {kunstok} [repeat].
{Lopa} [repeat], {kuntsok} [repeat], {nyandak} [repeat], {kuntsok} [repeat], okay.
I'll give you an example of {lopa kuntsok}, and now, by the way we are in the
lower Madhyumika school, okay, Svantantrika, if you care, okay. Anyway, it's
not the highest school.         They say, "If everything's a projection, okay, and if
everything's a projection, and if even projected things are real, and affect us, and
work, and cause things..." I mean, a projected car can hit you, break your bones,
put you in the hospital . It's a projection, but it works, it hurt, okay. In other
words, "just because something's a projection according to you, higher school,
that doesn't mean that things aren't real. In fact, according to you, it makes them
real". So they say, what about the example, it's a famous {taktra}example. Say
{taktra} [repeat], {taktra} [repeat]. There's a coil of rope in the corner, okay, it
has all these patterns on it, which is common in India, you know, if you've ever
seen those multicolored ropes with patterns on it. And, and it's a little bit dark
outside, and the dusk is covering the corner, and you know there's snakes in
Dharhamsala, and, and you walk in your room and you see that coiled thing and
you jump back. And you say, "Ahh, a snake.", you know. In other words, what
about misperceptions, what about when you think something is something and
then it's not. And then you look at it closer and you see it's a rope, okay. The
first perception is called {lopa kuntsok} according to them, okay. It's a, it's a
normal perception which is a boo boo, okay. In my, in my experience, I get it
alot in where I live there's alot of oak trees, and in the Fall the leaves all come
down. And there's also alot of squirrels where I live. So you'll be driving down
the street, and it's in the fall, and it's dusk, and a leaf gets blown across the road
and you slam on you brakes, okay. That perception just before slamming on the
brakes is {lopa kuntsok}, according to this school. Mistaken deceptive reality,
okay. And then they say, "What about when you get out of the car and you
realize it was just a leaf?" That's {yangdak kuntsok}. {Yangdak kuntsok} means a
correct deceptive       perception, okay, a correct one.          So they say to you
Madhyumika Prasangika dudes, "If everthing's a projection, then isn't the first
one just the same as the second one? Isn't the reality of something you imagine
just the same as the reality of something that you don't imagine? Isn't the leaf a
squirrel then? Isn't the rope a snake then? Because according to you, they're
both just projections, and they're corrrect. You know, that's the way all things
exist. So according to you, if everything's just my imagination, then if I get run
over by a car in a dream, well, I'm dead. [laughs] And if you say there is a
difference between them, you know, one is your imagination and one is not,
well then, your, your whole definition of, of reality collapses. Because according
to you, your imagination, meaning your projection is the only thing that gave it
reality anyway."

[student: Aren't projection and imagination different though?]

Well, it's a little tricky, okay.     [laughs]   The higher school says, "Look,
everything's a projection. You cannot distiguish between something which is a
wrong projection, and something which is a right projection.               They're all
projections.     It's useless to distinguish between something that's a wrong
projection and a right projection. A dream has its own reality, okay. When you
go to sleep and you have a dream of a truck, the truck doesn't exist, okay, but
what does exist? The dream of a truck. The truck in your dream exists. A truck
in your dream, which ran you over and broke your legs doesn't exist, but they're
both projected. In other words, even fantasies, even imaginations, even dreams,
they do have a reality as a dream, as an imagination, as a fantasy, and they are
projections. They are results of projections. Pransangika says, "No difference,
you don't have to go in to this stuff. From the point of view of being deceptive,
they are the same. A truck in a dream and a truck running you over in real life,
are both projections, they are not what they seem to be. They are both
deceptive. Why? Not because a dream, a truck in a dream runs you over, but
because a dream truck seems to be a dream truck independant of your
projections. And a truck in real life seems to be a truck in real life, independant
of your projections. "So it's the same thing, you don't have to go into this
distinction.", they say, okay. That went over our heads, okay, [laughs], anyway.
Dreams are real dreams, they are not reality, but they are real dreams. You
know, and when you imagine a deity in your meditation, and you try to
visualize a deity, of course it's not the deity itself, but it is a visualization of a
deity. And whether you saw that deity in real life or you were just visualizing
that deity, both of those things come from projection.

[student: So if I dream that I had a direct experience of emptiness...]

[laughs] You would have had a real [laughter] dream of a correct... of a direct
perception of it, [laughter]. You see, that's the point, it's true, you would have
had a real dream of the direct perception of emptiness, [laughs]. And that's the
point, and you would get up, you would wake up the next morning and when
you thought about the dream you would think it was self existent. You would
say, "That dream had its own reality independent of my own projections,
independent of my past karmas." And that would be {kuntsok}.
[student: What if you thought it was no big deal?]

[laughs] Same thing, probably, okay.

[student: [unclear] the meaning of non duality.]

Yeah, very close to that, okay? Alright? Okay, anyway let's skip that. [laughs]
It'll become relavent shortly. [laughs]

[silence]

[student: [unclear]]

Okay, you can say, wrong deceptive perception and, right deceptive perception.
[laughter] Okay, and Pransangika says, look, "they're both projections. And to a
normal persons mind they're both wrong." Are they both real? Absolutely.
Why do you call them deceptive? They don't look like what they really are. Do
they both funtion? Yes. Can a truck in real life run you over? Yes. Does a truck
in a dream run you over? No. Can you get nervous from a truck in a dream?
Yes. Can a dream truck have an effect on you? Absolutely. If you've ever had a
really fine dream and woke up, and then your whole morning went nice, well,
then that dream truck or whatever it was, made you happy. [laughter] You
know, okay, it can have an effect on you. But it's nothing more than a dream
truck, or whatever, okay. Say, {kunshi} [repeat], {kunhsi} [repeat]. There's a
school called the Mind Only school. They kind of like this idea that reality is
caused by karmic seeds. They kind of get along with the Prasangika on that,
okay. But they say, those karmic seeds, what do you call them in Tibetan, do
you remember?

[student: {Bak chak}]

{Bak chak}, people like that word I don't know why. [laughter] Say, {bak chak}
[repeat], {bak chak}[repeat]. Okay, they say, "We like your idea of karmic seeds,
in fact what they really like to say is that, "Michael Roach's eye conciousness that
sees this stupa and the stupa which it sees, both the subject and the object have
grown from the same karmic seed." That's their big deal. That's what they are
all excited about. That's the real meaning of Mind Only. They don't think that the
stupa is my mind, but they do think that my mind and that stupa have arisen
from the same karmic seed. And that's why they're called Mind Only, okay. But
they hold those seeds to be self existent from their own side, they hold those
karmic seeds to not be...?

[student: Your projections.]

