ACI 6 «Сутра Алмазного Огранщика», занятие 7

Class Seven: Destroying Mental Afflictions
March 23, 1995

Transcribed by Angie Overy
Proof: Jaala

Rinpoche’s CD Rom transcription work, you don’t have to finish it before the
exam. You’re getting it so late, so, due to my slowness, so, but you won’t get
your exams back until you finish it. [laughter] That’s blackmail.

[students: Oh we never get our exams back.] [laughter]

Oh, oh!

[student: You’ve got six months.] [laughter]

And there’ll be, Monday and Tuesday; there’ll be a package coming out, okay. If
you can’t, if you absolutely can’t use a comput…, we know who you are.
[laughter] Okay.

[student: Can I ask questions? Tell me…I’d like to tell you how I understand and
you tell me if I’ve got it, okay?]

Okay.

[student: As I understand this is four different ways that we perceive things as
self existent incorrectly. Four different ways that the mind conceives, perceives,
whatever.]

The {tsok chi} is not really, it’s not the main thing, {tsok chi} is very minor.

[student: But I’m saying these, the mind works in these four different ways of
perceiving and identifying imaging right [unclear].]

You can say that, you can say that, but also, you could outline it like this, you
know, like, first with the colle…, the whole and the parts one.

[student: Right.]

You know what I mean? ‘Chev…’ is ‘Chevrolet’ a whole, is ‘cars’ the whole and
‘Chevrolet’ is a part? No. Okay, so that’s not the main one. Whole, whole and
parts one, is not really the, it’s, it’s a {chi} but it’s not the {chi} we’re, that if you
perceive it perfectly you’ll understand relative truth. That’s not the one. That’s
not the main one. But, it’s, it’s helpful, right and it’s the one that most people
who teach emptiness talk about. It’s helpful, but it’s not the main one, okay.
What’s the other one?

[students: {Rip chi}.]

Yeah, the other is the, you could call it the type, the general; type, general, what
did I call it?

[students: Type.]

And then that’s, I mean, I don’t want you to think of them as four different ones.
I would put number three and number four under here, you see. And that you
just got to think about. You have to think about it. It’s very difficult and, and
that’s the whole trick. That, that other thing about the {dra chi} and the {dun chi},
the sound, you know, the word, general – what do you wanna call it? How
about, idealization, from a word, from words, right.

[student: Idealizations from experience.]

And then, idealizations from experience. I, I didn’t mean to say there were four
types that were all equally…. I would put these two under number two and
that, you got to think about.

[student: The way I was thinking of this was that; number one you look at
something and assemble its parts into a conceptual whole in your mind. Right.]

That’s good.

[student: An idealized whole in your mind. And the second one is like you take
everything that exists and you break it down in your mind into categories and
subcomponents, it’s like working the opposite way to number one, like you’re
taking the universe and creating categories and groupings and things.]

But how is that done? Do you do that consciously when you’re [unclear]?

[student: Is that what it means when that you’re[unclear].]

Yeah, it means that, but it’s instinctual. It’s what you would call instinctual, which
is really [unclear] at work and that’s very subtle.

[student: So you do that and the way that you do it is through three and four, is
that the point?]

No, that’s just ways of recognising specific cases of doing it.

[student: So the point is, is those the two different ways you do that?]

Yeah, yeah, mostly {dun chi}, mostly {dun chi}.

[student: [Unclear].]

Oh, no, you could not have a {dra chi} all day, I mean, if people only talk to you
about things that you’ve had experience of. Most of the time, when I use
language, every word I use is, is something you have an experience of. For you
it’s a {dun chi} but the other one {dra chi} is more theoretical. It’s like, if I, you
know, how, how to use a certain spreadsheet in a computer, you know. You
know somebody’s doing it. It’s a {dra chi} but you don’t, personally have any
experience of how to do that.

[student: That’s why the words that you use are confusing to me because I
thought that a {dun chi} was that mental image that you get when someone says
something to you that’s based on a prior direct perception, or you think is a
prior direct perception.]

Well that’s true too.

[student: And the other one was about…]

That’s true too, yeah.

[student: Something where you had a mental image other than a prior…]
Yeah, based on, they’re both, they’re both, they can both occur as a result of
some one saying a word. If I say, ‘John Stilwell’s face’, you can’t see it right now,
something comes into your mind, you’ve seen him before. That’s a {dun chi}
yeah. Then a {dra chi} would be a sound, a sound, a word one would be like ‘Taj
Mahal’ if you’ve never seen the Taj Mahal.

[student: Were those reversed?]

No.

[student: Yes, three is {dra chi} and four is {dun chi}the way you [unclear].]

This is {dra chi} and this is {dun chi}, yeah.

[student: Okay.]

There’s no particular order. {Dra chi} is often, yeah, last night I talked [unclear]

[student: So if I understand you correctly you are saying that the way in which
we take everything that exists in the universe and break it down into whatever
categories we come up with.]

Whatever you karma demands you to break it down into.

[student: It’s through the process of, through the technique of number three and
number four idealising through words and through experiences.]

Yeah, which are, which are particular examples of number two, particular cases
of number two. You really have to think about that. You wouldn’t think off-
hand, that they are the same as ‘Chevrolet’ and ‘car’. You have to think about
that.

[student: So this is about that we’re not really getting some direct thing we’re
creating that image in our head.]

Yeah, there’s no reality outside that demands that that be the idealization that
you have. There’s nothing coming from the object’s side that demands that you
idealize it in that particular way. It’s reasonable that you do, given your data,
and that’s why we call {tsema} ‘valid perception’. In {uma}, in Madhyamika
Prasangika. But, but from the object’s own side, there’s nothing that requires
you to label it in a certain way. That comes from you. That, that, you just have
to cook it. It’s a deep, it’s very important. It’s really important. [unclear]
[laughs] [laughter] Think about cars and Chevrolets, okay. [laughter] Okay.
What’s a …., say {dra chompa} [repeat}

{Dra chompa} [repeat]

Okay. {Dra} means what? Enemy. And {chompa} means ‘destroyer’. So, {dra
chompa} is a…?

[students: Foe destroyer.]

Foe- destroyer or an arhat. The Sanskrit word is, arhat. The Sanskrit root ‘arh’
means to be worthy, to be worthy or deserving. And so, sometimes, with the
Tibetans etymology, etymologise it, they say, {dra chompa} ‘he destroys the foe
of the mental afflictions’.      And then they say, therefore, ‘he’s worthy of
prostrations of the entire world’. And you miss it if you don’t know Sanskrit.
It’s a pun; the word ‘arhat’ is a pun. One of the roots means ‘to kill’, ‘to slay’, one
of the roots means ‘worthy’ and you miss it in the Tibetan translations and then
later, maybe Tibetan writers didn’t even know it. They just copied the trans…,
what the earlier writers said. So {dra chompa} means arhat. {Dra}’s the enemy,
right. Mental afflictions, your mental afflictions so, reaching {dra chompa} arhat,
foe-destroyer, and reaching what are simultaneous? Nirvana and destruction
of…?

