Углублённый курс ACI 01 — Учения будущего Будды: «Уттаратантра» Майтреи (2003, Аризона), занятие 8

[Говорящий 1]
Welcome everyone. My name is John Roadhouse and this is going to be unamplified, so I'm going to try to talk real loud. The mics are going to pick up the recording, so I apologize to those of you listening to the recording and it sounds like I'm shouting, but I'll try to be heard.

This is Winston McCullough, as you all know, director of Diamond Mountain. You can't hear? Okay, I'll try to speak out this way.

This is Winston McCullough, and I'm John Roadhouse, and we're here today because Geshe-la asked if we would present the Shentong view of emptiness. So, I thought I'd just say a few words about who I am, so you'll know a little bit about who's speaking. I have been a student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche for 30 years.

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, who passed away in 1987, was the 10th Trungpa Thogu, who was one of the early pioneers in bringing the Buddhadharma to the West. He was in the Kagyu lineage. You know, there are four major lineages of Tibetan Buddhism.

There's the Gelugpa lineage, of which Geshe Michael is a shining example. There is the Nyingma lineage, which is the oldest lineage of Tibetan Buddhism, sometimes called the early translation school. There is the Sakya lineage, and there is the Kagyu lineage.

All of these lineages are basically interested in the same thing, which is getting us all to enlightenment so that we can be of benefit to others in a real way. The methodologies are a little different, but it's important to understand that the purpose or the objective is the same. And I think the same could be said for the schools of views on emptiness.

So I want to express my appreciation to Geshe-la for having asked me to present the Shentong view. And one of the things that I think is really important, I know for me, in my practice, and I see it every day at Diamond Mountain and in this wonderful group of people who have gathered around this amazing teacher, Geshe Michael Roach, and that is a real sense of appreciation for differing views and a real appreciation for differing traditions and teachers who teach with contrasting viewpoints. And so I am enormously appreciative myself to Geshe-la for exemplifying this so beautifully.

And also to my root guru, Trungpa Rinpoche, who founded Naropa Institute, which is now Naropa University in Boulder. And in 1974, he had the opening session of Naropa. And rather than just set it up as a platform for him to, you know, get his shtick out there for everybody, he invited all these amazing teachers.

These Christian teachers were there. Theravadan teachers were there. Ram Dass entertained everybody, as he's so brilliant at doing.

So there was a Hindu presentation. It was amazing. And the energy that came out of that was just mind-boggling.

So I think there's something about the energy that we can experience through studying and appreciating differing views on subjects that we study. This one happens to be emptiness. So the way Winston and I have set this up is that I'll sort of lead off here and give an introduction to Shentong.

And then Winston is going to do a presentation on the mind-only school, Chidamatra. And he's so kind to do this. I'm so appreciative because really the best way to present Shentong is to contrast it with mind-only.

So, and the reason is because Shentong uses some of the same ideas to present its view of emptiness as mind-only does. But they're not the same. They're different.

So after Winston has done his presentation on mind-only, I'll present in a little bit more detail Shentong view and we'll have a discussion. I think it would be good if we could hold the questions until we've kind of gotten through our material. You know, that way you can sort of take it in.

And for me, I won't get too distracted and confused so that by the time I get through responding to a question, I've lost where I am. So I also might say that, you know, yesterday Geshe-la talked about cessation. And he talked about the apparent solidity of things.

You know, we think, just habitually we think, that all this stuff is solid. It'll be here forever. And by the time we have an experience that's so personal and so real and so powerful for us, that it's not here forever, whatever form that experience takes, it's sort of too late.

And Geshe-la talked about this yesterday in terms of 9-11, for example. So in my own spiritual journey, which has been long and full of ups and downs and confusion, and once in a while maybe a little aha, where I got something. And through the great kindness and generosity of Kimberly and Doug Veenhoff, I first heard about Geshe Michael Roach.

And it was during a period in which my father was terminally ill. And so just two months after my dad passed away, I picked up a copy of the Diamond Cutter. And, you know, this Galugpa guy, robes, you know, diamond business.

This Galugpa guy. And I'd actually seen a little bit of the Heart Sutra teachings at Allenby that Geshe-la gave before he went into retreat. Again, through the generosity and kindness of Doug and Kimberly, up in this little town in Washington State, where we were living all at the time.

And I thought, this guy's kind of neat, you know. Things move along. And New York style.

I like this. But, you know, I was sort of cooking him a little bit in my mind, and I picked up this book, the Diamond Cutter, and I read it. And I got it.

Just got it. I saw what he was talking about. It was amazing.

It was really wonderful. And so I started, you know, doing what I suppose a good student does, or at least a student who tries to be a good student. I went back and I pulled out all of my stuff from Trump Urimpache to say, well, so what did Trump Urimpache say about this?

And compared it to what Geshe-la was saying about this. And I began to notice something amazing. I couldn't tell the difference.

It was like one mind. And then, you know, I understood that he was in three-year retreat. And, you know, again, Doug and Kimberly were so wonderful because they described going down to hear this amazing teaching in three-year retreat.

And, you know, so, you know, why don't you come down? And so we thought we would do that. My wife and I and our son joined us, who's here, Zach.

And so, interestingly enough, as these things happen, my mother was dying. And so she actually passed away on Sunday. And four days later, I was out in the Dragoon Mountains listening to this incredible teaching called Second Sight.

How amazing is that? I mean, for those of you who are familiar with that teaching, I mean, I was reaching through that curtain. I mean, I was, you know, reaching, reaching.

It was a sense of appreciation. I felt so open, you know. So there's something about the way life kind of serves up these experiences that we have that can be hard.

At least on one level, they're hard, and they may have sadness connected to them, whatever. But they can open our hearts. And it does no good, I don't think, put my two cents worth in here.

I don't think it does any good to talk about Buddha nature and study Buddha nature and learn all these wonderful things if our hearts are closed, if our hearts are closed. So it seems like a good thing if we're here and something feels hard or something feels challenging or something feels sad, that to use that, open to that, open to that. Because that's what helps us hear the Dharma.

And that's what can help us become what? Buddha. Yeah.