... your own projections, okay. "I understand, perhaps", says the Mind Only,
"that these karmics seeds make you see something and I understand that they
might trigger a projection, but those seeds have their own real existence.
They're not waiting for my projection, they came before my projection. So how
can they be dependently originating according to your idea of dependent
origination? In fact, in honour of the fact that karmic seeds don't come from our
own projections, we'll put them in a separate part of the mind. Let's call it
{kunshi]." [laughs], okay. {Kunshi} is another part of the mind, according to the
Mind Only school, they say there has to be a place where we keep all those {bak
chaks} which are not just your..?

[students: Projections.]

Projection, okay.

[student: Storehouse.]

And that's what people translate as storehouse consiousness, or basis
consiousness. In Sanskrit, {Allaia Vignyata}, okay. This is the whole point of that.
In other words, the Mind Only school could not be accepting the idea of another
part of your mind called storehouse consiousness, which no other school accepts,
if they didn't get it wrong about the nature of a {bak chak}, okay. Because they
don't understand the nature of a karmic seed, they, they, that leaves them to the
idea of another separate conciousness that's in one corner of your mind, and
that's where all those karmic seeds have to stay. Those karmic seeds which are
not projections and which do exist from their own side, and which do exist by
definition, and which do exist independently, that those karmic seeds need a
place to stay, and so we'll call it {kunshi}. What I'm trying to point out is that
according to the highest school of Buddhism, most of the wierd ideas are caused
by...?

[student: Projections.]

Misunderstanding the idea of projection. Your right, but.. [laughs]. Are caused
by not fully understanding the nature of projection. They can't see, for example,
how the raw data, the colours and shapes that you project onto could have been
a projection themselves. And that trips them up, that really bothers them, and
so they come up with these ideas. The lower Madhyumika school says, say,
repeat this, okay? And I'll skip over it fast. {Rangye chene kyi} [repeat], {drupe}
[repeat], {gyiwa shenlay} [repeat]. {Rangye chene kyi} [repeat], {drupe} [repeat],
{drebu shen}[repeat], {kyerpa} [repeat], okay. All Prasangika say that,
Svantantrica, the lower Madhyumika school, "We understand how an object that
stays still could be a projection, we understand, we understand that, okay you're
collecting the parts together, and we understand how that doesn't exist from it's
own side. But what about cause and effect itself? Okay. What about cause and
effect itself? That has to have some reality outside of your projections. The
causes that create your reality, those {bak chaks} for example, must have some
independent existence outside of your projection. For example, the object that
appeared to your eyeball just before you were aware of seeing it could not have
been projected, by you. It must have had some existence from its own side
independent of your projections because the projection came after that, okay.
And they, and they say, "Self..", they say, "Results exist naturally because they
come from causes that exist naturally, meaning independent of your
projections." "Things, things that exist from their own side come from causes
that exist from their own side and are, and are independent of your projections."
They accept that any particular object might be a projection. They can't see how
that applies to the world itself, how things are caused, why things happen, okay.
These, these, other schools are having big problems with explaining, "what's
projection got to do with why things happen?". Why the sun comes up, why the
clock moves, why sprouts turn into trees. They don't see how that could be a
projection. They accept, okay, maybe the tree, or maybe the clock, but what
about movement? What about time itself? What about the thing, the fact that
things cause other things? Is that a projection? Okay, they have a problem with
that. And, and very importantly, what about the fact that some things cause
other things? How could that be a projection? Okay, the fact that certain things
cause other things to happen. How could that be a projection? The fact that any
action produces the result that you expect, how could that be a projection?
Okay. Yeah.

[student: Is that including the laws of karma?]

Absolutely. Yeah.

[student: I got lost in this, in this idea.]
No, it's okay. [laughter] You know, and I'll, and I'll, up till now you can forget
everything, don't worry about it. [laughter] But what I want to say is this, they
say, "I understand how something might be a projection, but when you
undertake a certain action to produce a certain effect, how could that be a
projection? I don't see how that could be a projection." And we're gonna talk
about it. Yeah.

[student: The thing I got stuck on was, the thing that comes through is; if the
projection's a raw data, then we perceive is a projection, is a self projection
anyway. So my thought is how do you ever get out? If the methodology of
perceiving emptiness is cushion time, classroom time, and you're working with
your own mind, I mean using your own mind that's deceptive as it is, it's a self
perpetuating dead end.]

It's not, because a projected understanding of a projected emptiness until the
point that you can see it directly, helps, it functions, it works, okay? The self, the
emptiness which you are perceiving intellectually, you are perceiving it wrong.
When you perceive emptiness intellectually, you are perceiving it wrong. The
emptiness that appears to your mind, and the emptiness that you are looking at
are not the same, okay. But it still works, okay. The Buddha says, "Use the boat
to get to the other side." Then you can sink the boat and walk, you know, and
he's referring to the Buddhas scriptures themselves, and the teachings
themselves, okay.

[student: Can you fake it, until you can get there?]

In other words, as you are thinking about emptiness intellectually, every
perception you're having about emptiness is wrong. [laughter] Because the way
it looks and the way it is are still not matching, until the day you see it directly,
but it works. And that's like... Nagarjuna's like insistent, he says, "Don't think that
being empty and working are somehow contradictory, you gotta be empty to
work, if it's, if it wasn't empty it could never work", okay. And I'll tell you the
punchline about that. Do you think that things in your world outside of your
projections are causing other things in your world? Absolutely. That's the big
boo-boo, that's why this is the last class, okay. [laughs] That's the punchline.

[students: That things are working...]

But, and I'll say it again, [laughter]. The mind grasps on to certain events causing
other events self existently. And I'll give an example, that might be easier. We're
finished with all this other school stuff now, thank god, okay, [laughter].

[student: Who establishes the heirarchy of [unclear]]

[student: You do.]

Their, their ability to remove your mental afflictions, their ability to remove your
mental afflictions, okay.

[student: If another school could demonstrate that somehow..]

Not even demonstrate, if you try it and it gets rid of your anger, it's a higher
school. Very cool, alright. [laughs] The proof is in the pudding, okay. [laughs]
Alright. Let's see.

[silence]

So forget all the stuff I talked about, this is the bottom line, okay, as my boss
would say, "Michael, don't write a report about it just go out and buy the
diamonds, okay." [laughs] [laughter], okay. Let's say you want to get rich. And
I'm going to give two choices about how to do it, you tell me which one is right.

[silence]

[student: [unclear]]

Yeah I will. I'm giving you two choices about how to get rich. Choice number
one is risky investments. Choice number two is safe investments, blue chip
stocks. Okay, now think about it carefully and when I say go, someone's gonna
tell me which one will make you rich, okay. They're, they're opposite things,
right? They're contradictory actions. So think about it carefully, it's a test, okay.
It's on, it's the first question on your homework, honest. [laughter] If you
wanna get rich should you do risky investments or should you do safe
investments? Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding... [laughter], alright.

[student: Neither one, it's a trick question.]