[students: [unclear]]

Meaning, you lose, the destruction of your mental afflictions.          Nirvana and
destroying your mental afflictions permanently are synonyms.

[student: For a Mahayana bodhisattva it would be simultaneous?]

We’re gonna talk about it. Generally, they say that, generally, that’s what you
say. Generally, it’s presented as if you reach nirvana with bodhicitta in you
heart, then that’s enlightenment. If you reach nirvana without bodhicitta in your
heart, that’s a Hinayana nirvana. And then you still got, that’s called the
‘extreme of peace’ and you still got a ways to go. Yeah.

[student: So this refers to both kinds of arhats then?]
It’s very subtle.

[student: That’s when you have to have to get the first kind of renunciation.]

We’ll talk about it. Okay. So that’s a {dra chompa} and, and when you read the
reading the Diamond sutra at this point, - The Diamond Cutter, excuse me – [b:
The Diamond Cutter Sutra] reaches a point here where the Buddha basically asks
Subhuti, ‘Is a {dra chompa} a {dra chompa}? Is an arhat an arhat?’ And Subhuti
answers, ‘If an arhat thinks to himself ‘I’m an arhat’ then he’s not an
arhat.’ [laughs] okay, All right, if an arhat thinks to himself, ‘Hey I finally reached
arhat.’, then he’s, then he’s not an arhat. And then, Subhuti says, ‘For example, if
someone reached the eighth bodhisattva bhumi, eighth bodhisattva level,’ okay,
that’s very important to mention.

[student: Is that the last one?]

No, there’s ten, okay, there’s ten bodhisattva levels. When do you reach the first
bodhisattva level?

[student: The path of seeing.]

She’s half right, she said, ‘When you reach the path of seeing.’ What did she
leave out?

[student: Boddhicitta.]

Yeah, if you reach the path of seeing on the bodhisattva track, there’s three
tracks, right: two Hinayana tracks and one Mahayana track. If you’re on the
Mahayana track, meaning you already have bodhicitta, by the way, the minute
you get bodhicitta you’re on the Mahayana track, you can go halfway through
the Hinayana track and jump up to the Mahayana track. They say it’s a waste of
time. They say might as well go on Mahayana track right away. Sooner or later,
you gotta go up there. There’s a flow chart, okay. [laughter] And it’s very
complicated. It’s called { …nyi shipa}, the twenty permutations. [laughs] And we
have to learn the whole thing. It’s kinda interesting. So anyway, at some point,
you gotta jump up to this bodhisattva track. And when you get to the first path,
first path, first path is when you reach bodhicitta. Second path is intellectual
understandings of emptiness under the influence of bodhicitta. Third path is
direct perception of emptiness under the influence of bodhicitta, the path of
seeing for a bodhisattva. That is the first bodhisattva level. So, two things
happen at the same time: you see emptiness directly, as a bodhisattva, you’re
already a bodhisattva, you see emptiness directly. At that same moment you
reach the first bodhisattva level. So, reaching the first bodhisattva level’s a big
deal. It happens at the same moment that you perceive emptiness directly,
already having bodhicitta in your mind, okay. So eighth bodhisattva level’s ooh,
you know, that’s really far, that’s really far along. Where do you think the
eighth bodhisattva level relates to the five paths?

[student: Individuation.]

Yeah, it’s in number four because number three you saw emptiness directly,
number five you’re already a Buddha, number four’s got a lotta work in there.
You gotta a lotta things to do in number four. So eighth bodhisattva level occurs
when you’ve already reached the fourth path. Very high, very high. By the
time of the eighth bodhisattva level you reach a special level called, it’s a very
complicated thing nobody knows what it means. You can look it up in a
computer, you can go through fifty thousand pages of scripture, it’ll only stop
once or twice, but it’s important. It means, at this, at, by the time the eighth
level, your perceptions are no longer polluted by ignorance. They’re no longer
affected by ignorance. You still have the subtle, subtle, seeds for that ignorance
in your mind, and when you get rid of those you become a Buddha. But, by this
point, your, your mind is no longer influenced by ignorant…, plain ignorance.
I’m not talking about its seeds.

[student: [Is there a term for..]]

The name of the eighth level? It’s just called ‘earth number eight’, that’s why
sometimes they call bodhisattva ‘grounds’. So mastery here, which is actually
the Tibetan word for ‘patience’ and a lot of people mistranslate that, it can mean
‘mastery’ also. It, these things that will never grow can refer to two things. One
is emptiness, okay. One is all the emptinesses in the world and one refers to
your mental afflictions. Basically, you’ve overcome your mental afflictions at
that point. There’s a very subtle argument about it but basically you’ve
overcome your mental afflictions. So you are very similar to lower arhats, okay.
The, what you’ve achieved by the eighth level and what they’ve achieved at the
end of their five paths is, is very similar.

[student: [unclear]]
Yeah, in the sense of being an arhat. Do they call you an arhat at that point? I’m
still studying it, okay. [laughs] I don’t think so. I believe a bodhisattva arhat
would have to be a Buddha but I’m not, I’m still checking out. You don’t, you
basically achieve a state very similar to a lower arhat by that point because
you’ve overcome your what?

[student: Your afflictions.]

Your ignorance. Overcoming ignorance has big implications with overcoming
what? Mental afflictions, yeah, okay. You…, when you have finished your
ignorance, you won’t be able to have what? Mental afflictions [laughs] anymore,
okay. That’s a, we have to talk, that’s the whole subject of the course tonight. I
mean, the class tonight, okay. We’re gonna talk about the relationship between
getting rid of your bad thoughts, your six favourite ones, okay: pride, jealousy,
anger, hatred, ignorance, wrong view, like that and, getting rid of those six
permanently and not seeing things as self-existent anymore.           What’s the
relationship between those two? Yeah.

[student: Is it when you say seeds for ignorance is seeds the word…]

{Bakchak}, mental seed.

[student: Because…, but then that implies that the potential to produce
something.]

That something would grow from them. That’s the second reason why they call
this never grow. It’s called {unclear} it means, ‘a future thing which will never
happen’. [laughs] Okay, your {klesha}’s become a thing which, there are seeds
for them, but, those seeds will never ripen. They become things of the future
that will never occur. They become, like, okay, suppose I have a lot of seeds for
apple trees but I, you know, I can’t get them out of this room before they rot,
then, they are seeds for a future thing which will never happen. They, they’re,
you can call them seeds but they’re never gonna have any results. And there’s a
beautiful argument on that. That’s another story. Nominally speaking, if they
don’t have results they can’t be called…

[student: Seeds.]