So what is Shentong? Shentong is a view of emptiness and the nature of mind. Where did it come from?

Well, mainly Shentong arises out of the third turning of the wheel by Lord Buddha, in which he taught, as we know, Buddha nature. And so the text, Uttaratantra, by Lord Maitreya, is a very, very important text in the Shentong tradition. Now I want to share with you what my sources are for what I present here, because my sources are impeccable.

I am not. So I want to, in advance, apologize to my sources for any misrepresentation. It's purely mine, not theirs.

I'm going to do my best to try to get it right. But my main source is a very wonderful teacher who is alive and teaching today. His name is Kenpo Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche.

He was born in 1934 in Tibet. He spent many years wandering around and meditating in caves and doing the yogi thing. And then in the great diaspora, which is our blessing, in 1959 he went to India.

And he became, he studied in India and was awarded the degree of Lampa Geshe from His Holiness the Dalai Lama, one of the few Kagyu Lamas to do that. He's written a number of books, which I've consulted and I recommend to you on the Shentong view. One of them, which is particularly useful, is called Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness.

Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness. He also wrote a book called The Two Truths, Kunzap and Dundum, Deceptive Reality and Absolute Reality, which is quite good. And there is a new book that he has written called Son of Wisdom.

And these are available at all sorts of places. Get them on the web, Amazon, Snow Lion, Shambhala Publications. And then there's another book, which has been very useful, entitled Buddha Nature, which this is Lord Maitreya here on the front.

And this contains the root text for Uttara Tantra. And it contains a commentary by Jamgon Kontrol Lodro Tyay. That's J-A-M-G-O-N-G, Jamgon.

Actually, leave off the G at the end. J-A-M-G-O-N-Kontrol, K-O-N-T-R-U-L, Lodro, L-O-D-R-O, Tyay, T-H-A-Y-E. His dates are 1813 to 1899.

Sometimes you'll see it 1900 because there's a little discrepancy between the Tibetan calendar and our calendar. And also in this book is an explanation of the commentary of Jamgon Kontrol, which is given by Kenpo Tsultrim Gyamso Rinpoche, which is really amazing. And I'm going to read just a little bit later in the presentation about that.

Another source is, of mine, is Trangu Rinpoche, Khenchen Trangu Rinpoche, K-H-E-N-C-H-E-N-T-H-R-A-N-G-U Rinpoche. He was born in 1933. He is a senior Kagyu meditation master.

He is the senior tutor to the 17th Karmapa. And he also, interestingly enough, is a Harampa Geshe. And he received his Geshe degree in a ceremony with His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

So it's this amazing thing, you know, I didn't even know this. I mean, I knew who these two Kagyu Lamas were, but I didn't know they were Harampa Geshes. And isn't it interesting what comes up as I've been working to find bridges in my own understanding between views that I'm very familiar with from the Kagyu tradition and views that have been astoundingly amazing and wonderful from the Gelugpa tradition.

That I've been studying and learning as best I can. And then I find these two amazing Lamas are Geshes, just like this guy here who's teaching us, Geshe Michael Roach. Jam Gankhontro Lojo Tayeh is also a source that I used.

I mentioned him a minute ago. And I think Geshe-la actually is going to refer to him, I think. I think he's used something of Jam Gankhontro's.

Anyway, we'll see. Jam Gankhontro Lojo Tayeh was an amazing Lama who is famous for really spearheading what's known as the Rime movement in Tibet in the 19th century. Rime is spelled R-I-M-E with an accent mark over the E, Rime.

Along with some other wonderful Lamas in Tibet in the 19th century. And the Rime movement really arose in the context of what appeared to be a lot of sectarianism in Tibet at the time. Kind of, I don't know, maybe folks were sniping at each other's views.

Something like that. And at a time where there was a lot of political unrest in Tibet. There were some armed conflicts of various kinds.

And so what Jam Gankhontro Lojo Tayeh did, he's also known as Jam Gankhontro the Great, was that he went around and he just collected teachings. It didn't matter where they came, he collected these amazing authentic teachings from all of the lineages. And he realized every single one of them.

And he taught them without bias. By the way, his autobiography has been translated for the first time by Richard Barron, B-A-R-R-O-N, who is a longtime student of Kalu Rinpoche, who many of you may know, who's passed away, but who was a Kagyu Lama who taught in Vancouver, B.C., and around the world. But that was where his principal center was.

And that autobiography, I recommend it to you. It's unlike any autobiography you've ever read. I mean, he just talks about what he does, what he studies, what he does.

It's a little bit intimidating because we think we've got a lot to do with our books and our courses and things, and you read this and you think, oh, wow, we could actually do ours. Maybe we can't do his, we can do ours. And then there's another source that I've relied on, which is called The Buddha Within by S.K. Hookum, a Westerner, a British woman who's written an amazing, academic, incredibly thorough study of, essentially, Shentong. And it's kind of hard to find this. Shentong? This view?

Our view? That's okay. No, it's hard to hear me.

So this book, The Buddha Within, is cited a lot. And if you read around in Buddhist literature, you'll see this book cited. It's a little hard to get.

This is actually Zach's copy. He went out on the internet and found it in some obscure Indian bookstore in Minnesota. Now I've got to find mine.

So I've appreciated, I haven't really studied that book in any detail, but I drew a little bit from it for this presentation. So I'm very indebted to her. She is, she was a longtime student of Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche, whom I've referred to.

And I apologize for rattling these names off, you know. I have a very close Dharma friend of many, many years who has just become the director of Kamacholing in Barnett, Vermont, which is a Shambhala Buddhist meditation center. And whenever I ask him about, see, if you heard about the teachings of so-and-so, he says, John, I can't remember any of these Rinpoches.

So sometimes I think these foreign-sounding names roll off our tongues and we think we can't get them. So I hope I've made it clear who these folks are, these wonderful teachers, these amazing people whom I've relied on. So I want to give a little bit of historical setting for Shentong, so you kind of see where it fits in historically.