I wouldn't say neither, because some people, like George Sorrows, who's dear to
my heart, [laughter] has made risky investments. In one day he made a billion
dollars in England, about three years ago, in one day. And we're asking him for
donations, [laughter], in one day. So I say risky investments make money, I'm,
I'm, I'm staking my future dharma work on it, actually. [laughter]

[students: But not always. If your counting on your karma. But you'll never get
rich from safe investments.]

[laughs]

[student: What did he say?]

He says, "You don't get rich from safe investments", that's not true. I mean, lots
of mutual, you know, I mean, lot's of big corporations make safe investments,
then suddenly they turn around and go wild and ,you know. If you made a safe
investment in the internet or something two years ago, if there's such a thing,
you know. But what's the answer?

[students: [unclear] [laughter]]

I mean, [laughter], these are, [laughs], these are apparent causes. They , they
seem, they seem to cause, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. That is
absolute proof that they're not the cause, okay. Any time a particular action
sometimes creates the effect, and sometimes don't create the desired effect, come
on, wake up! It's not the cause, okay. That's not what caused it. How, how long
you been around this planet? You know. It's, it's so obvious. I mean people,
read the Wall Street Journal, I swear to god, on the first page there will be
something like, "Risky investor makes zillions.", you know, and then down on
the second page there will be this thing about the bankruptcy, of... what was
that bank in Hong Kong?

[student: Berrings.]

Berrings Bank. Risky investor ruins his bank, you know. The guy on the second
page is a stupid head, the guy on the first page is, is brilliant. They did the same
thing, [laughs], okay. Really, really. So what I propose is, it's not the cause at all.
Wake up, you know. Come on. And this is the whole point of the self-existent...
these two are self-existent causes, okay. These two are self-existent causes, they
are, they are {gakja} causes for rich, for getting rich. What's that mean?

[student: [unclear]]
They don't even exist as causes of getting rich, forget it, okay. They are not
causes for getting rich. They are {gakja}. Self-existent, risky investment and
self-existent safe investment are both, they don't even exist, and they couldn't
make you rich, so... anyway. How could they make you rich if they don't exist?
They can't. What really makes you rich?

[silence]

[laughs]

[students: I have one question. You can't see you past lives, you can't actually see
the workings of karma. You have no way to actually prove that that's the cause
of anything else [unclear]]

Right. Absolutely. You see, you see generous people who die poor, okay. You
see risky investors who die rich and some who die poor. So it doesn't seem to be
the cause, I have two answers to that, okay. The first one is; This relationship
between certain ethical or non ethical actions, called good or bad karma and the
results you get from them, the consequences you, you, you reap from them,
those laws are directly visible only to an enlightened being. Only an enlightened
being can tell you for example, if, if, you, if you yell at people allot you will live
in a place that only has a very bumpy dirt road that leads to it. [laughter]
Seriously, if you wanna know where that road came from, [laughs]. I'm
absolutely serious. Each person who crosses over that road is projecting onto it,
bumpy. And they are forced to do so by having spoken harsh words to people
in the past, honest. That's the real reason of a bumpy road. If that road ever
gets paved, then all the people who pass over it will have what? They'll have
worn out the karma they collected when they yelled at people. And that's, that's
the truth, okay, alright, very interesting. If you want the road paved at
Vajrapani, I'll give you, no I'll give you three choices and I'm dead serious. This is
the, this is the road to happiness. I'm not kidding, I'm really not kidding. I'll give
you three choices. You talk the county into paving it, okay? You suddenly get a
big grant to pave it, from some generous person. You do the four powers and
you wear off the karma of harsh speech. Which of the above will get the road at
Vajrapani paved?

[student: The third. In this lifetime?]

[laughs] In this lifetime, if done with the right motivation.
[student: [unclear]]

It's the third, and that's very hard to live by. That's extremely hard to live by. It's
wearing off the karma for harsh speech that will pave this road at Vajrapani.
That's very hard to live by, it's extremely difficult to accept, okay. But I'm telling
you, anything that goes right in your life is caused by good karma. And
anything that goes wrong in your life, is caused by bad karma. The connections
between harsh speech and rocky roads is something only a Buddha can see
directly. So why should you buy it? If I get up here and say, "The cause of a
rocky road is speaking nicely to people." and, "If you want a smooth road you
should yell at people". You know, if I get up and say the opposite, "If you want,
to, to have, if you don't want to be depressed anymore, engage in sexual
misconduct." Which is the opposite of the truth, okay. Then what's the
difference between that and me getting up and saying, " If you don't wanna be
depressed anymore, keep your morality very pure."? So who's to say who's
right if only a Buddha can tell? How are we supposed to believe what these
dudes say? How are we supposed to act on something that's so far out of our
experience, who could ever confirm it, either way? And I have two answers for
that. Okay one is, what we call a {yiche jyepak}. Say {yiche} [repeat], {jyepak}
[repeat]. {Yiche} [repeat], {jyepak} [repeat]. Logical reasoning has two flavors in
the Buddhist logic tradition, okay. Check this out. Okay, everybody see it?
Everybody see it?

[student: Yes.]

Everybody see it?      Okay, close your eyes.       [We hear a soft thud.]       What
happened?

[students: You dropped the pen.]

Did you see me drop the pen?

[students: No.]

That's a deductive perception. Is it correct? I mean relatively speaking?

[students: Yeah.]

Yeah, where is that pen? [laughs] According to Buddhism, you saw that pen
drop as, as, truly as if you had stared at it and seen it drop. No difference in the
validity of those two perceptions, okay? You saw it drop as surely as if you had
been staring at it. Okay, so logic, in the Tib... in the Buddhist tradition plays as
great a role as your eyeballs, and your ears and your nose and your tongue.
You can see things, just as good as your logic mind just as good as you can with
your eyeballs and your ears and your tongue. There's two kinds of logic. That
was the first kind, okay. Based on logic, I mean you saw me holding it out, you
closed your eyes, you heard a bang, you knew I was gonna do somethin weird,
and you said, "He must have dropped the pen". What about things like, if a
Buddha comes along and says, {tringyi longche...} I'm sorry {Jinbe longche
tringyi de}. Say {jinbe} [repeat], {longche} [repeat], {tringyi} [repeat], {de}
[repeat]. {Jinbe} [repeat], {longche} [repeat], {tringyi} [repeat], {de} [repeat].
Very, very famous statement in Buddhism. {Jinbe longche} means if you wanna
get rich, give away things. {Tringyi de}, if you don't wanna be depressed, if you
want to have joy in your life, keep your morality, okay. So, so who's gonna
confirm it? How can you prove it? Maybe the opposite is true. How do we
know? The first answer is called {yigche jyepak}. {Yigche jyepak} means "a kind
of logic based on understanding the person who said it." A kind of logic based
on, a kind of logic based on your understanding of the truthfulness of the pers,
person who said it, okay.        A kind of logical perception based on your
understanding of how that person normally tells the truth about things which I
can confirm, okay. The Dalai Lama, in my experience, has never lied to me about
anything that I could confirm. Now he's talking about something that I cannot
confirm by myself. Do I believe him or not?

