Углублённый курс ACI 03 — «Руководство к образу жизни бодхисаттвы» Мастера Шантидевы: обмен себя на других (2004, Нью-Йорк), занятие 2

[Говорящий 1]
Okay, we had this idea, James and Russ were talking, and, you know, for the Paid Institute for Peace Education and also for ACI, we'd like to do this course in August, second half August. And we're trying to find things that might, how do you call them, promote peace in the world. And so, if I had to think of the first thing, it would be patience.

And that's why we did the patience course from Master Shantideva's work last summer, right? Was it summer? No.

March, yeah. And in general, I think it'd be cool. I'd like to come to New York twice a year or something and do things, you know what I mean, courses.

So, I was thinking the next most useful course I could think of would be this one. And this is the teaching on Master Shantideva, by Master Shantideva, on exchanging yourself and other people, right? This is very famous.

And I'm going to write it up here, just because the name is so important. This part you have to know, okay? It's just like a mantra in the monastery.

Say, dak-shen, nyam-je. Dak-shen, nyam-je. So, somebody says, what are you going to be teaching this summer?

You're going to say, I'm teaching dak-shen, nyam-je. Dak means me, right? Self.

And it's a loaded word, right? Atma. It can also mean the self-existent object, you see?

So, remember that. You guys have the hardest class in the course to teach. It just fell out that way, you know?

You're doing two, four, seven, and nine. Because I'm doing Friday night, Saturday night, Sunday night, so you're doing Saturday afternoon, Sunday afternoon. So, it just comes out ten courses, ten classes.

You get the second one, which is Saturday afternoon. And then you get the fourth one, which is Sunday afternoon. And then you get the seventh one, which is the following Saturday afternoon.

And then you get the ninth one. So, the second one happens to be the hardest one of all. Really hard.

Maybe one of the hardest things in the whole book. So, today we really got to work hard. Because to teach it right is extremely hard.

And I get confused just thinking about it. And I can read all the commentaries and everything else. By the way, we're using two main commentaries, you know, Gyaltsabje.

And we're using Prajnakaramati. Prajnakaramati. Prajnakaramati.

Who was a sidekick of whom? A thousand years ago? Naropa.

Naropa. Okay, Lhasa Naropa. Prajnakaramati was the gatekeeper.

The other gatekeeper. When Naropa was the gatekeeper. Of what?

Some people say Nalanda, some people say Vikramadashila. Anyway, one of the all great Buddhist Indian monasteries. And then some people call them different directions.

Doesn't matter. Anyway, they were two of the four greatest debaters of the monastery. So, they were sidekicks.

So, we're going to be using those two commentaries. And it's really difficult to understand the root text at this point by itself. You can't sit down and buy the Bodhisattvatara English translation and expect to understand it.

It's impossible. So, dak means myself. Shen means other people.

And then nyam je. This is what people call exchanging, but really you know it's two steps. It's two different steps.

Nyam means equal. People say equalize. I don't like big words like that in Dharma teachings.

But it means to treat yourself and others equally. To learn to treat yourself and others equally. And then je means to exchange yourself and others.

And Prajnakaramati says you have to do the nyam bah first and then you can do the je wa. You have to do the... Learn to treat yourself...

Learn to think of yourself as equal first. Then you can exchange yourself and others. Now, what those mean is really difficult.

It's not what it sounds like. It's not that easy. And you will find out.

So anyway, you're teaching dak, shen, nyam, je. Which is like the holiest practice ever. It's like the antidote for selfishness.

And ultimately the antidote for self-perceivingness, you see. Which always come together. Are they the same?

Is selfishness and seeing things as self-existent the same thing? No. But one comes from the other, you see.

Being selfish and all other mental afflictions derive from believing that things are self-existent. So, you've got to be comfortable with that difference. Selfishness is like watching out for number one.

Seeing things as self-existent influences everybody. Infects every mind. And seeing things as self-existent is why we get selfish.

We'll talk about that. But one is the root of all evil. The other is just one of the forms of evil in the world.

Selfishness. All right. What...

I mean, I'm going to ask you. This was in Course 11, I think. And I know you all teach it all the time.

I had to look it up. I don't remember. What chapter is it?