The Shentong view was actually written down for the first time by Dolpopa Sherab Yeltsin, I'll spell it D-O-L-P-O-P-A, Sherab, S-H-E-R-A-B, Yeltsin, G-Y-A-L-T-S-E-N. And he lived from 1292 to 1361. And he was really the main proponent of a school in Tibet at that time, which taught the Shentong view.

And that school was known as the Jonang School, spelled J-O-N-A-N-G, which flourished in Tibet for about 300 years. And since then, since that time, the Shentong teachings have mainly been passed down in the Kagyu and Nyingma and Sakya lineages. Shentong is not a view that's been passed down in the Galuk Palenid.

And I'll talk a little bit about that. Well-known proponents or teachers who taught Shentong, one of the most famous is Rangjung Dorje, R-A-N-G, J-U-N-G, Dorje, D-O-R-J-E. He was the third Karmapa.

Karmapa, by the way, would be the Dalai Lama's, how would you say, parallel equivalent, yeah, in the Kagyu lineage. One difference, of course, is that in Tibet, the Dalai Lamas also were the temporal rulers in Tibet. So Rangjung Dorje was the third Karmapa.

His dates are 1284 to 1339, and he was a colleague of Dolpopa, and he favored the Shentong view. Jamgonkangcho Lojo Thayye in the 19th century was probably the most famous, nearer our time, who taught from Shentong view, as well as other views, by the way, but he's known as a Shentong teacher. And then the late Kala Rinpoche also taught from a Shentong view, and Kala Rinpoche actually gave the Jonang Tantric initiation of the Kala Chakra Tantra in the United States and several other places.

And Christy and I, my wife Christy, were fortunate enough to attend that initiation in 1986. I had the good fortune to have an interview with Ken Rinpoche in Howell. This was last year, almost about this time, and so I went out to Howell and took the bus out there.

And I went into the kitchen, and of course, immediately was served tea. And this person walked in, who was a really interesting looking person, and she comes in, and she sits down in front of me, and we introduce ourselves, and she says, my name is Maria Montenegro, and she says, haven't I seen you before? You know how this is with Dharma people, haven't I seen you someplace?

And so we compared a few notes and so on, and I'm a little nervous, because I'm going to go upstairs and meet Ken Rinpoche, so I'm feeling a little nervous. So it turns out that Maria Montenegro was the translator of Kala Rinpoche's beautiful, wonderful book called Luminous Mind. And I recommend that book.

I felt, I was so auspicious, I sort of got less nervous. So this won't be too foreign for me, I could go upstairs and not come unglued when I meet Ken Rinpoche. The early opponents of the Shentong view are names that will be familiar to you.

The two principal students of Jason Kappa. So we have Gyaltsepche, whose commentary is the basis for this teaching on Uttaratantra that we're here for. His dates are 1364 to 1432.

And Ketrepche, his dates are 1385 to 1483, and they were the foremost disciples of Jason Kappa. So, and there's a lot of debate about what these views on emptiness, and so these terms were coined. And one term that was coined was Shentong, and Dopopa coined that term, and the actual origins of Shentong go back to India, but the term wasn't used until Dopopa used it.

And then this term Rongtong became sort of the shorthand term for the view of Gyaltsepche, Ketrepche. Okay, so Rongtong means empty of self, empty of self. Okay, Rongtong is spelled R-A-N-G-T-O-N-G, thank you.

Actually, you probably can't even see this, so Rongtong is spelled, Rongtong and Shentong is spelled S-H-E-N-T-O-N-G, Rongtong and Shentong. So shorthand is, Rongtong is emptiness of self, shorthand, Shentong is empty of other, empty of other. So you'll see this referred to as you go on and hopefully study these views and ideas more.

You will see empty of self and empty of other, and we'll talk a little bit about what that means. I want to read a verse from Zhang Gangkang's Treasury of Knowledge. The imaginary and dependent aspects are apparent reality.

The perfectly existent nature, non-dual primordial wisdom, is genuine. This is the empty of other presentation. So two sentences, we'll talk about that.

The imaginary and dependent aspects are apparent reality. So where have we heard that before? Imaginary and dependent?

[Говорящий 2]
Imaginary would be kunta and dependent would be shenwang, mind only.

[Говорящий 1]
Winston will talk about that. So using these same terms, the imaginary and dependent aspects are apparent reality, the perfectly existent nature, non-dual primordial wisdom is genuine. The imaginary and dependent aspects are apparent reality, non-dual primordial wisdom is genuine.

The perfectly existent nature, comma, non-dual primordial wisdom is genuine, period. This is the empty of other presentation. So even the commentators like Zhang Gangkang will give these pithy things and then we got to sort of figure it out.

So if we were to look at this on a chart, and I apologize for having written this so small, I had to get this chart on this paper, but I will tell you what this is. This chart is from Kenpo Sochum Gyamso Rinpoche. He uses this so you can sort of see where the schools fall kind of graphically.

So the Buddhist schools, we could say schools on emptiness, let's call it that, schools on emptiness. So we have the Hinayana schools, the so-called lesser vehicle, and we have Vaibhashika here and we have Sautantrika here. So Hinayana, the lesser vehicle, H-I-N-A-Y-A-N-A, Hina being lesser and yana meaning vehicle, Vaibhashika, V-A-I-B-A-S-H-I-K-A, Vaibhashika and Sautantrika, S-A-U-T-R-A-N-K-A.

And then we have the Mahayana or greater vehicle or greater way and there are two branches. There's Chidamatra or mind only. So Chidamatra is spelled C-I-T-T-A-M-A-T-R-A.

I put parentheses mind only and Madhyamaka, M-A-D-H-Y-A-M-A-K-A. As His Holiness the Dalai Lama said three weeks ago in New York when he was teaching on a text on Indian philosophy, a text called the root text on Indian philosophy, he said there are four schools. Four schools.

So we have four schools. Then Madhyamaka is divided according to the presentation I'm making today into two. There's Rongtong and Shentong.

Rongtong, there are two branches of Rongtong. There's Sautantrika, S-B-A-N, now S-E-A-T-A-N-T-R-I-K-A and Prasangika or the consequent school P-R-A-S-A-N-G-I-K-A. So and then this branch goes to Shentong.