[students: [unclear]]

Normally, you'd say yes, okay. And that's, that's the first answer to the question.
The Buddha is called a {Tsema Kyebu}. Say {Tsema} [repeat], {Kyebu} [repeat], a
being of pramana, he cannot lie. If he wanted to lie, he couldn't lie, because he
has absolutely no need to lie. He doesn't need anything from lying, okay. You'd
have to study enough of Buddhism that everything that the Buddha said which
you can confirm, you have, you have figured out as true. Now the Buddha
comes along and says, " If you yell at people, this road's never gonna get fixed."
And then, so what are you gonna do? I mean, most likely, you'll believe the
person, most likely. And, and very importantly, the Buddha has described one
true thing that nobody else describes very well. And I would say, I propose, and
this is scripture, that on the basis of that one true thing that he said, you can buy
the rest of what he says. What is it?

[student: The truth of suffering.]
The truth of suffering, the truth of suffering. Nobody else got up in front of you
and said, "this body's a dead end, there's no future to it. For, for... take care of it,
in a, in a, in a, what do you call it? In a sort of disassociated way. You know,
feed it well, give it good vitamins and use it to get to where you're going. But it's
going to kill you, sooner or later. Don't get attached to it, don't worry about
making it pretty. You know, don't worry about how much musclelies it has, or
not, okay? Don't worry about those things, it's a dead end, it's going to kill you.
Your relationships cannot go right at this point. Your job cannot go smoothly at
this point. Your mind cannot be happy at this point, you are not capable of
contentment. The human mind, as soon as it gets what it's looking for, which
doesn't often happen, is unhappy within twenty-four hours, and wants
something else. A little bit different flavor please, I got the one I wanted, okay.
You can confirm the truth I just said. You don't hear if from anyone else but the
Buddha. So if the Buddha says something else that you can't confirm directly,
think about buying it, okay? That's the first answer to the question, the second
answer is, if you study scripture allot, and you study the rules of karma allot and
you study psychology allot, Buddhist psychology, you could pretty much come
up with those things yourself. You could, you could, confirm them with normal
logic. Can you ever see... [cut].

[student: [unclear] .. but he was feeling the pain.]

Yeah.

[student: But there's sort of this famous Vajrapani story about taking Tsong
Rinpoche to the dentist for a root canal and he refused any kind of Novacaine
and showed the aspect of like fall asleep and appearing not to feel any pain at all.
So I'm just wondering,]

Yeah.

[student: how can a being like that feel pain the same as a projection caused by
their negative karma and mental afflictions. It's like you, did he really feel pain?
And if so, why?]

Right, once you reach Buddhahood you don't. Remember the definition of
having a bad day? [laughs] Karma and kleshas, karma and mental afflictions.
Once you reach Buddhahood and in that place where you are, if you're Tsong
Rinpoche and if you're an enlightened being, you, you, you could not feel the
pain of the dental drill even if you wanted to . You could, could beg the guy,
please keep it in there and see if you hit something, you know, [laughter] and he
could all day go like that and he wouldn't feel any thing except bliss. At an
enlightened beings stage, I was talking more Arhat and below, okay. Meaning,
especially at the state of Arhat or nirvana, you, you can never again be upset, or
have any bad emotion towards the, the drill, which is breaking your perfection
of patience, or have any being upset or hatred towards the dentist, or even
towards your own habit of eating candy. You know, you, you just don't have
that anymore, you're incapable of it. And that's, that's the point. You'll still feel
the pain. It's called the difference between {hlagmey}, say {hlagmey} [repeat],
{nyandey} [repeat], {hlagche} [repeat], {nyandey} [repeat]. At {hlagche nyandey}
it's called, you still have something left over. You still have these dirty body and
world which was created by dirty things called karma and, and mental afflictions.
When those wear out, either because you sit and wait for it to wear out, which
takes a long time or because you do your four powers very effectively, you
reach {hlagme nyandey}, which means "nirvana with nothing left over" and there
ain't no more suffering samsaric parts of you anymore to make you suffer. To,
to, and to get to {hlagche nyandey} to {hlagmey nyandey} is, is a long trip. It's a,
it's a ... so if he was at {hlagche nyandey} he could have either felt the pain of not
felt the pain according to his past karma. If he was at {hlagmey nyandey} he
couldn't have ever felt the pain if he wanted to , you know, so like that, okay.
Yeah.

[student: [unclear] remorse as opposed to intelligent regret.]

Yeah good. Or I like to say guilt. I yeah, I like to ... Yeah, okay, yeah.

[student: That's what I'm asking about actually. I think I hear you, I think putting
together what you say, what I understand is that the negative karmic results
that happen even for me hurting someone else are happening from that beings
side, not from my side. So that even if I kill someone, in a sense there's no
reason for guilt because that karmic result is coming to them from by their own
negative actions, and that karma is a very selfish thing, that I, really the way that
I can make karma work is to be utterly selfish, it's gonna hurt me, so I shouldn't
do it, not that it's gonna hurt them, so I shouldn't do it. Because their negative
results are gonna come to them whatever I do, but that seems like such an
opposition to the bodhisattva motivation and I've also heard Lama Sopa talk
about regretting the action because it gave the being an opportunity to create
negativity.]
Right.

[student: So I wanted to ask you about that.]

Okay, and Shantideva says that too. Maybe your the same person, but anyway.
[laughs] Definition of morality in the opening lines of Je Tsongkhapa's Essence,
what is it called?

[student: Essence [unclear]]

What is it called?

[student: [unclear]]

Essence of the Ocean of, Essence of the Ocean of Vinaya, he says, "{Tibetan...}".
He says, " The definition of Pratimoksha morality in particular, like monks or
nuns morality, is that you stop hurting other people.", for the reason that you
are tired of suffering in samsara, very interesting. You stop hurting other people
for the reason that you are tired of living this kind of a life, okay. But I, I would
just say this, and I don't want to go too long on about it, but you should get into
a state of mind where you say, okay, if I hit somebody in the face, if they feel
pain, that's their problem. You know, they collected bad karma, they are, they
are experiencing their own suffering from it it's got nothing to do with me, I may
be the instrument by which they receive their bad karma. But it's not me who's
causing the pain. Ultimately it's always their own projection onto that smacking
sound, which is forced on them by their past karma, and therefore it, it hurts
them when I punch them. And you also know there exists people who enjoy it
when you punch them. I mean there's some kind of weird sexual thing where
people like it, you know. Like a masochist or something, so there, a punch is
not inherently unpleasant. Some people find it pleasant, seriously. So does, does
that mean that you can go around punching people?

[student: No.]