So you’ve picked up on that. [laughs] So that things that will never grow really
has two senses. One is emptiness, because it never grows because what? It’s an
uncaused object. It’s a negative object. Emptiness is an absence. Nothing can
cause emptiness. Emptiness, one meaning, one meaning of things that will never
grow, one meaning, the first meaning of two, is ‘emptinesses, all the emptinesses
in the universe’ actually, they will never grow, they never did grow. They have
no causes. You can’t, you can’t grow any new emptinesses. Why? It’s very,
very subtle. You will perceive this fact directly, maybe a little bit before you see,
this is involved, this is the subtle meaning of impermanence and you have to
perceive that directly. That’s a perception you’ll have at the path of preparation.
It’s an important prep… step. It’s not directly related to emptiness but it’s, the
subtle, the perception of subtle impermanence is itself very deep. And it won’t
happen to you until the path of preparation but it means you, you realize that
emptiness is not a thing which grows in the sense of being small and then getting
bigger and then getting bigger and peaking out and then getting smaller and
smaller and smaller. Emptiness goes into existence, emptiness goes out of
existence, but it doesn’t grow. It’s not a caused thing. You gotta think about
that. Yeah.

[student: I thought the way we studied at one point, maybe in a different school,
that the, an arhat overcomes the mental afflictions and what remains to be done
is the obstructions to omniscience…]

Normally. Normally.

[student: …but that the bodhisattva didn’t completely get rid of the mental
afflictions until the very last moment and then the obstructions to omniscience
and the mental afflictions finished at the same time and they were Buddhas.]

The, the Prasangika School and only the Prasangika School, the highest school of
Buddhism, says that even seeds of ignorance are…, they say that ignorance itself
is a bad thought, is a{klesha}. And the other Schools don’t say that and so there’s
a big debate about it.

[student: So which school have I just…]

We’re doing, Diamond Cutter Sutra is highest school, Prasangika.

[student: What did I just say?…]

That’s why I didn’t say that he was totally equal to, I said he was very similar to,
a lower foe-destroyer. You gotta, we’ll leave it like that. Very complicated
question. You will learn, some day, eight distinctive characteristics that separate
the higher Madhayamika school from the lower Madhayamika school, and that’s
one of them.
So, anyway, they reach this point. When you reach that point something neat
happens. {Lung tenpa} [repeat]
{Lung tenpa} [repeat].

{Lung} means, do you know {lung}? Do you know what a {lung} means?

[student: Wind.]

Yeah. {lung} high-tone with a ‘ra’ head letter means, {lung}means ‘wind’, ‘psychic
wind’, okay. Psychic energy, whatever, it’s actually what allows your thoughts
to move. When the wind passes through certain channels in your body, you can
have thoughts, conceptual thoughts and that’s a long story. But, this is a low-
tone {lung} which means ‘the word’, meaning, obviously, related to air and
breath, okay; the word. When you go to get a {lung}, meaning an oral
transmission, you go to a special, it’s like an initiation and the Lama will read [b:
The Diamond Cutter Sutra]. I think we’ll try and get a {lung} from Rinpoche,
okay, of [b:The Diamond Cutter Sutra]. He just sits down, you have a big
ceremony, you sit there for a long time, finally, he sits down. He just reads the
thing and you just listen. And that’s a, that’s a transmission of the oral blessing
of, of the words from a living person to a living person that’s passed down
through the centuries. So, that’s a big honour to get a {lung}. There’s people
who give {lung}’s for the whole {kangyur}, thirty-five hundred, you know,
fifteen hundred works. So, it’ll take, like, a year and people will just come every
day and listen and get the oral blessing. They won’t explain what it means; they
just read it out loud. That’s a {lung}. So now, you know the meaning, the {lung}
is the word, okay. {Tenpa} means ‘to show’, ‘to give’, to give the word.
Sometimes, to give the word, {lung tenpa} means the Buddha declared
something about something. For example, there are good deeds and bad deeds,
right and {lung tenpa} means that the, the Buddha declared, ‘Oh now this is
karmically active. If you do this, something good or bad will happen.’ When he
didn’t {lung tenpa} something, we call it karmically neutral. So if it’s not {lung
tenpa} we say it doesn’t, the Buddha didn’t specify it. He left it in that category
of saying it’s like they are not karmically active. I’ll give you an example, okay.
Karmically active, in the positive sense, is {ngo tsa}, do you remember {ngo tsa}?
{Ngo tsa} means ‘shame’, private shame, right, in your own room that you don’t
do something bad. {Ngo tsa} is always a virtue, it’s {lung tenpa}. It’s karmically
active. It’s never karmically neutral. If you have {ngo tsa} like in your own
room, in the privacy of your own room, you avoid a bad deed because you
would feel dirty, you, you yourself would feel embarrassed, and nobody else
will ever know, that’s, that’s always a virtue.             According to the [b:
Abhidharmakosha] there’s two mental functions that are always virtuous,
accompany every form of virtue. And then, {lung tenpa} negative way, is anger,
okay; true, uncontrolled hatred is never, is never a good thing so it’s always
karmically active. {Lung tenpa}, those are both {lung tenpa}. By the way, there
are cases where a Lama can pretend to have anger to help somebody. And there
are many cases where a Lama, out of kindness, will hit somebody on the head,
okay. It’s been done to me {Lung tenpa}, okay. [laughs] Those are both
karmically active. Sleep is karmically neutral, okay. Sleep is a mental function
which is karmically neutral according to the [b: Abhidharma]. It can go, it can
swing either way, but by itself, it’s neutral. That’s what we, that’s not {lung
tenpa}. So {lung tenpa} means, the word was given, meaning, the Buddha
specified it as, as karmically active. The negative of this {lung ma tenpa} ‘didn’t
specify’, did you ever hear of any case where the Buddha didn’t specify
something or refused to specify something? Did you ever hear of those?

[student: He refused to specify that if God exists.]

There were fourteen questions. It’s called {lu ma den tu shi} that the Buddha was
asked by non-Buddhist scholars in a, in a open assembly. They posed fourteen
questions to him. Is there an end to samsara or is there no end to samsara?
Does the mind have an end; does the mind not have an end? He said, ‘Look, I
can’t answer them’. By the way, does samsara have an end?

[students: Yes.]

Of course, that’s why we’re here. Does your mind have an end?

[students: No.]

No, okay. [laughs] Does the world have an end?

[students: Yes.]

Yes, burned up by the sun. So, those questions do have answers but he, he did
not give a, he didn’t {lung ten}, he didn’t give the word. Why? He understood
that either answer he gave would be misinterpreted by those people because
they would take it to be self-existent. So there are fourteen questions he said,
‘Look, either answer I give you, you’re gonna misunderstand, so I won’t give
you any answer.’ That’s another meaning of {lung tenpa}. So you got two
meanings so far. One is ‘the word was given meaning it’s karmically active’; one
is ‘the word was given meaning he did answer or he didn’t answer’; but, what
we’re looking out for is number three. The third meaning of {lung tenpa} is the
day that the Buddha comes up to you and says, ‘Okay, Lois Seagle, you, it’s
decided, you will be a Buddha and your name will be Dipamkara, you’ll be on
this planet, in this universe, you’ll appear there first and you’ll sit under the
Bodhi tree and you will become enlightened. Congratulations, I can say it with
confidence, the moment has come.’ That’s called {lung tenpa}. They give the
word to you; it’s called the final prediction. It’s called, the Buddha, you meet a
Buddha, something happens, you reach a certain state and then he says, in the
case of Shakyamuni, the Buddha put his foot on his head [laughter] in a nice way,
there’s a long story about it. [laughs] He put his foot on the person’s head and
said, ‘You did it, you know.’ I mean Shakyamuni himself got… by a Buddha
named Dipamkara, a former Buddha. And, he reached a certain level and then
that Buddha put his foot on his head and said, ‘Okay, now, now you’ll become a
Buddha called Shakyamuni on a planet called earth. You’ll be born in a land
called India’, you know, he gave him the {lung tenpa}. So that’s the third
meaning of {lung tenpa}.