You've got six professions to choose from. Which one would be the chapter in which this is presented? Yeah, meditation.

Developing samadhi, shamatha. It's in the eighth chapter. So, whereas last time in New York we taught the whole sixth chapter on patience as an in-depth course, now we're not teaching the whole chapter.

We were thinking to call this course the chapter on meditation or something, but we're not going to do the first half of that chapter. It's a huge chapter. The first half of the eighth chapter, which is devoted to the fifth perfection, the perfection of meditation, the first half is all about going to Diamond Mountain.

It's all about, you know, when you're ready, get serious, go out, live in the wilderness. I'll be happy with the birds and the animals. No one will be around.

I can finally sit down and practice seriously. You know, the whole first half of the eighth chapter is a sales pitch on Diamond Mountain, which I'll get to later. Seriously, it's like when you're ready, when conditions are right in your life, you have to have the option to go and concentrate and be away from people.

That's like live a yogi's existence. That's this whole, if you study class 11, again, what you should do, you'll see. That's the first half of chapter eight.

It's a sales pitch on going out and doing Sri Retreat or something. Then the second half of that chapter is, well, if you go out to do this practice, if you go out to develop shamatha, what should you meditate on? What's the holiest object of meditation?

What would be the... And you know, Christy and I are preparing her class for September in Diamond Mountain, which is called Bok Jun Mo, which is how to set your meditation on fire. Everybody, you learn to meditate, then five years later you need some kind of vitamins for your meditation.

You know, like in meditation, it's typical that when you first learn to meditate, you're like, whoom, and then it peaks out. And then sometimes it even deteriorates. And then five, ten years later you're like, I don't really meditate that well.

When I first heard the meditation course, I got really excited, I worked really hard on it, and then I just sort of cruised for a while, and now frankly it's not as good as it was. The idea of her course in September is, what do you do for a person who's at that stage? Not who doesn't know how to meditate, but who's leveled out in their meditation practice.

And she's going to be teaching Kamalashila's root text, How to Meditate, which is what all Tibetan meditation teachings are based on. And we got the Sanskrit, we got the Tibetan, and she's teaching everything, and it's very beautiful, and it's the source of all. But what we found is interesting, he doesn't talk about meditation for the first half of the book.

Why? He talks about the object of meditation. And people get frustrated.

I've heard even great scholars in the West say, Oh, the Tibetans don't teach meditation techniques. But they get confused because Tibetans can't divorce the object from the technique. To them, it would be unnatural to present meditation techniques without talking about what you meditate on.

It would be like taking the asanas out of yoga and just teaching exercises and not doing the spiritual part. So then Americans are like, Oh, we just want the technique. We've done that with yoga.

And now we're working to reunite them. But in the first half of the Bhavana Karma, the stages of meditation, Kamalashila talks, the first half is devoted to compassion, Karuna, right? Taking care of other people.

It's very beautiful. He doesn't get to how to meditate. He doesn't get to how to sit on your seat.

And the seven or what, eight features of the posture until halfway through the book. Because he said, look, the object is the most important thing. So in Narottam Shantidevi you have the first half of the eighth chapter, sales pitch on meditation.

Meaning, for him, go out and give up the world. Go to the wilderness. Devote yourself.

Second half, what are you going to meditate on? Dakshin Yamje. So that's your, just so you know where you're coming from.

You're coming in at class number two, right? Just so you know the flow. Oh, and by the way, I wanted to tell you, we're going to do something a little bit different on procedure.

I have this idea. We do this class this afternoon. Then we're going to break for dinner.

During the dinner, you guys are going to get together. However you want. You know, two or three people at a restaurant.

And write the questions for the homework. And then propose them to me. Now, when we get back this evening, I'll say, OK, who's got a good homework question?

And then you guys say, I want to start doing that now on all the courses. That's just something I want to start doing now. Like, we're going to teach this Tantric course in Diamond Mountain in September.

That's a lamrim by the First Panchen Lama, which is required before Tantric practice. So I'm not going to write the homework. I want you guys to develop an ACI course out of that.

The first year is an open thing, right? I want you to develop an open ACI course that you can teach people in that whole lamrim. This is a very beautiful lamrim.