 You know that's the first answer, I mean, obviously not. I mean, because
punching, in the Vinaya you're not even allowed to pretend to hit somebody.
Your not even allowed to pretend to hit somebody. Like you know, ha, ha, like
that. [laughter] Because of the similarity to the real thing. Because it gets you in
the habit of , of punching. Like you know, it's like eating vegetarian turkey
cutlet, [laughs], [laughter], you know, it gets your mind in...or, or alcoholess
wine, you know. It gets your mind in the mode of eating meat, or drinking
alcohol. And, and what I mean is that by, by punching the person there are so
many implications about what happens to you. There are actually four discreet
results coming to you by... you , you will go to a lower birth, you will get
punched back in you next life, you will enjoy punching in the future and you will
live in a world where people punch each other. Those are, those four things will
happen when you punch somebody. It, so you shouldn't punch people. But it is
true that if they feel any pain that's because of their own karmas. But it doesn't,
it absolutely doesn't mean that you can go around punching people. Is it selfish
to refrain from punching people only for the reason that it won't, that your
watching out for your own rear end?

[student: No.]

You know, is it, is that a bad motivation, or is that an inferior motivation? It
seems that way, it smells that way, it feels that way, but it doesn't preclude
bodhichitta at all. I mean it is initial scope Lam Rim, okay, it is lesser cope Lam
Rim. People who reach highest scope Lam Rim don't give up lesser scope Lam
Rim, they build on it. Okay, so don't punch other people because it is gonna
cause you problems. On top of that, don't punch them because it hurts them,
okay. And on top of that, don't punch them because you will be opening an
opportunity for them to get angry and collect more bad karma themselves. So
all three are true, but build on each one, okay, not contradictory, that's a trick.
That's a, that's a {kawe ne} which is a subtle trick in the scriptures or something
like that. I'll, I'll answer one more question then I'd like to take a break, okay?
Two more. [laughs]

[student: What about Hitler?]

It's very interesting, you know, I actually, when I taught karma in New York, we
had allot of questions come up. And I actually took one of my students to
Bombay with me, [laughs] and we went to the monastery. It was Tom Carleigh,
and we went to the monastery, we asked my scripture teacher this very
question, you know. What's going on with Hitler, because, technically speaking,
technically speaking, and I hate to talk about this subject because very, it's
emotional for allot of people. But, I'm speaking from purely a theoretical point
of view. If Hitler truly believed that he was being of service to humanity, if he
really had that motivation then, then, there was an element of good karma in
what he did, and, and, and there is a, from the point of view of motivation, he
did collect some good karma, if he truly believed he was helping humanity.
[student: Even if it was out of ignorance?]

Even if it was out of ignorance. And they give the example in the Abhidharma. I
can quote a scriptural, you know, {shingi drupje}. In the, in the, there's a
discussion of euthanasia in the forth chapter of the Abhidharma. Is it okay to
kill, and the example is your parents, if they are suffering? You know, if you
truly believe that it would be merciful to kill your parents, and out of an ignorant
kind of mercy, you cause their death, do you collect one of the five great bad
deeds? You know, the five are; killing you mother, killing your father, killing an
arhat, trying to hurt a Buddha, and splitting up the sangha during the time of the
Buddha. And the, and the scripture says, oh I shouldn't say that, it is a very bad
deed, from the point of the action. But from the point of the motivation, a
virtue, okay. The motivation is virtuous and does have it's own good results.
There are four elements in any karmic act; {shi, sampa, jorwa, tartu,}, {shi,
sampa, jorwa, tartu}. And {sampa} means "motivation". So one quarter of the
deed was virtuous. And three quarters was horribly non virtuous and will lead
to incredible suffering for that being. Hitler is definitely suffering in the lowest
hell, and will continue to suffer there for millions of years along with Mao Tse
Tung and other friends. Without question, they are suffering in, in the deepest
hells. At some point he will have some minor pleasant experience caused by his
deluded intention to try to help somebody. Okay, and it's the same with killing
your mother or father because you think it might be putting them out of some
suffering, or something like that, exactly the same thing, like that. Ninety-nine
percent of the actions, of the act was horrible and he's definitely suffering in the
lowest hell. And then, you know, if he ever gets back out, which he will
eventually, he'll have some minor pleasant experience, and, and that's from the
motivation. From the good part of the motivation. One more question, sorry,
she, she's been very patient, [laughs].

[student: [unclear] how does that effect actors?]

Oh, yeah, [laughs]. I've often thought about Uma, you know, [laughs]. Because,
she says, "What about people who act out evil roles in, in a movie or something?
Or where you're supposed to act out that you have great desire. I think in
general, it would be very dangerous, you know for, for a person to do that.
You know, to act out a scene of sexual misconduct or something like that, I think
it would be just dangerous for the person. I think it would be dangerous for the
person. They don't have motivation. You know, they are not overcome by lust
really. They're just supposed to act like that in the movie. But they, but they do
have, it does plant some kind of a subtle seed in your mind for that kind of
behavior. That's why, I mean, a Buddhist would also say that most of the movies
are, are not wholesome or not healthy for young people. For example, that
okay, they don't really believe that thirty-six people are really getting blown
away by Swartzennegger at that moment, but, but it does plant some kind of
influence on the mind and, and it, as such it is still undesirable.

[student: [unclear]]

[laughs] I went to a real, that kid who, [unclear], where are you? [laughter] He
got, he got me to go to some sensitive meaningful movie. [laughter], [laughs].
Okay, okay one more then we gotta take a break. Today's a long day, yeah.

[student: Can you purify with intense regret in the bardo?]

She said, "Can you purify your bad deeds while your in the bardo by having
intense regret?"     And the bottom line is very simple, and that's the question
about Poa also, you know. Should you wait until the last minute to, to get to
enlightenment? And the answer is this. And it's, it comes from my heart, I
mean, the, the process of death, during the process of death the physical
elements of the body are in total chaos. And although the brain is not the mind,
the brain rests on the mind. I mean, I'm sorry, the mind rests on the brain.
Okay, so although the brain is not the mind, the mind is closely connected with
the brain and with the physical body, they share a deep relationship. So when
the physical parts of the body are shutting down, you know, as the senses shut
down during the process of death, it throws the components of the physical
body into a, into a very serious chaos. And as a result of the chaos on, going on
with the basis on which it's resting... We were talking last night, we went to Santa
Cruz and we were talking about the land fill that the mall was resting on
[laughs]. So if the land fill is not stable and if it's going like that, then the
buildings have to fall down. And, and if the brain, if , if the physical components
of the gray matter are like going out of whack, totally, chaos, it does affect the
mind. Even though it's not the mind, it does sends the mind into total chaos and
there's a domino series of hallucinations, and they're always the same. They're
always very similar. You always go through a certain series of hallucinations.
And then after that you're in the bardo and that has other problems in the bardo.
So to think that, the belief that it's wise to wait to the last minute to get to
enlightenment, or that somehow, you know, that it's preferable to wait till the
end, is crazy. It's not likely to happen, it does happen, it's, it does happen, and a
highly trained yogi can, you know, can, can pull it off. But the odds are way,
way, way, against you. Yeah.