So Shentong is a view of emptiness that is a Madhyamaka view and this is really important to get. It's really important to get. We'll talk more about that later but this is important.

Shentong actually, I mean for me what I'm so struck by is how much it shares with Rongtong. Debaters of course like to point out the differences and debate the differences and we'll talk a little bit about that but what they share in terms of how this falls on a chart if you will is the Madhyamaka approach. So maybe this is a good point for Winston to present this view, Chidamatra, mind only and it's really really helpful I think for everybody.

If I could just say this, I think it's really helpful when we talk about emptiness to always try to have in our mind what school we're talking about, what school we're talking from. You know Geshe-la would always say in the ACI class, well what hat do you have on? You know do you have your Vaibhashika hat on or do you have your Sautantrika hat on?

What hat? So in my presentation I've got the Shentong hat on and Winston's about to put on the mind only hat. Okay.

Thank you Winston. You need this. We have to do this.

Winston and I are trying not to get our wires crossed here. That's literal, not figurative.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Good morning. John and I had a meeting in the men's room at 1025 and we planned this talk.

I'm a little shorter so I'm going to move this down. And I said how much time do I have to present the mind only school and John said like oh seven minutes or so and I said how about 17 and then we just said we'll go a little late because I think this will be an important conversation. So we're going to, Gail and all the teachers who apologize, we're going to go a little, that's okay, that's okay.

We're going to go a little after 12. We'll take a break in a little while and then we'll come back and we'll do a bunch of questions and answers. So I want to thank everyone for coming and I want to thank all the Diamond Mountain teachers, ACI teachers who are teaching courses.

This is a really fantastic thing that's happening. I want to thank actually Michael Roach for all the knowledge he's given us and his kind example practicing the Dharma. I want to thank all the lineage lamas that this wisdom comes from.

I want to thank everyone who's helping Diamond Mountain, all of you builders of Diamond Mountain. I want to thank you for the help with that and I want to ask everyone to look at me and smile. Okay?

And you know how your eyebrows can either crush together or they can open up? You know, yeah. Talk louder.

Okay. So do that and that helps the teacher and then when you teach that will help you teach because it'll create students who are with you. Very interesting thing.

Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.

Yeah. That's an interesting statement. Is that Shantung or Rongtong?

I don't know.

[Говорящий 1]
He's so sharp. Okay.

[Говорящий 2]
I'm trying to resist debating all morning so I got one. I want to also cite the sources of this Mind-Only School presentation. Geshe Michael Roach who, you know, I've learned 95% of the Buddhism from Geshe Michael, the little bit that I know.

I want to thank Jason Kappa for writing The Essence of Eloquence on the Art of Interpreting the Buddhist Speech, which is his great classic on the Mind-Only School especially. And I want to thank Geshe Thubten Rinchen who taught us these 47 classes at Saramay Monastery in India. So I have 13 minutes now to present 47 classes.

Also another source of the Mind-Only School for us is Jampa Kongchul, okay? The Loving One, Maitreya, the Protector. Jampa Kongchul, okay?

Jampa means Jampa and Gunpo, the Protector who's full of love. And Jampa is Maitreya, right? So here we are.

And that was one of the great, 1813 to 1899. This happens to be the author of a great book called Sabmo Nangidun, Sabdun, which is going to be the main text of the Tantric Course Series, Course 15, which will be in 2006 or something. It's a great presentation of the inner subtle body.

And we're working on translating that now. And it's like incredible and comparable book. And if you're not familiar with the Tantric Course Series or Geshe Michael's presentation on how to ride a tiger, go onto our website and click on Tantric Course Series and read that and check it out, okay?

That's just a little plug. 12 minutes. Okay.

First of all, today is Buddha Nature Day. So it's kind of a special start this morning. It's a really intense day.

So I encourage you to just forget about everything else. Maybe we won't have quite as much time for breaks and stuff. It's going to be very intense.

And just put out a really good effort. Try to hold this morning's content, the 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock to 245 class, and then Geshe Michael's presentation. Try to hold all of them in mind.

And then Lama Brian Smith's satsang tonight. Try to put all of these things together. Think about the meditations and think about how they all fit together.

And something really special can happen in terms of all of us realizing the Buddha nature within us. It all fits together. And look for those connections.

That's a big job. I think that's our big job today. Okay.

We're actually doing class eight, Uttaratantra class eight this morning. So I want to give you two answers to the homework question. The first question, and just write fast.

I'm going to talk fast. Then we'll get to the mind-only school. The first question says, what is the detailist?

The first school, the Abhidharmas, the detailist, the Vaibhashika presentation of mind-only school. And the answer is Pakperik. P-A-K-P-A-K-P-A-Y-R-I-K.

Please say Pakperik. Pakperik. I shouldn't be screaming into this, right?

Pakperik means Arya, one who's realized selflessness. Rik means Buddha nature, calm. Rik is the topic of Sunday.

The whole day is about Rik, Buddha nature, Buddha essence. How the detailist school defines Buddha nature is a realized being and Aryas being satisfied with few wants and having little dissatisfaction. That's what they call Buddha nature.

The detailist call Buddha nature having few wants and being easily satisfied, which is a mark of a realized being. That's homework question one. Homework question two says, what is the mind-only schools?

How do they present Buddha nature, the mind-only school? And they call it, say, so mind-only school, say Sakme. Sakme.

Semki. Semki. Sabun.

Sabun. Sakme. Sakme.

Semki. Semki. Sabun.

Sabun. Eventually you'll get the answer key, so you can spell it. Sakme means unstained, unstained, like not impure, unstained.

Sem means mind. Key, K-Y-I, means of. Semki means of the mind.

Sabun means seed. So seed here is like Rik or calm. It means Buddha nature.

Sabun means seed. So the seed, the Buddha nature seed of the mind, which is unstained. That's the mind-only schools presentation.

It has two parts. As Geshe presented yesterday, it has a natural part, and it has an achieved part. Remember that?

If we had time, we'd debate it. The natural part yesterday was emptiness, and the achieved or developable part of Buddha nature was, let's say, the wisdom. The wisdom that gradually defeats viewing things as self-existent.