[student: Could you go over the second meaning?]

Second meaning of {lung tenpa} was ‘to either to respond or not respond’.
They’re called the fourteen unclarified or unspecified points and that’s where
those non-Buddhists ask him; ‘Did, did, does the world have an end?’ ‘Does
samsara have an end?’ ‘Does it not have an end?’ ‘Does it have an end?’ And he
said, ‘I won’t give a word. I won’t say anything’. That’s the second meaning.
Third meaning is the one we’re talking about tonight is when the Buddha, that
day, the golden day, the Buddha comes up to you and says, ‘Okay, you will be
such-and-such a Buddha on such-and- such a planet.’ That happens when you
reach the eighth bodhisattva level. There’s a connection between reaching the
eighth bodhisattva level and the Buddha coming up and saying, ‘Okay, you
made it, you will be such-and-such a Buddha in the future.’

[student: So then this is different from the perception that you have immediately
after your first perception of emptiness?]

It’s, they’re a little bit different. They’re both called illusory, illusion-like, but
apparently, I can’t tell you precisely okay, I haven’t studied it very well and I
don’t want…, but I did read it that at this level, apparently, you are constantly
aware of the illusion.

[student: No, no, no. I mean the prediction.]

Oh, I’m sorry what?

[student: Coming out of emptiness you also come face to face with the Buddha
who says you will…]

Oh no, he doesn’t say anything. You just know.

[student: Huh?]

[student: This is more specific as well right?]

This is where you meet a person called a Buddha and he comes up to you. It’s
much later.

[student: When and where?]

Your name will be that, you’ll be born, you know.

[student: But you knew that already?]

Yeah, you knew how many lives and you knew that you would become a
Buddha and you knew what they wouldn’t call you. [laughter] Seriously, not
kidding.

[student: You’re constantly perceiving the relative truth.]

You’re constantly perceiving that the discrepancy between what you think you
see and what you know, what you know is there.

[student: This level?]

Yeah, but apparently, it’s constant by this point.

[student: So you’re seeing your own projections?]
You’re constantly aware that there’s a discrepancy between the appearance of it
to you and its reality and the book says you perceive all emptinesses directly or
you gain a special power over that kind of perception. You… apparently it’s
become very easy for you or you’ve gained mastery over that kind of
perception.

[student: But not in meditation, out of it.]

It says both. It says both.

[student: It carries over.]

But if you were seeing emptiness directly out of meditation you’d be a Buddha
already.

[student: Right. It intervenes.]

So, it’s, it’s like, it’s described in the text, you can read it in the text. He explains
the word, Chone Drakpa Shedrup.

[student: Is it something that living lamas have experienced and have been able
to speak about?]

After you reach the first bodhisattva level you don’t talk about it.

[student: So there could be lots of people on this planet who are experiencing it
but they can’t tell us?]

It’s not that they can’t, you just, you just, you know that you shouldn’t.

[student: Why’s that?]

[student: Yeah.]

I don’t, well, I could think, I, I know, normally, why you’re not supposed to
show miracles if you have that power is, that although there may be a short
term influence on some one, ultimately, it’s not related to…, they can’t
experience it directly themselves. And it won’t ever change them permanently.
What changes people permanently and what really makes, causes them to make
spiritual progress is just plain old class time, explaining things, going over things
again and again. Apparently, showing someone a miracle lasts for a short time
and then it wears off, and then they go back, you show a second miracle, then,
they need a third one shortly after that [laughter]. And after awhile [laughter]
they’re blasé.

[student: Addicted.]

They’re not working on a normal spiritual study so I believe those are related
probably, you know.         Someone could say, ‘Look I’ve achieved the direct
perception of emptiness and it’s just like this’. And then, what does it do for
you? I don’t think it changes you necessarily. They have to try to…, and you
can’t believe them ‘cos you can’t confirm it. So, so they’re not supposed to, I
mean, there’s a, there’s a thing that you’re not supposed to talk about it. There’s
a thing that if you talk about it then when you didn’t do it it’s one of the greatest
sins you can commit. And then, there’s a thing where if you talk about it where
the person couldn’t catch it anyway, directly, so you might as well just bring
them up along the causes, that cause will bring them to see it themselves. Rather
do that than say, ‘Oh hey, you know I…’, I think it’s all related to that. I don’t
mind if you guys don’t mind to stay ‘til ten. [laughs] Okay. Go ahead.

[student: This is a real basic question. How do you know that you’ve achieved
boddhisattvahood, what’s the definition of first level, I mean at what point is
someone considered a bodhisattva?]

It’s when you get true bodhicitta. And there are two forms of bodhicitta. One is
called ‘sugar-cane’ bodhicitta, where it tastes like bodhicitta and it sort of feels
like bodhicitta but it comes before you achieve real bodhicitta. And then there’s
real…, then there’s the perception, then there’s the reality of real bodhicitta. You
know when you have it and there’s a physical, that physical sensation of that.
And then there’s, the definition is {sem chen tam chen la michen} ‘it views all
sentient beings’ {unclear} you get a desire to achieve Buddhahood for all them
and there’s a long, it’s a long definition.

[student: You’re making it sound like it impinges on the perception of
emptiness?]

No, I didn’t say that.

[student: Oh okay that’s…]
[student: Can I ask a question about the first definition?]

All right.

[student: It wasn’t clear to me, if something is karmically active are you saying
the Buddha said it’s positive or negative and that makes it active or the fact that it
just has a result?]

No, it’s a good question. I mean, if the Buddha never mentioned it, is it
automatically karmically neutral? What do you think?

[students: No.]

No. At the end of the [b:Vinaya Sutra] he says, ‘Use your common sense. Apply
what I said, you know, I’ve described a thousand pages of good deeds and bad
deeds, now use your common sense, you people in the future world, you know.
Two thousand years from now, you’ll have to use your common sense and
apply these general principles to the specific occurrences in your own day and
time’. And that one line from the [b: Vinaya Sutra] the end of the [b: Vinaya
Sutra] is, in the monastery we study it first ‘cos it’s so earth shaking. That’s
opens, that opens up a lot for misinterpretation [laughs] you know. You decide
later, okay [laughs]. You mean, that’s a very dangerous thing to say, but he has
to say it. He has to say, look, I couldn’t cover every eighty-four thousand bad
deeds. You try to, you learn what I taught, sixteen volumes of bad deeds and
then you try to apply it to, to specific circumstances in 1995, okay.