[student: [unclear] I mean, if somebody did something and then they realized...]

Yeah.

[student: [unclear]]

There is. There is such a thing as a person who enters Arhatship in the bardo.
Even in the Abhidharma, which is very conservative, you know. The most
conservative. It, it does have a place for that, but very rare. Let's get it done
now. You know, take care of it now. No reason to wait to do a Poa. You won't
be able to pull it off. You won't be able to Poa it off. [laughs] [laughter] Get it
done now, enter Paradise in the next year or two, okay. Alright, take a break
alright. Yeah.

[student: Can I turn off your radial mic.?] [cut]

[silence

No, that's it, how do you know that you' re having extreme number one? How
do you know that you're falling off the cliff number one? And as John said, "The
indication is that you're having a mental affliction, and a strong one." That's an
indication that you fell off the cliff. Is it the same thing as falling off the cliff? No.
Falling off the cliff came just before that, and that was believing that this is really
guy is evil from his own side. Believing that the screaming lady boss is
unpleasant from her own side. And then you must have a mental affliction.
Okay, you don't have any choice. Once you've misinterpreted her, once you've
said that this lady is evil from her own side, then you can have a mental
affliction. And that's what's so bad about... so it's really the {yeta} and {dzinba},
the grasping to the extreme, came the moment before you got angry. And it
was the belief that she is not a ripening of your own karma on a blank screen,
okay. And only then can you have a mental affliction. And only then can you
do a bad karma. It's a chain reaction. You can't do a bad karma if you don't have
a mental affliction coming right before it. If you don't have a mental... I'm sorry.
If you have a mental, you can't have a mental affliction unless the moment
before that you are grasping to that object as self-existent and you are falling off
that cliff to the... let's call it the right. You've fallen off the right side of the cliff
which is called {yeta}, okay. Yeah.
[student: Sometimes, undergoing the process of purification for example, you
might get a very strong emotion coming up.               That I've always thought,
sometimes that action itself, that experience, is a ripening of karma.]

It is, all, all experiences are.

[student: So let's say that someone could actually see emptiness directly, they're
in the process of purifying their negative karma. And they have a strong mental
affliction rising as a result of this karma being purified. That experience itself isn't
necessarily indicating that they are grasping at self existence.]

It is. They're not seeing the the three spheres of the act of purification. It's cool.
Alright. Let's get on to {meta}. So now you know {yeta}. Do you have {yeta}
allot?

[students: Yes.]

It comes a millisecond before anytime you are slightly like something or slightly
dislike something in a samsaric way. Okay, it's always there, okay.

[student: [unclear]]

Excuse me?

[student: [unclear]]

Is it on? That better, check. Now let's go to {meta}.

[silence]

{Meta} is the other extreme. Ninety nine percent of all people fall off this side.
One percent falls of the other side, and a few, you know, get to the City of
Liberation, alright. What is it to fall off the other side, which is {meta}? {Meta}
means, "the extreme of thinking that things don't exist". The extreme of thinking
things don't exist, which is technically {meta} and {dzinba}.       Okay, doctor of
[unclear]? Alright, what is it to fall off that side? You know all the flavors of it;
things are empty, nothing matters, it's all an illusion, therefore I can do what I
want. It's okay steal the towels out of the hotel, they're just illusions anyway,
okay. I'm a great tantric yogi, since everything is empty, I will impute onto this
sexual misconduct, a holy activity. You know, this is all {meta}, this is all
dependent on the extreme of thinking that; if things weren't the way you
thought they were, then they must not operate at all according to the normal
rules. Or maybe not even exist at all. And the implication of that is, I can do
whatever I want. Nagarjuna said, "Samsara and nirvana are the same thing." so
I'll just stay right where I am. He didn't mean that, what he meant was that they
are both empty. Samsara has it's projective causes, nirvana has its projective
causes. They're not anything else, from that point of view they are the same. He
didn't mean it was the same thing to sit here and suffer and get old and ugly or
to reach nirvana and paradise and not have to get old and ugly, okay, obviously.
So, how many people fall into {meta}? It's very rare, you have to get some lousy
Buddhist teachings, okay. You have to get some lousy new age books about,
about what Nagarjuna meant when he said, "nothing exists", or "life doesn't
matter", or "it's all an illusion", or something. To fall off that other extreme,
especially where you discount the ethical way of living is, that's, that's the other
extreme. It's rather rare, you, you have to be... it's a result of a crooked
education in, in a spiritual path, okay. In a crooked spiritual path, or something
like that. Meaning mistaken, it just has to, it's a result of, of a misunderstanding
of what emptiness is, and then you can fall off the other side if you like. That
one's obviously a much deeper hole than the other side. [laughs] It's one thing
to be blissfully ignorant of what's going on and it's another thing to actively
misbehave, because you don't understand emptiness, okay? That's a different
thing.

[student: [unclear]]

Yeah, neither one exists in the sense that, the fact that everything is the way it
looks doesn't exist. And the fact that nothing exists or nothing matters also
doesn't exist. Holding onto those two does exist, and that causes all our trouble.
That's the difference between {ta} and {tondzin}. {Meta}, {yeta} and {yepay
tondzin} and {mepay tondzin}, okay. Doesn't really matter, anyway, to believe
in either one is to all off the cliff. And, and has much more painful implications,
than falling off a real cliff with, with a real body and and getting killed, okay.
The implications are much more far reaching than having your physical body fall
off a cliff, okay. Yeah

[student: Could you say a little bit about people like Marpa or Tilopa who did
actions that weren't quote on quote, apparently ethical.]

Yeah.
[student: Because that were I think allot of confusion comes in about what 's
okay, and not okay to do.]

Your allowed, she said, like "what about these teachers that show like crazy
wisdom or stuff like that." In the bodhisattva vows, for example, you are
allowed to use these extraordinary methods if you have been on the highest
stages of the path for several million years, okay. And as my teacher always
said, "That eliminates us, doesn't it?" [laughter] Okay, I mean don't kid yourself,
alright? I mean think, I mean, I mean it's so rare to have someone in the world
talking about ethical living, trying to practice ethical living. Being a normal Dalai
Lama, you know just being a good, plain old good person and, teaching good
clean holy things, sacred things, I mean, there's not enough of those around,
okay. Let's be those. You know, then the crazy wisdom is good at a certain
level, if you've been on the path for millions of years, and I, and it's true, it exists
and it's real. And it's useful and it's important and it's enlightened, but, but you
must learn all these things before you get there, for millions of years. So stick to
this stuff, stick to this stuff, alright. I just want to make sure I cover all the
homework.