That's the developable Buddha nature. Now, that's according to our school presentation, Gyaltsabje's presentation. The mind-only school calls natural Buddha nature, the first kind, like a dormant or unrealized Buddha nature, like a latent and unrealized potential of Buddha nature, is what we call natural Buddha nature, what the mind-only school calls natural Buddha nature.

Developable, achievable Buddha nature is what the mind-only school calls the Buddha nature that has already been achieved. That which has already been achieved is the developable Buddha nature. Now we're going to talk about the mind-only school, and I have three minutes.

So, ready? I encourage you to write a little diagram down. This is going to be a presentation of the three attributes.

This over here is like an eyeball or your brain, and it's a bad icon for the subject. This is the perceiving subject, the person who experiences something. So you could say your eye looks at something, your mind thinks about something.

But the point is, this is the subject, the perceiver. Over here we have the object, the thing that's perceived. If you want a live demonstration, it looks something like this.

Okay. Both of these things are what we call Shen Wang, S-H-E-N-W-A-N-G, Shen Wang, okay? Please say Shen Wang.

Shen Wang. Shen means other, okay? As in Shen Tong, right?

Shen means other. Wang means power. So Shen Wang means other powered things.

You can call them dependent things, but really what it means, those are like code words, what it really means is things that are caused or things which are changing. And remember, changing means constantly shifting, constantly changing, instantaneously changing. Okay, right?

Keqigme, Michael, right? Keqigme, that which is instantaneously changing. So what does that mean?

It means my mind or my eye, me perceiving things, is constantly shifting as I'm looking around. And we could talk about that, but just think about it. As you look around the room, your mind is constantly shifting.

If you close your eyes and think about something, your mind is also shifting, isn't it? All of us meditators, isn't it? All of us yoga practitioners.

My body is constantly shifting and my mind is constantly shifting. Even in a deep state of meditation, my mind is constantly working. This object is called Shen Wang, like physical objects are called Shen Wang because this pen was produced by plastic, a pen factory, the guy who thought of the pen, Walmart, whatever.

So mental things and physical things are both Shen Wang. So Shen Wang is basically like everything in our world that we normally think of. All my thoughts and feelings and consciousnesses, everything in my mind, in my heart, my feelings, and all physical objects.

Now here's the big thing. When I look at this pen, and now we're doing mind only school, there's one thing over here, my mind, my changing mind, and then there's the object that I'm looking at. Now, when I look at a pen, a third thing comes into existence instantly.

What is that? A mental image of a pen. You can say a projection, a mental image of a pen.

And we'll indicate that. Please say, quote, pen. Quote, pen.

You can say, quote, pen, or you can say, it's an idea of a pen. It's a mental image of a pen. It's the quality pen.

If you studied quality characteristic, it's like a mental image of a pen. Like that. It's the idea of a pen.

We could talk about this for 47 classes or a year and a half, but let's just jump to the quick. This is called kuntak. Kuntak means a mental image or a construct, like a constructed, imagined nature of a pen.

Kuntak means, quote, pen. Pen is not a part of your mind. It's a labeled nature that is a nature of this pen.

It's part of this pen. It's the fact that the pen is called pen. That's kuntak.

That's quote, pen. It's the fact that the pen is called pen. It's the part of this pen that is being labeled pen.

Get it? This is an interesting idea. It's a subtle idea.

This pen has one nature, which is called shenwang, which is that it is produced by a pen factory. It's caused. It's shenwang.

It's produced by some other variable, some other cause. This cylinder has a second nature, which is that it's labeled a pen. It's thought of as something I can write with.

That's its second nature. It's kuntak. It's labeled nature.

Now here's, got it? Okay, thank you. Now there's two questions.

Can you hear me okay? Yeah, the kuntak is not part of the mind. The labeled nature is not part of the mind.

It's not a thought in your mind. It's a nature. It's a quality of this cylinder.

This quote pen is a quality of this object. It's a nature. It's called a tseni.

It's an attribute of this pen. The pen has one attribute, one nature, which is that it's produced. It's caused.

It's produced by a pen factory. It has a second attribute, which is that it's labeled pen. It's called pen.

Now here's the big question for the Mind Only School. What is this kuntak pen dependent upon? Roughly you could say, where does it come from?

But there's a little problem with that. But let's just say, upon what does this pen come from? And you have two choices, okay?

It either is dependent upon this cylinder, or it's dependent upon my mind coming up with the label pen. So which is it? Yeah, Mind Only School we're in.

And the Mind Only School says, it's not the case. It's not the case that the label pen inherently is a part of this cylinder. It's not the case that the label pen is automatically, inherently, by definition, from its own side, in truth, with its own unique reality, a part of this pen.

Okay? Got it? This label pen is not inherently, automatically, self-existently, necessarily, in truth, etc., a part of this cylinder, this object. Okay? That fact is emptiness. Okay?

That fact is emptiness. The fact that the label is not automatically, by definition, a part of the cylinder is emptiness, according to the Mind Only School. So I'm just going to go like this.

I'm going to put a big X through this arrow, and I'm going to say, this is Yongzhu. So please say Yongzhu. Yongzhu.

Now, John Law mentioned the three attributes in his quote by Zhanggen Kongqiu. Okay? The quote said something like, imaginary, kunta, and dependent things, this is what you wrote down before, are apparent things.

Okay? And you could call it totality, or Yongzhu, is the ultimate thing. Okay?

And totality, or Yongzhu, is what the Mind Only School calls emptiness. Yongzhu means emptiness in the Mind Only School. And how the Mind Only School talks about emptiness is to say that emptiness is the fact that the pen is not called pen by definition, automatically, self-existent.

Okay? Emptiness in the Mind Only School, emptiness in the Mind Only School is the fact that the object is not labeled as it's labeled automatically, by definition, inherently, necessarily, in truth, with its own unique way of being. Okay?

Got it? Okay. So, does the Mind Only School say that this cylinder has a nature that is a part of it, of being called a pen?

Yes. Is that nature inherently a part of this pen? No.