[student: Some people have to leave at nine can we hold the class right through
break.]

[student: Yeah.]

I tell you what, I will finish by nine can we run the class right through break.
That’s called {sum pa} in logic. [laughs] [laughter] Third choice, third option.

[student: Quickly while you’re writing we can just say three things, something is
karmically active…]

Something deserves an answer, he did give an answer; and…

[student: The final prediction.]
It is the final prediction. So, Subhuti, by the way, says, he says, ‘I’m an arhat and
if I said, ‘I’m an arhat’, I wouldn’t have been an arhat. If I thought to myself, ‘I’m
an arhat,’ I wouldn’t be an arhat. And if I thought to myself, ‘I’m an arhat’, then
the Buddha would have never come up to me and said, ‘Hey Subhuti, you’re
gonna make it to the final, you’re gonna be a Buddha.’ In other words, if I had
ever had a grasping to self-existence, I would not have been an arhat and
obviously, the Buddha would’ve never come up to me and said what?
‘Congratulations Subhuti, you’re gonna make it,’ you know, [unclear] okay.
That’s the whole point. That’s how the [b: Diamond Cutter Sutra] reaches at this
point. Subhuti says, ‘If an arhat thinks to themselves, ‘I’m an arhat’; he’s not an
arhat. If an arhat thinks to himself, ‘I’m an arhat’, there’s no Buddha that’d come
up to him and say, ‘Hey you’re gonna become a Buddha at such-and-such a time
because you couldn’t have ever reached the eighth level.’

[student: Would a Buddha come up and ask, consider him Subhuti?]

Long, long story. [laughs]

[student: Okay.]

Is it wrong for an arhat to think, ‘I’m an arhat?’

[student: You said an arhat can’t think they’re an arhat so anyone that thinks
they are isn’t an arhat, so it’s a point you never even get to.]

That’s what the text says. That’s what the Sutra says. Now what does it mean?

[student: Conventionally who you are-self existent.]

Course you are. The Buddha looks at himself and says, ‘I’m a Buddha.’ The
proof of that is that it’s a bad deed to steal the Buddha’s begging bowl, okay. He
thinks of it as ‘his own’. If there’s no ‘his own’ for it to be then there wouldn’t be
any bad deed of stealing the Buddha’s begging bowl, okay. [laughs] That’s
actually the proof in logic. It means, does the Buddha think of himself as a
Buddha? Of course he does. Does an arhat think of himself as an arhat? Of
course he does. But, so when, if the Buddha comes up and says, ‘Subhuti if you
think of yourself as an arhat you are not’, what is it?

[student: Ultimate sense.]
Yeah, in an ultimate sense meaning, independent of your projections, that’s all.
That simple. Independent of your {dun chi}’s. And that’s one point, [unclear].
Does the person making the prediction exist? You know, if you’re Subhuti what
are you gonna say Dr Sykes? Does the person making the prediction, you
know, the Buddha comes up and [unclear] does he exist? Now you’re Subhuti,
you’re not David Sykes.

[Student: No.]

Nah, [laughs] say ‘Nah’. Okay, what does that mean?

[student: If he’s…I don’t know.]
Does his [laughs] does he exist and if you say no, you gotta add something. He
doesn’t exist independent of…? His projections, okay, he’s projecting Buddha
onto him, okay. So the person giving the prediction, the final prediction, doesn’t
exist in the sense of existing independent of his own projections. When he looks
down and sees a Buddha’s a hundred and twelve marks, right, does he, does he
think, ‘Oh this is not a projection?’ No. He thinks, ‘I’m just projecting on a blank
screen. Great, I collected some three countless eons of karma, now I have to see
myself as a Buddha, what a drag you know.’ Not like that, I mean he
understands that perfectly. He doesn’t look down and say, ‘Oh, that exists out
there by itself, independent of my own projections’. If he ever did, he wouldn’t
be a …?

[student: Buddha.]

Buddha. He’d be you. He’d be grasping at self-existence. So the, the person
giving the prediction is empty. What about the person getting the predictions?
Laura Seagle.

[student: Yes.]

Is she empty?

[student: She’s empty.]

Yeah, why? She doesn’t exist independent of …?

[student: Her own projections.]
Our projections on [unclear]. Doesn’t exist independently and the act of that
Buddha’s, pretending I’m Buddha [unclear] touch your hand [unclear], the act,
the action, you see this guy walk up, his hand goes up then goes down, he says
[unclear], that whole action is what? Does it exist or not?

[student: Not independently.]

No, ‘cos it doesn’t exist independent of …

[students: Projections.]

Our communal projections which also happen, okay.             There are communal
projections, like, New York City. [laughs]

[student: That’s a bad one.]

Okay, all right, so that’s all. So, what are those three things? This is what you
call the three elements of an action, right. The doer, the object, and the act itself
are all empty and that’s what that means. Supposedly, as you do your good
deeds, you’re supposed to see those three emptinesses.

[students: Three elements of what?]

They’re the three elements of any deed. They’re called the {kor sum}, the three,
the three spheres or the three elements. We’re calling them the three elements.
The doer, the doee and the doing. Not the do-do that my dogs do. So those,
[laughs] those are the three realms of an action, all right. So, what two things
happen when you reach the eighth level? You, when you reach arhat, what
happens when you reach arhat?

[student: You [unclear]ignorance and [unclear].]

Basically, you have no more mental afflictions, that’s the definition {sor sor
malupa .. nyende malupa …}that’s the definition of nirvana. I’ll give you the first
half; you give me the second half. {Nyende malupa …} means, you abandon
permanently all the mental affliction obstacles. {Sor sor tango} and that is
brought about by what? {Sor sor …} Do you remember? It’s part of the
definition of nirvana. It’s interesting; the definition of nirvana’s not just, ‘Oh you
get rid of your mental afflictions’. They actually mention the main cause of that,
{sor sor …} Don’t you remember?

[Student: From the individual analysis.]

Yeah, because you saw the four arya truths as a result of what? Seeing
emptiness directly. So actually in the definition of nirvana they mention that. It’s
not just getting rid of your bad thoughts. If someone asks you, ‘Hey what’s
nirvana?’ you shouldn’t say, ‘Oh, it’s just getting rid of your bad thoughts’. You
should say, ‘It’s getting rid of your bad thoughts permanently because you’ve
seen emptiness directly’. So there’s obviously some relationship between what?

[student: Seeing emptiness and……]

Seeing emptiness and getting rid of your bad thoughts, okay. So, we’re beyond
now class six. Class six was seeing emptiness directly, so what do you do with it?
What’s the use? I think a lot of teachings never get that far. They just say, ‘Oh,
you should see emptiness and somehow you’ll be all right,’ you know. Or, ‘See
emptiness and go to the dentist and somehow it won’t hurt’, you know. And I
don’t like that. That’s really not true, okay.

[student: You’ve been in to the dentist?]