[silence]

So if anybody asks you, "What does Madhyumika say?", you're gonna say, "It's
not to fall off the two cliffs." It's not to fall off the two edges, the two extremes.
What are the two extremes? [A] thinking every thing is the way that you
thought it was and your boss is really bad from his side and it's not coming from
you. Or two, thinking well, if it's not coming, if it is not what it seems, it either
doesn't matter or it doesn't exist. Those are the two extremes, okay, those are
the two extremes. We want to go between the two. How do you stop those
two? How do you stop those two tendencies? Okay. And these are the two
friends, they're called {nang tong}, say {nang} [repeat], {tong} [repeat], {nang
tong} [repeat]. And that's the last thing. Next to last thing we're gonna talk
about. At least I'm honest for once, right. {Nang tong}, {nang} means dependent
origination, it's a code word for dependent origination, it means appearances, the
way things appear, the appearance of things is called {nang}, dependent
origination. What's the lowest interpretation of dependent origination?

[students: Everything depends on its parts.]

That, that if something comes from causes, it must be dependently originating, it
must be dependent origination. If something has its own causes and conditions
it's a dependent origination. What do the medium schools say is the meaning of
dependent origination?

[student: The whole depends on it's parts.]

The whole depends on it's parts. If something is depending on its parts, well
then that's dependent origination. They say, our view is better because our view
covers things that don't have causes like empty space, or emptiness itself. And
then Madhyumika Prasangika, highest school comes along and says, "you guys
are close, but no cigar". The ultimate meaning of dependent origination is..?

[students: [unclear]]

That things are the collection of their parts, and then you have to project onto
that something, okay. And where does the projection come from? What's
driving it?

[student: Past karma.]

Your past deeds, your own karmic, oh allot of correct view running around here,
[laughs, okay. The fact that things exist that way, that everything around you at
any given moment, is, is your own karmic seeds ripening, and causing you to
interpret data in a certain way, is {nang}. That's {nang}. That's {nang}, which
means "appearances". In other words you understand the appearance. It's the
last moment of the last instant of the second path when your looking at the tea
pot and saying, "This is a mental image. I'm not looking at a tea pot that exists
from its side." Okay, that's {nang}. When you understand that, that's {nang}.
Yeah? No que... okay. What's {tong}? {Tong} is that, a teapot which could exist
out there, or a pot which could exist out there on he stove, and I'll give you all
the synonyms, {rang shengyi drupe}, "naturally", {rangyi senegyi drupe}, "by
definition", {dundampa drupa}, "ultimately", {Chenja miopa drupa}, "not
dependently arising", {tanyenduma drupa}, "not a result of my projections",
{ranguma drupa}, "existing from it's own side", these are all synonyms for self-
existence, okay, they all mean the same thing. And when you realize that there's
no such thing, that's {tong}. {Tong} is the fact that there was never anything else
except your projections onto certain data, being called a pot, there ain't nothing
else. That's {tong}. How does {nang} and {tong} relate to the two extremes?
And then, and then we're done, because why did we get to this subject? We were
talking about the Buddha, he's talking to Subhuti, Subhuti says to the Buddha,
"What do we call this book?", he says..?
[student: Perfection of Wisdom.]

Perfection of Wisdom and then he says?

[student: There's no such thing.]

And then he says?

[students: That's why we can call it by that name.]

Okay, when he says, "There's no such thing.", he's trying to overcome {yeta}.
He's trying to say, "Things don't exist the way you thought." Why does the
Buddha say the Prajna Paramita doesn't even exist? He's trying to knock Subhuti
out of his preassumptions about the way things are. It's like the first teaching
you got when the teacher got up and said, "Things are not the way you think
they are." Okay, things are not the way you think they are and thinking that
they are the way they look to you is the, is the first extreme. The extreme of
thinking that everything exists the way you thought it did. So the reason the
Buddha says, "The Perfection of Wisdom doesn't even exist." is that he's trying to
knock Subhuti out of that belief, that everything was the way he thought it was.
He's trying to knock him out of that belief, okay. This perfection of wisdom
doesn't even exist, then Subhuti is supposed to think, "Oh, he means, it doesn't
exist the way I thought it did.", okay. But then the Buddha says, "Hey, and that's
why we can call it the [b: Perfection of Wisdom]." What's he saying then?

[students: Conventionally.]

It does exist conventionally, and don't think, Subhuti, that nothing exists or that
nothing matters, or that you can do whatever the heck you like. He's protecting
Subhuti from what?

[student: [unclear]]

Extreme number two, thinking that nothing exists, or that nothing matters. If it's
not the way that I thought it was, which is {yeta}, falling off this side, well then it
doesn't matter, I can do whatever I want, it doesn't exist, which is falling off the
other side. And by saying those two sentences he's trying to protect Subhuti
from falling off both cliffs. Hey, Subuti, it ain't the way you thought it was, the
Prajna Paramita doesn't even exist. Hey Subhuti, it's not that nothing exists,
because it does exist through your projections. And now I'll give you something
that Pabonka, this is one of Pabonka's most, it's one of the teachings he cherished
the most. He said, " If your gonna be a real Madhyumika Yogi, you have to
make four distinctions, okay, you have to make a four fold distinction, you have
to be able to tell the difference between four different things." And I'll, and I'll
read it to you: "Nothing exists from its own side, but that doesn't mean that
nothing exists at all, okay. Nothing exists from its own side, but that doesn't
mean that nothing exists at all" or that nothing matters ethically, okay. How
many distinctions have you got so far? It's really two. Nothing exists from its
own side, but that don't mean that nothing exists at all. You got two distinctions
so far. Okay, then he said, "everything does exist only through your projections,
but that doesn't mean that they exist from their own side, without your
projections", okay. Do Buddhas believe that things exist? By projection, yes. Do
they believe nothing exists?

[students: No.]

No. Okay, [laughs] and they don't. Do they believe that nothing exists without
your projections? Yes. What was the other one? [laughs] Do they believe that
everything exists through your projections?     Yes.    Do they believe that
everything exists from its own side?

[students: No.]

Okay, you gotta get... should be able to play with those four, you should be able
to dance between those four. Then you're a real Madhyumika yogi, okay. Yeah.

[student: [unclear]]

It's a little tricky, it's... Yeah, okay. I'll say it this way, it is true that nothing exists
from its own side, that's number one, it is true that nothing exists from it's own
side and you could have plugged in there, naturally or anything else that you
want to say, but let's leave it like that. It is true that nothing exists from it's own
side, that's number one. Number two is; but it ain't true that nothing exists,
okay, alright, or that nothing matters. I'll go through it again, number one; it is
true that nothing exists from it's own side. Number two; but it's not true that
nothing exists or nothing matters. Number three; it is true that everything exists
through your projections. Number three; it is true that everything exists through
your projections. Number four; but it's not true that everything exists from its
own side. And that's four different things. And if you want to be good
Madhyumika yogi and a good Diamond Cutter sutra person, you better be able
to tell the difference between those four. You better be able, like a mantra. In,
in, in, in Pabonka would say it this way, two is's and two ain't's, okay. They say
that, they say, "two is's and two ain't's". [laughter]

[student: [unclear]]

Yeah, Yeah, well it ultimately comes from Nagarjuna. But, yeah.