And so we cancel that. We say the label pen is not inherently a part of this pen. Yes, it is associated with the pen, but why is the label unfair, nasty boss associated with my boss?

Because it's coming from me, the perceiver. Got it? It's coming from me, the perceiver.

And so, the Mind Only School, again, close your eyes, 20 classes pass, and you reach the conclusion that all the things in my world are coming from me. Right? They're coming from me perceiving the object and labeling the object.

The labeled nature of my boss, unfair, unreasonable boss, or precious, holy, perfect lama, all of those qualities of all people in my life are coming from my mind, produced by my past karma. Okay? That's dependent origination in the Mind Only School.

And emptiness is the fact that the label, the way that everything in the world is labeled or thought of, is not inherently a part of the object, which is why we can turn into Maitreya. Right? Because the label, plain old schmucky, sometimes half-decent, sometimes selfish Winston, is not resident in me.

It's just an idea that my mind is producing. Change the way I'm used to labeling my wife, my children, my job, my world, my circumstances, even myself, my own wisdom, my own level of understanding, my own compassion. Get used to labeling yourself in a different way.

Get this Muhammad Ali idea. Okay? Right?

And get this Maitreya idea. I am the coming Buddha. Start thinking like that.

Thursday night Geshe-la did this meditation with us, if you were there. Practice that. Start labeling yourself differently.

Because the label, I'm a schmuck, is not a part of the object. That's emptiness. Okay?

Got it? That's it in a nutshell. I want to do a really, what do I have, a minute and a half left?

Longer than me. Okay. Yeah.

I want to do a quick kind of review and contrast of the Mind-Only School to the Middle Way Consequence, the highest school, the school of some great teachers, okay? Geshe Michael Roach, the Dalai Lama, Lord Buddha himself, ultimately Je Tsongkhapa, etc. Probably Djamgön Kongshul Rinpoche and Rangjung Dorje.

And I'm just paraphrasing His Holiness the Dalai Lama in New York last week. Okay. So a few questions for you.

According to the Mind-Only School and then according to the Middle Way Consequence. The Middle Way Consequence is the Prasangika, you know, the highest school, the highest school of the Middle Way. This is the highest school of Maitreya.

So the Mind-Only School and the Middle Way Consequence School. Let's talk about the wisdom that perceives emptiness. We're going to talk about the wisdom that perceives emptiness.

Okay? This was called totality in the Shentong worldview.

[Говорящий 1]
It's called non-dual primordial wisdom.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
Or the indivisibility of emptiness and bliss.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Yeah. And John can correct me because I'm a novice with this stuff.

So please, I defer to him and please defer to him also. Let's talk about the wisdom that perceives emptiness. Okay?

That's what I want to talk about. The wisdom that perceives emptiness. Okay.

According to the Mind-Only School. So we're talking about wisdom. You can call it wisdom that perceives emptiness, wisdom that perceives non-duality, whatever.

Okay. Is that wisdom a changing thing? Is it a changing thing, a caused thing?

Is wisdom, shereb, the wisdom that perceives emptiness, a changing thing, a caused thing? It's a changing thing. Yeah.

It's a changing thing, right? Is it a changing thing? Just look at your own mind.

Is your wisdom that perceives emptiness a changing thing? Is it a constant thing that you always hold either as you walk around dealing with someone, you know, that you're the special agent last night who is helping you practice or as you're in a state of meditation? Is your level of wisdom that perceives emptiness totally stable or is it something that fluctuates?

Yeah. It's a changing thing. Is it a caused thing?

Yeah. We say, say, tu sam gom. Say, tu sam gom be shereb.

Tu sam gom be shereb means the wisdom that is caused by going to class, thinking it over and meditating. So yeah, it's a caused thing. Okay.

According to the mind-only school, is it a caused thing? Absolutely. It's the mind, remember?

It's the wisdom eye. It's the mind that is perceiving, instead of a cylinder, it's perceiving emptiness. It's the mind that's perceiving emptiness.

It's shen wang. It's produced by study, kindness, appreciating others, not being critical, not living in an ignorant world. It's produced by those things.

Secondly, does it exist through dependent origination? Is it a dependently originating thing? You could say roughly, is it a projection?

Is the wisdom that perceives emptiness dependently originating? Is it arising? Is it dependently arising?

Is it a projection? Is it a product of my karma? Yeah, that's roughly like what we just said.

Is it dependently originating? And let's go back to this comparison. Is it a cause-changing thing?

The mind-only school says yes. In fact, we call it shen wang, meaning something that's produced by other causes. Listening, thinking, meditating, supported, watered by good heart.

According to the prasangika, middle way consequence, yes. Is it a dependently originating thing in the mind-only school? Yes.

Yeah, absolutely. It's shen wang. It's produced by other causes and conditions.

According to the prasangikas, yes. Is it ultimate reality? Is the wisdom that perceives emptiness, is this thought in my mind that perceives the lack of a self-nature, is it ultimate reality?

Yes, it's not. According to the prasangika, the highest school, definitely not. Let's say definitely not, because they wouldn't even consider that for a second and they'd go after that idea with pleasure.

Is it ultimate reality? According to the mind-only school, is the wisdom that perceives emptiness, which is what kind of thing? It's a shen wang.

It's a changing thing. Is it ultimate reality? Yeah.

They'd say no, but maybe you could talk about that. It's not ultimate reality, because the thing that is ultimate reality, in a sense, is yongzhu. It's the fact that the label doesn't attach to the object automatically, self-existently.

But in a different sense, you could almost say the mind, the wisdom that perceives ultimate reality, and in fact the pen itself, has some kind of ultimate way of existing, because it's not just a projection. It's not kuntak. So in a way, the mind-only school would say the wisdom that perceives emptiness, it's not just an imagined thing.

It comes from causes and conditions. It exists by definition. It has a nature of its own.

It's not just an imagined thing. The mind-only school would say. So they would sort of get into a discussion about this, and that's a long story, but enough for right now.

The fourth, oh, let's do it this way. Is it an absence? Is the wisdom that perceives emptiness a lack of something?