[laughs] He put the diamond in my tooth and it hurts nowadays. I don’t know
what that is. Anyway, so we have to talk about what is, what, what really goes
on, on the fourth path. We, we finished the third path. We got through that last,
incoherently, last week [laughs] [laughter], so [laughter] now we go onto fourth
path, okay. So this is how you achieve, this is like how you become an arhat.
What’s the relationship between seeing emptiness, understanding emptiness,
and getting rid of what?

[student: Your mental afflictions.]

Your mental afflictions, which is how you become an arhat. That’s what arhat
means right. So for this you need to know….

[student: There’s something you said, two things happen and you become an
arhat , you destroy your mental afflictions, did you say the second one?]

Well there are two parts to the definition of nirvana. You destroy your mental
afflictions because you saw emptiness directly and specifically because you had
those realizations after seeing emptiness directly. It’s a weird Tibetan, okay. It’s
Sanskritized. It’s Tibetanized Sanskrit, okay. Say, {kalingka gyalpo} [repeat]

I’ll just [unclear] Tibetan word. {Kalingka gyalpa} [repeat]

{Kalingka} was an old area in India, okay. It was a realm in India. {Kalingka
gyalpo}{gyalpo} means ‘king’ so {kalingka gyalpo} means ‘the King of Kalingka’.
And as you read [b: The Diamond Cutter Sutra] you’ll see well, we’ll do it this
way, okay. The Buddha in a former life in India was meditating quietly in a
forest, okay. And he was doing very nice, very quiet. And the Queen of the local
King decided to take a walk with her retinue through the forest. And she went
on a long walk, you now, picking flowers, blah, blah, blah and she sees this
meditator. And she’s very struck by him and she wonders why he’s there. So
she starts to have a conversation with him and he starts to teach her the Dharma,
okay. And then, they’re in the middle of this Dharma conversation, and the
King decides to go out hunting. So he’s up on his horse with all his men and he
starts riding around looking for foxes or whatever. I guess it’s mongeese. No.
And he comes across this monk talking to his wife. So he gets a wrong
impression. And you can read it in your readings. It’s page…, what does a King
do when he’s irritated?

[student: Off with his head.] [laughter]

Page seven, okay. Ariel, can you read? The, the, the bold at the bottom, just
read the, read the English.

[student, Ariel: “Why is it so? Because, oh Subhuti, there was a time when the
King of Kalingka was cutting off the larger limbs, and smaller appendages, of
my body.
At that moment there came into my mind no conception of a self, nor of a
sentient being, nor of a living being, nor of a person – I had no conception at all.
But neither did I not have any conception.”]

Okay. [laughs] [unclear] Okay, so the King of Kalingka takes this monk and ties
him down on the ground and starts to slowly cut off his fingers and toes and
then works up to his wrists and elbows and, and he finally cut his whole body to
pieces. And that, I believe that the Saint’s name was {Zopa ma} which means
person who keeps his patience, [laughs] okay. He didn’t get angry. He didn’t
get angry, okay. He, he did not; he didn’t have any anger at that moment. So, I
mean a lot of people ask me, ‘If you become an arhat would you not have any
pain anymore?’ Or you know ‘If you see emptiness directly, is the point that you
don’t have pain anymore?’ Is that, directly related, to not having any more pain?
And, and then could you go to the dentist and he could just drill away and hit
nerves and nothing would happen, you know? I mean, is that what emptiness is
for? Or, very common, you know, you hear this, you know you hear, ‘Oh I was
in the dental chair and I meditated on emptiness and nothing bothered me, you
know. I, I made the emptiness go away into the nothingness and, and then it
didn’t hurt anymore.’ You know, you hear that and that, we have to examine
that because that’s very important. If that’s true, it might be really good. It
might be something worth trying. Is that, is that what it’s for? Is that what
happens at the path of habituation? After you see emptiness directly, is that the
whole point? Do, do you go around trying to see things as empty and then they
don’t affect you anymore? They don’t work the old way anymore? And they
don’t hurt you anymore? Is it that, if the guy at work was screaming and you
could dissolve him in mentally, would it not feel bad anymore to get yelled at, at
work? Is that what we’re supposed to do? And I think a lot of people go away
from Buddhist books thinking well that’s what, I’m supposed to somehow see
the emptiness of the situation and then it won’t be happening. Is that what goes
on? What did this person, what, and that the Buddha knew that. The Buddha
thought it was really important to talk about that. When he’s on the subject of
arhats, he starts talking about the King of Kalingka and what he himself felt. He
had already perceived emptiness. He did not have any conception of his own
self-nature. And, and so what was going through his mind as he got his fingers
and his hands cut off by this King? And we’ll do that after the break. Okay, we’ll
take a quick break and then we’ll be okay.

[student: Cut off fingers.] [laughs]

I’m not that mean. I’m just gonna have people read and then the main point will
come out in that and we’ll go home by nine o’clock.

Are you ready? Page eight, first.

[student: Where? “For what reason…”?]

Okay, first, “For what reason is it so?”

[student: “For what reason is it so’[unclear]] [laughter]

[student: “Because long ago there was a time, oh Subhuti, when the king of
Kalingka got the evil suspicion that I had engaged in relations with his woman.
And so he was cutting off the larger limbs, and the smaller appendages of my
body. (The latter refers to the fingers and toes.)”]

That’s, that Chone Drakpa Shedrup’s commentary. Keep going.

[student: “At that moment I practiced patience, keeping my mind on an
understanding of the lack of true existence to each of the three elements to the
act of patience. As I focussed on the ‘me’, which exists nominally, there came
into my mind no conception where I held any belief in some truly existing ‘me’;
and so I had no conception of anything from a truly existing self up to a truly
existing person.”]

You guys remember what those four meant? I mean, they’re code words in [b:
The Diamond Cutter] right, so what is it? ‘Self’ means…

[students: Me.]

Self means ‘Me’; ‘Sentient being’ means, ‘living being’ means…

[students: Mine.]

‘Life’, means ‘the person during his whole, during the, the {dak} the self for the
course of a whole life’ and, the fourth one was what? It was…

[students: Person.]

Person and that referred to the person who’s reborn and reborn and reborn,
okay. So he didn’t have any one of those four perceptions self-existently, okay.
He obviously had all four of those perceptions; that’s the whole point. He did
see him gett…, I’m sorry, he saw him getting his fingers cut off that he had had
his whole life and which, and that him was the person who was gonna be
reborn. So obviously he saw all four things, but he didn’t see any of them what?

[students: Self-existently.]

As existing independent of his projections. So something very interesting what
is he saying, if he’s keeping his mind on the emptiness of the whole situation,
then in a, in a dependent origination sense, what is he thinking?
[student: Because of my past karma I am experiencing this.]

This is my {dun chi}, this is my projection I’m projecting onto these events and
it’s valid. It’s valid in what sense?

[student: Ordinary sense.]

Yeah, it’s valid in the sense that there is blood spurting out, that valid perception
going on. There is a ‘him’, he is getting his fingers cut off, that’s, it’s all going on,
but he understood that it wasn’t independent and that it depended on his what?

[Students: Projections.]

Projections, which were forced on him by his…

[students: Karma.]