[student: It seems like one and four are the same.]

Absolutely, it does seem that, it really does seem that. It seems like one and four
are the same thing. But if you think about it, they are, they are, one is positive
and one is negative, is that true, can you say that?

[student: [unclear]]

[laughs] But its not true that everything exists from its own side.

[student: Is that an [unclear]]

I belief that's an is, but you'll figure that out, [laughs].

[student: [unclear]]

 Nothing exists from its own side, and it's not true that everything exists from its
own side, they are very similar things, I mean, they add up to the same thing,
but you have to make a distinction. Maybe the point is that contrasted to the
one that comes before it in the case of four and the one that comes right after it
in the case of one that they are different effects or different points, you know. I
think that might be a clue for you. And it comes out allot better in Tibetan to tell
you the truth, okay? [laughs], okay. Last point, now really last point. If I tell you
that one of these two prevents you from thinking that everything exists the way
you thought it did. And if I tell you one of these two prevents you from
thinking that nothing exists or nothing matters, which would you guess. If I tell
you, for example, if I tell you, {nang} means...

[silence]

If I tell you everything exists through projection, is that gonna keep you from
falling off the cliff that says, "everything's the way I thought is was" or is that
gonna keep you from falling off the cliff of, "nothing matter and nothing exists"?
I gotta check what he said here, [laughs].

[students: [unclear]]

Which one?

[student: Prevents you from thinking everything exists the way you thought.]

Yeah, so she's saying, when I say that everything exists through projections, it, it
stops you from thinking that everything existed the way you thought it was,
okay. {Tibetan} and {tong}, if I come up to you and say, if I come up to you and
say everything is empty of self existence. Everything is empty of self existence,
what does that prevent? If I come up to you and say that nothing exists from its
own side, what does that prevent? [laughs] Prevents the first one again? Okay
now I'll tell you the punchline alright. Most Buddhist schools say, you know the
lower schools say this first one prevents the second extreme, okay. Saying that
everything exists by projection prevents you from thinking nothing exists.
Saying that everything exists by projection, prevents you from falling into the
mistake that nothing exists.

[student: [unclear]]

Everyone except the highest. [laughter] Three and a half schools say that.

[student: {Nang} prevents {meta}.]

 Good. {Nang} prevents {meta}. When I say everything exists by projection, it
prevents you from thinking that nothing exists or nothing matters. When I say
everything is empty of self-existence, it prevents you from thinking that things
exist the way you thought they were. It prevents the first extreme, okay. You
gotta cook it okay? This is where my Lama would say, "Okay, you guys go
home and think about it, don't wait for me to tell you the punch line, you go
home and think about it." That's the position of three and a half schools. The
higher half of the school reverses it, Prasangika says, and this is very, very, very
famous quotation from Je Tsongkhapa; {sheyang nawang yeta sewa dang, tonpa
metag sershin tonpanyi, kirin depar gurway sershin da [?]}When, when you
figure out how saying that things are projections prevent you from thinking that
things are the way you thought they were. And when you figure out how,
saying nothing exists self existently prevents you from thinking that nothing
exists, well then you understand Madhyumika.

[students: [unclear]]

I'm afraid, because I'm not clear, clear, clear on it myself. [laughs] {Nyawang
yeta sershin tonpanyi, sheyang ngawang yeta tsewa dang}. {Sheyang ngawang
yeta tsewa dang} means "When you understand that everything is just a
projection, it will stop you from thinking that everything exists the way you
thought it did." {Tompay meta sershin tompanyi}, {Tompay meta ser} means,
"when you understand that nothing exists independently or self existently, it'll
save you from thinking that nothing exists at all." In other words, when I say
nothing exists without you projection, and when I say nothing exists, that's a big
difference. If someone comes up to you and accuses you, which I've bee accused
in, in a debate with a great scholar of another tradition, another religion. They
say, they come up to you and say, "Nagarjuna said nothing exists." I said, "That's
not what Nagarjuna said, Nagarjuna said, "nothing exists independent of your
projections." And that's a big difference, so in that sense, understanding that
nothing exists self-existently, prevents you from thinking that...?

[students: Nothing exists.]

That nothing exists, cool, alright? So Pabonka takes you through that whole trip.
He says, "Here's what the lower three and a half schools think, and what I just
said is what the higher half thinks. And then he screws up things again, and he
says, "But my root Lama, Drupkangpa, this is, this is Pabonka's root Lama, used
to say, privately to us, [laughter] that they work both ways, okay? [laughs]
Okay. When you understand that everything is a projection, it keeps you from
falling off both cliffs. When you understand that nothing exists self, self-
existently, it keeps you from falling off both cliffs. He's very cool about it, Why
do we go into all this jazz, is it just intellectual b. s.? No. By discussing the fine
points you'll never forget the main point. And I'll just state it one more time and
then I'll shut up. Realize that spiritually you can fall into two death traps, two
quicksands which will suck you down and kill your spiritual being. And that's
how dangerous they are. One is to think that the events which are happening
around you are not your own karma ripening on an otherwise blank world,
okay. Don't believe it. If you act on that, you will be able to remove your
mental afflictions, you'll never again be angry, you'll never again be jealous,
you'll never again hate. And then life is cool. You know, life without the mental
afflictions, if you can even imagine it is very, very cool. Think of going through
the day without being the slightest bit irritated, or the slightest bit or the slightest
kind of bad thought, or, anything. Going through the whole day with just...
cool. [laughs] Just try to imagine it, I mean that's, that's, just to avoid that first
one. What's the second extreme? Do not believe those bad teachings about
emptiness. You know, junk them, spit on them, okay, I mean, they are poison.
For some guy to get up and say, "Everything's empty, so you can do what you
like. Everything's empty, so nothing matters. Everything's empty, so you can go
into tantra and do whatever dirty thing you want to do. If you think about it,
okay." You know, forget it, okay, it's not true. That's not what it means, that's
not what these things mean. Avoid them like the plague. Because, because,
cause falling off the top of this platform, you can break an arm, or break your
back, or you can kill one life. You know, fall into one of those extremes, and you
made a horrible mistake that can ruin your spiritual life for many, many
lifetimes, okay. That's the point of the two extremes, okay? Okay, sorry, we
got a short break now right, sorry. And we start again at?

[student: At two.]

Two o'clock. What time is it now?

[student: Fifteen after twelve.]

Okay.

[students: [unclear]]

That was it. {Sheyang ngawang yeta...] [cut]