Is it an absence? In the wisdom that perceives emptiness an absence of something? No, it's a thought in my mind.

It's wisdom. It's understanding. According to the mind-only school, is this shen wang wisdom an absence of something?

No, it's not. It's a produced thing. Remember what we talked the other night, it was sort of a crazy idea.

What would it mean for something to be the absence of something that is produced? What would the assembly line look like? Yeah, big lunch break.

The last question is, is it free of duality? And this is a more subtle kind of thing. Is it free of duality?

Yeah, in the Prasangika school, is the wisdom that perceives emptiness free of duality? What? That's a big question, and that's kind of underpinning this whole discussion.

So, I'll just say one thing about this, and then I'll sit down. In one sense, free of duality means in the direct perception of emptiness, my mind perceiving emptiness, and the emptiness, my mind over here perceiving emptiness, and the object, this isn't a cylinder now, this is emptiness. The emptiness, the lack of inherent existence that my meditation is focusing on over here, and my mind perceiving it, the distinction between those two objects, between the perceiving subject and the thing I'm looking at, is totally gone.

The discrimination, the distinction between those two things, me perceiving as a perceiving subject, and the emptiness that I'm looking at, is totally gone. It's called chula chushakpa, if you've studied the Diamond Cutter Sutra, which means chula chushakpa, water poured into water, meaning you can't distinguish the subject and the object, exemplified by the experience that you can't be thinking, I'm perceiving emptiness right now. If you wonder, did I see emptiness directly?

If in that moment you had the thought, wow, I'm perceiving emptiness directly, this is a holiday, you're not perceiving emptiness directly. So in one sense, the direct perception of emptiness is free of duality. In another sense, is the wisdom that perceives emptiness, can you distinguish it from the emptiness that it is perceiving, that it's looking at?

Are they two different things? Is the lack of inherent nature of this pen, one thing, the absence of a self-existent nature, which is an absence and an unchanging nature. This pen always lacks a self-existent nature.

So is that emptiness of this pen, and is my mind sitting here thinking about that emptiness, are those two different things? Totally, like obviously, clearly. And so can you talk about one thing?

Can you talk about a single thing, which is both the wisdom that perceives emptiness and the absence of a self-existent nature? No. According to the prasangita, strongly, no.

That's not correct. Can you have the experience during the direct perception of emptiness that you're not seeing any distinction between those two things? Yes.

Yes. Can you have an example of that? Maybe you say, well, you probably have, but I haven't seen emptiness directly.

You may be thinking so, I'm not sure. But you can relate to this. Have you ever just really been into something?

You're playing music, or you're skiing, or you're writing a poem, and you're not making any distinction between the action that you're doing and you doing it. You say you're in the X-zone, or you lose yourself in an activity. In a way, you look into your lover's eyes, and you merge with them, and you're not aware of the distinction between the object, the person you're looking at, and you looking at them.

That distinction disappears. You're with me? Everyone can relate to that experience somehow?

Yes. Is that absence of duality ultimate reality? If I could experience up on Sunset Peak for three real special minutes, if I could have the experience that I'm merged with the sunset, and I lose the fact that I'm sitting here looking at the sunset, or this Beethoven sonata.

The music is me. There's this song by Jerome Kern. The song is you.

Could realizing that get you to total enlightenment? Yeah. The Prasangkas would say, come on.

Everyone realizes that. We've all had that experience. Experiencing the lack of duality between me and what I'm thinking about.

You could almost say some kind of cosmic consciousness. Is that a nice experience? Yes.

Will it get you enlightened? Is that the wisdom that leads you to stop all of your mental afflictions? Does that teach you that the person or problem in your life has no nature of its own?

Therefore, I have to collect totally different karma, positive karma of appreciation and kindness, to see that person in a totally different way. Which do you want to have? There you go.

That's very quickly, very approximately, with all of my flaws. Presentation of the Mind-Movement School. Oh, yeah.

Would they say free of duality? Let's leave that for the question and answer period. Back to John.

[Говорящий 1]
Wow. Thank you very much, Winston-Law. Boy, that was an incredible, clear presentation of Mind-Only.

I mean, it gives us so much to cook. Just working with what Winston has presented, that was really beautiful. Thank you.

We are so darn fortunate to have teachers like Winston-Law to help us work with our understanding. Just wonderful. So, I'm going to say a little bit about Shentong.

And I was very aware, as Winston was making his presentation, that the way a teacher like Kenpo Sultrim Gyamso Rinpoche teaches from a Shentong view is so different from the style of teaching that you just heard, which is beautiful and wonderful. And for me, this style of teaching is just expanding my world, my understanding. It's incredible.

It's wonderful. A Shentong teacher teaching from that view, particularly a Shentong teacher teaching students who've been studying a while and meditating a while, would have a very different style of teaching. One of the things that Kenpo Sultrim Gyamso does when he teaches is that he's known for his songs, Dohas.

Like if you've read the songs of Milarepa, the great Tibetan saint, great master, he composes these songs spontaneously. They're amazing. And he likes to set them to like country and western tunes.

So, he'll have his students in a seminar, in a workshop, in a teaching over four or five days or a week, singing these Dohas to country and western songs. And it's very powerful. It's very interesting.

So, the style of teaching, and it's very interesting because it says something about Shentong, the style of teaching is very different. And in order for us not to get too backed up, I want to just very carefully outline the Shentong presentation. Some of the terms are going to be a little bit different.

We'll try to work with that and I won't take too long because I see us moving along here on our time. So, Shentong does not accept the mind-only view that consciousness is truly existing. And I'm just going to lay this out.

We don't have time for me to go point by point through what Winston presented, but we just don't have time for it now. So, I'm going to go through this presentation and sort of leave it for you to cook. Shentong does not accept the mind-only view that consciousness is truly existing.

Shentong holds the Madhyamaka view that consciousness is non-arising and without self-nature. What does this mean? Non-arising.

Shentong holds the Madhyamaka view that consciousness is non-arising and without self-nature. It doesn't have any independent, ongoing existence of its own. Okay?

What does this mean? It means that what is realized is the truly existent nature that is free from all conceptual contrivance. All conceptual contrivance.