Past karma. So the last thing he would want to do is? Blank the king.

[student: Get angry.]

Yeah, get angry or hurt the king. He’s name, by the way, is {Zopa Mo} you
know, the saint of patience. And, and the last thing h wants to do is, is have
hatred for the king. And I think you see the Dalai Lama living this way, which is
really cool. There maybe some kind of perception of emptiness behind it.

[student: If this is too presumptuous just say, it reminds me very strongly of
Arjuna and Krishna except in that one there’s the realisation and then Krishna
says well you take action anyway and yet here the distinction is that he is not
going to protect himself.]

Oh, he didn’t say, it’s not a question of between of trying to avoid it or not trying
to avoid it. It’s whether you get hatred or not, okay. It’s not, that’s a different
question. Whether or not you try to prevent the guy from doing it, ‘cos he will
collect bad karma. If you care about him, you might try to avoid him, or you
might even take some forceful action, okay, that would be, that would hurt him
less than the karma he’s about to collect. But the whole point, they don’t even
mention that here. There’s no mention of taking action or not taking action. It’s
just ‘Do I feel hatred or not? Do I allow myself to feel hatred or not?’ That’s all
he says. He never says anything more, okay. And then, read the last part,
George. Yeah.

[Student, George: “At that moment?”]

Yeah.

[Student, George: “At that moment I had no conception at all of any such
conception that something was existing truly. At the same time it was neither as
if I had no other, nominal conceptions at all. What Subhuti is saying here is the
following. ‘I did have the thought that I would have to keep my patience: I did
have the thought to take the pain on willingly, and not to be upset about the
harm being done to me. And I did have the kind of conception where I
reconfirmed my knowledge of how I had perceived that no existing object has
any true existence.”]

It’s interesting ‘cos at the end of [b: The Diamond Cutter Sutra] selection, he says,
‘I didn’t have all those conceptions, I didn’t have any conceptions at all, but it’s
not that I didn’t have any conceptions’, okay. [laughs] So, so it means he didn’t
have any conceptions of this whole incident, or any one of the three parts of the
incident, not being his own projection. He didn’t have any conception that
anything going on was not a result of his own projection. In other words, he
didn’t take any of it to be self-existent, or independently existing. He understood
its dependent origination and he didn’t think anything else. So that’s the
conceptions he didn’t have. What conceptions did he have? It, it mentions three.
It mentions like, he had a thought that he had to keep his patience and he had
the thought that he should take the pain on willingly. Now what does that just
tell you?

[student: It hurt him.]

It hurt him He did have pain and it’s stated directly in the commentary, okay.
Stated directly, okay. Does a, does a person who has seen emptiness directly
have pain as he gets his arms cut off? Yes, it does hurt him, but he wasn’t upset.
That’s a big distinction. And the whole essence of the path of habituation is
there. What do you do with this grand perception of emptiness directly? You
know, what are you gonna use it for? Just that. When you get in that situation,
first of all, that you, that you will take the suffering on willingly, you understand
where it’s coming from. It’s your own perception. You created that karma.
And then, secondly, you don’t, you don’t get upset and you don’t allow yourself
to have the feelings and reactions that will follow that. The only kind of
upsetness, according to the [b: Abhidharmakosha], which is, which is acceptable,
is being upset about a bad deed that you did. You can be upset that you
collected bad karma or feel regret but everything else is a {klesha}. Yeah.

[student: So this is like if you’re being robbed by someone or you know tortured
or having rather than getting angry and looking at it as they doing something to
you it’s akin to just saying I understand that this is my karma I brought this
about, I caused this and now I am experiencing the result.]

It doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t avoid it. I’m not talking about what actions
you take or you don’t take.

[student: I’m not talking about avoiding it.

But, yeah, you must not hate that person

[student: While it’s occurring.]

You must not hate that person.

[student: It’s taking your own responsibility in the situation that you’ve brought
this on you’ve actually created it as opposed to someone on the outside coming
to you and….]

[student; [unclear]]

If you understood his emptiness, if you understood its emptiness, you could not
get angry. The, the perception of emptiness, the understanding of emptiness
and a {klesha} a bad thought, are direct opposites mentally. You cannot
entertain both at the same time. It’s very interesting. One mind cannot hold
those two mental functions at the same time, period. That’s why perceiving
emptiness directly makes you an arhat. You cannot think this event is empty;
you cannot understand its emptiness and, at the same time, have any {klesha}’s.
They won’t fit in your mind at the same time. They’re opposites. They’re
{nyenpo}’s, they are the ultimate antidote. That’s cool [laughs], that’s how you
get rid of your bad thoughts. And the only way.

[student: One thing, this may be mundane, but the object of pain, there’s so
many mental techniques to avoid pain and [unclear]the experiences I mean is
that a choice to experience [unclear]]
Mental techniques, if you, they don’t, they don’t work, they don’t work
ultimately. They, we have them, Buddhism is full of them, you know, the [b:
Bodhicharyavatara] first eight chapters, it’s all about tricks to be a good person.
Tricks, not to be bad. And then, the ninth chapter, now I’ll tell you how really
not to be bad. Nagarjuna does the same thing in [b: Letter to a Friend] the
whole first half of the book is tricks: how to fool yourself into being a good
person; how, how to catch yourself when you’re bad, and then it, and then it, at
a certain point, he says, but that won’t work and you gotta see emptiness. And
then he, that’s what his excuse right, Nagarjuna, to talk about emptiness for the
rest of the book. We’ll talk about ultimate antidotes and temporary fixes.
Temporary fixes are necessary and great and wonderful and you must do that,
but they won’t work ultimately. They might get you enough virtue to see
emptiness and then get the [unclear] but it’s the only antidote and that’s the
whole point of wisdom. That’s the whole point of the perfection of wisdom. It’s
the only permanent antidote to pain. The others just break down at some point.
There’s nobody you can show me, that I can’t make them feel pain in about
thirty seconds, you know. [laughter] It’s a fact. It’s a straight fact, you know.
Show me this great meditator blah, blah, blah, then, give me a razor blade or
some pins, you know, let’s check. It just doesn’t work.

[student: Apparently among highly realised virtuous beings as well.]

Yeah.

[student: I mean it is, here’s someone whose very close to being to the end of
their road experiencing very painful[unclear]]

It just, you know it, in your heart you know it doesn’t work. If it did, we’d all
figured it out by now, and we wouldn’t worry about going to the dentist
anymore. It wouldn’t be such a big deal. Somebody would have written on
how to do it and we’d all do it, we’d be all right. You know, in your heart you
know it ain’t a solution. Okay. Last thing. Let’s see, Dr. Sykes. Did you do one
already? Did you read anything?

[student: No.]

Okay, the bold part. Where it says, “Why is it so?”

[student: “Why is it so? Suppose, oh Subhuti, that at the moment any conception
of a self had come into my mind, then he thought to harm someone would have
come into my mind as well.”]

Keep going.

[student: “The conception of some sentient being and the conception of some
living being and the conception of person would have come into my mind. And
because of that, the thought to harm someone would have come into my mind
as well.”]

Okay, so basically, what he’s saying is, if I had seen any self-existence in this
situation, either of me or my fingers or my life or my lives, then I would have
had anger and I would have wanted to fight, hurt the person. There’s a
difference between fighting back and, and hurting a person. He would not have
wanted to hurt the person. He might have resisted in order that the person not,
not do a very bad deed. That’s a different story, not talking about that. Mainly,
the {klesha}, nirvana is not defined as the elimination of all harmful acts,
anything like; it’s defined as the elimination of your bad thoughts. Out of great
kindness you might punch somebody sometime. But that’s a whole other story.
He’s just saying, ‘I didn’t get the…, a harmful thought. I didn’t, if I had seen any
self-existence at that moment, I would have had harmful thought, I would have
had a thought to harm this person, to hurt this person’.

[student: So he’s saying you can obtain nirvana and still experience pain?]

Looks like that. [laughs] No, but I’m, I’m more referring, I, I wouldn’t say that.
I’d say that you reach nirvana is the elimination of your mental afflictions.

[student: We’re talking….]

It’s not the elimination of your karmic, your {sakche ..}

[student: Of your sufferings?]

Your, your, your physical body created by your past karma and {kleshas}.

[student: I mean the senses are operating?]

Must suffer. It must suffer. Its nature is that. Anything created by karma and
mental afflictions must suffer.
[student: [unclear]]

And that’s a long story. Higher school has, people say things about that. Okay,
I’ll hand out the homework; you can [unclear] [laughter][unclear] Describe the
emptiness of an arhat’s mind. What do you think? I mean this is really cool.
When an arhat looks at his own mind, when an arhat is sitting having a cup of
tea quietly to himself, before John Stilwell bangs on the door – just kidding.
[laughs] [laughter] I’m not an arhat. [laughter] But he did bang on the door.
Right. If you’re just having a quiet cup of tea after a long day [laughter] and
you’re just thinking about your, you’re aware of your own mind, you know.
You’re watching your own mind, you’re thinking of your own mind, I mean,
when an arhat sits down quietly and listens to his own mind, what, what is it? Is
it empty or not? Not like our minds. [laughs] When we take a class. [laughter].
Is his mind empty?

[students: Yes]

Of course it is. It’s, its ultimate nature is that it’s empty, okay. But, but what is its
relative nature, what is its dependent origination?              What’s its dependent
origination? What’s…

[student: Thoughts.]
.
[students: It’s eliminated the causes.]

No, I don’t mean that. How, how does it exist, dependently?                 What is its
dependence? How does it exist in a relative way?

[student: Projections.]

Yeah, yeah, so, it’s interesting, you know, I’m not just talking about the guy at
work, or New York City or the condition of the United States. What about as
you watch your own mind? Is that a projection also? Yeah. So he’s collected a
very interesting karma. His elimination of his own bad thoughts, his permanent
ending of his own bad thoughts, is also a…. projection. It’s a dependent
origination.

[student: So is everything the Buddha…?]
Yeah, we didn’t get to Buddha yet; we’re only on path number four, okay.
[laughs] We’re only an arhat, last week we were on aryas, okay. But, it’s
interesting.

[student: So we go back to where we are tricking ourselves into seeing things the
way we want to?]

Well that’s a long…, no I didn’t say that, no, not at all. But what I mean is, when
an arhat enjoys the lack of mental afflictions in his own mind, that’s also a
projection. And it’s a result of his having led a good life, and, and understanding
emptiness. Even as he’s a [cut]

[end side A]

[side B]

Even as he focuses on his own lack of jealousy and anger, hatred and desire, he’s
just projecting [unclear]. By the way, there’s a discussion in the reading which is
cool and you should read it. I just want to give you a clue about it, rather than,
and it’ll take two minutes. Does Laura Seagle of 1983 exist? Does Laura Seagle
of 1983 exist? No, it’s gone already, that’s gone. That doesn’t exist now; let’s say
now.

[student: Yeah.]

Laura Seagle of 1983 doesn’t exist now. Does Laura Seagle of 1997 exist now, oh,
I should say, does Laura Seagle of the day of her Buddhahood, which was
predicted? Does it exist now? No, so really, there’s only the very current
moment of Laura Seagle. It’s the only thing you can safely say exists now. Did
Laura Seagle live in 1983?

[students: Yes.]

Is Laura Seagle here now?

[students: Yes.]

Yes, so she lived in 1983. And Laura Seagle will be around [unclear]. So what he
means, is there’s two ways of looking at her existence in the past and the future.
If you pin her down to a point in time, okay, you know, right now, does she
exist in 1983? You know, does Laura Seagle of 1983 exist today?

[student: No.]

No, okay. Has Laura Seagle been living since the day she was born? Yes. Does
that include Laura Seagle in 1983? Yes, so in that sense, Laura Seagle in 1983 does
exist. So, what I mean to say is, just catch this, I mean one way to label a person
is to label her, her parts, ‘Laura’. Her, her physical form and her mind and her
other parts, you can label those parts ‘Laura’. But along a timeline you can do
the same thing. You can say Laura Seagle collectively the Laura Seagle of ‘83, ‘84,
‘85, ‘86, ‘87, ’88. I can take all those indications and {dun chi} them and call them
Laura Seagle, along a line of time. So in that sense as well, the act of prediction is
a little tricky.

[student: The act of prediction?

Yeah, the final prediction, see I didn’t count, I just wanna leave it with you with a
thought, okay, ’cos it comes in the reading and you might get confused. In the
sense of, does the, does the, does, assuming she’s not a Buddha now, which I
don’t know; does the Laura Seagle who is going to reach Buddhahood exist
now? I’m sorry; does Laura Seagle reaching Buddhahood exist now? No, it’s a
future thing. Does Laura Seagle of the…, let’s say she got her prediction
yesterday, does that Laura Seagle exist now?

[students: No.]

No, okay. No. I mean, the Laura Seagle who, at the moment that she received
the prediction, at eight thirty, does she exist now?

[students: No.]

No, you have to say, ‘No’. But, but there is a Laura Seagle, obviously, that we
can label. All those, all those Laura Seagles that have been living in this life, we
can call all of them together the life of Laura Seagle, right. That’s Laura Seagle
throughout her life, her current life. That’s what we call general ‘Laura Seagle’
and that is, that is this, see you have to think about that. It’s, it’s not the point
of…, there’s also a self-existence question in it. What I’m saying is, the parts of a
person, not only of, I mean, the current legs, arms, head, mind, you can also
name a person based on the stream of instance, and you could say John Stilwell’s
life, okay. And that’s another interdependent origination.
[student: Also couldn’t you do it too based on the continuum of your own lives?]

In one school, that is the person.

[student: Does that include imputing the future as well or are you just saying the
stream of lifehood just to this point?]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, [unclear]

[student: The whole..]

Okay, give me your homework. [cut]
[end side B]
950417-1.aaa

COURSE VI: THE DIAMOND CUTTER SUTRA