What is realized is the truly existent nature that is free from all conceptual contrivance. This is called, in this view, the wisdom mind. The wisdom mind, this wisdom mind, is not the object of the conceptualizing process.

And so, from the Shentong view, it's not negated by Madhyamaka reasoning. Therefore, it's the only thing that has absolute and true existence. Anything that can be the object of consciousness, however pure and refined, the pen, I guess, is dependently arising and it has no true existence.

This wisdom mind can only be realized directly. It can only be realized directly. It can't be experienced through analysis.

It can only be realized directly. Yeah, let me just go through this one more time. And well, Shentong does not accept the mind-only view that consciousness is truly existing.

Shentong holds the Madhyamaka view that consciousness is non-arising and without self-nature. What does this mean? It means that what is realized is the truly existent nature that is free from all conceptual contrivance.

And that truly existent nature, which is free from all conceptual contrivance, is called the wisdom mind. This wisdom mind is not the object of the conceptualizing process. And so, it's not negated by Madhyamaka reasoning.

This wisdom mind is not the object of the conceptualizing process. And so, is not negated by Madhyamaka reasoning. Therefore, it is the only thing that has absolute and true existence.

Anything that can be the object of consciousness, however pure and refined, is dependently arising and has no true existence. And this wisdom mind can only be realized directly. When this wisdom mind is realized, there's no seeing and seen aspect.

When the wisdom mind is realized, there is no seeing and seen aspect. No realizing and realized aspect to the realization. This is non-conceptual wisdom mind itself.

There are a number of different terms used for this, and I'll just mention a few of these. I've mentioned one already. The non-dual wisdom mind, the Shentong view would say, is truly existing.

Another term for it is the clear light nature of mind. Another term that's used is emptiness and clarity inseparable. And another phrase that's used is indivisibility of bliss and emptiness.

So there is a lot more to say, and I actually have a lot more than I could say in my material, but I think it would be good if we could end because we have a schedule and I don't want to be not mindful of that. It was very interesting, Geshe-la mentioned this yesterday, I think it was yesterday, maybe the day before. In New York, when His Holiness taught at the Beacon Theater for four days on this very amazing text, and he went through the schools, he took questions in written form and someone asked him a question about other views of mind than the Prasidhika view.

I'm paraphrasing this question, it wasn't phrased exactly like that, but what the Dalai Lama did was, what His Holiness did was, he responded by talking about Shentong and Rongtong. And he said two things that I think are worth noting and I'd like to share with you. He said three things that stuck with me, and these are from my notes.

He said, in discussing Shentong and Rongtong, we should be sensitive to terminology and what various terms mean in different contexts. Shentong and Rongtong, he said, could have different meanings in different contexts. For example, His Holiness said, if your focus is understanding clear light from an objective point of view, Rongtong is useful.

And if your focus is understanding clear light from a subjective point of view, Shentong is useful. His Holiness said there are teachers of Shentong who are greatly realized, and that it is one thing to write in language and another what is truly experienced. And then at the conclusion of his remarks, which went on for a little while, and I'm very much paraphrasing this and I'm working from my own notes, but at the end of it he said, you know, he's very funny.

He laughs a lot, the Dalai Lama, it's wonderful. And he laughed, you know, and he said the whole debate between Shentong and Rongtong is very fertile ground for great debaters and thinkers. And then he said, as for us, us, as for our own concern, he said, perhaps we should focus on the best way to understand afflictive emotions on a day-by-day basis.

And everybody laughed. So, I'd like to leave you with that. And I want to thank Winston for an incredible, wonderful presentation.

If we had more time, it'd be fun to go on and do. But you can see how interesting this is and how much opportunity there is for debate and discussion. Five minutes for questions, Winston La says.

Yes. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. I couldn't hear that word.

Monism? I've never heard that word used in any Shentong presentation. What Shentong would say is, if I could use a different word than monism, that word has got, there are lots of, there's a long story about that word.

I think what Shentong would say is that there is emptiness, that the nature of mind is emptiness and clarity, undifferentiated, okay? And that that cannot be experienced conceptually. It can only be experienced directly.

As Geshe-la often teaches, the direct perception of emptiness is not something that's going to come to us on the street corner. You know, it's something that we realize in a deep state of meditation. Yeah, this is great ground for debate and we could have a great time with this.

Shentong does not take the view it exists from its own side. So, it's truly existing, but it's beyond concept. It is without conceptual elaboration.

So, terms like monism or any other terminology don't apply to it. The Prasangika view says, well, you can't say anything about that, whatever that is. You can't say anything about that.

Shentong would assert in its view, well, we're going to say something about that. We're going say the true nature of mind and reality is emptiness and clarity. It has that quality of clarity.

But that is not conceptually derived, which I think is why His Holiness said that Shentong is useful if you're thinking about or wanting to approach this from a subjective point of view. That is from your own experience. One more question?

Yeah, James.

[Говорящий 2]
I'm trying to simplify it a little bit.

[Говорящий 1]
Is this whole thing coming down to essentially from the Shentong point of view, emptiness is not empty? In the Prasangika, emptiness is empty. Well, I'll just take a stab at that.

That's a great question. I think that the Shentong view would say emptiness is empty. I think it would say emptiness is empty.

But it appears that Shentong asserts a quality that they call clarity. We could have a long debate about whether that's something that's added and is therefore subject to refutation. We could have a long debate about that.

Yeah, I mean, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche is a master of Rongtong view. He says you can't understand Shentong unless you understand Rongtong. You have to understand Prasangika.

You've got to master that. You can't get there with Shentong without that. So obviously what that view says is that the third turning is the ultimate teaching of the Buddha as opposed to the Prasangika view, which is that the second turning is the ultimate teaching of the Buddha.

Okay, I mean, we could go on, but I want to thank everybody. This is tough stuff. I want to thank you all for your openness to hearing all of this.

I commend to you these references that I mentioned if you want to go further in studying. And of course, we're all going to listen with sharp ears and soft hearts today.

[Говорящий 2]
I feel like, first of all, I want to thank John for me.