I don't think anyone's translated it. I'm not sure. It's one of the eight famous lamrims.

I'd like to start doing that kind of thing. So now you've got to think, as we go through this class today, and make notes somewhere on your paper, right? There's a teacher in China who would say, I want a blank piece of paper three pages down, and I'm going to watch to see that you do it.

And you take little notes to yourself about what you think would be an important homework question. And I'll tell you the principle behind it. What will benefit people?

What will benefit their lives? Like, that's the trick. It's not like the dates.

The dates can come in the first homework. I'm taking care of that. You don't have to worry about the first homework, right?

Now you've got to think, I have this person's attention in New York City for half an hour, which is extraordinary, right? What will I ask them to remember? And then the, what do you call it, the che in Tibetan?

The measure of what you give them as a homework question has to be, what do you want them to get out of this course? Which means, what will help them in their life? What will help them in their real life?

And what do I have to think about? What are the great ideas that are coming here? What's the point for a real person's life?

Now you have to struggle with the homework question. Your homework questions have to be designed around that. And also I think I commonly like to write questions about what they might not have gotten.

Like, what's not evident from the text, you see what I mean? Without the commentaries or things like that, you know? Like something that if you read one of the ten translations of this text that are out on the market now, you wouldn't get it.

You see what I mean? So what do you call, like, misconceptions, dharma rumors? I like to, those are important, what do you call, heels for thought, you know?

So, then one more thing I urge you to do. Struggle. By the way, we lost $1,500 to teach tomorrow.

We made a mistake on the airfare. We booked the flight for the wrong day. And then we were thinking to just cancel tomorrow's classes.

And we said, no, they need time to cook it, you know? And we need two months to think. What the heck, what's the logic behind the verses, you know?

Where is he going? You see what I mean? Like, people struggle with the words of the text in Tibetan or Sanskrit.

You know, scholars all over the world, they struggle with the words. One by one they get the words, they get the words down, you know? And then they struggle and they figure out what he meant to say.

But there's another big step. Where is he going? What's the flow over all of the verses?

We're going to cover nine verses today. In this first class. What's the logic?

You see, people miss that. What's he trying to get you to? Where is he going?

So look at that too. Don't just focus on the verses. It's not enough.

That's why we're giving you two months to cook it. You got to go home with those nine verses and meditate on them over and over again. That was why the three-year retreat teachers were so good.

Because I had six months of silence to think. You know, what's the flow here? You know what I mean?

It's not just the verse itself. It's like, why did this verse come from the last verse? Why did he go to the next verse?

You have to... What's the bigger picture? You have to struggle with that.

And that's only going to come from two months of meditation. So I suggest for the next two months you make these four classes the object of your meditation. And I predict that you will find deeper and deeper love.

He's like a lasagna, you know? Now he's got all these layers of pasta down there, you know? He's like, you eat the top and then suddenly there's another one, you know?

And you'll really love it. There's certain stuff that I can't tell you. And there's certain stuff that you have to discover in his book.

And you will. The clue I give you is think about why does each verse go to the next verse. You see, what's...

There's a message hidden in the flow. And some people just never get it, you know? They get stuck on the individual words or on the individual verses.

But you have to look at the flow. Because the Sanskrit is very... What do you call it?

Amorphous. You can take it many ways. And then the Tibetans chose to take it one way.

They had to choose to translate. They couldn't leave a word meaning six things. They had to choose one word to translate it in.

And then you're faced with a similar situation. The words are very subtle, okay? Alright, here we go.

You have your books. Pull out your first verse. I'm going to...

I need my computer. Well, feel free to drink water and stuff. It's hot today, it's a little muggy.

You can't understand Class II without the last verse from Class I. So I'm going to go back to the last verse of Class I. Which you don't have.

But it says the following. I must stop the pain of others because it's pain. It's like the pain that I feel myself.

I must act to help all others because they are living beings. It's like the body that I own. Here we go.

He's presenting a debate. And it's the typical da-da-da-da-chu-chen, da-da-da-yin-je, da-da-da-yin-be-ye-chir de-na-da-da-da-yin-be-ye-chir mang-shin. I'll give it to you.

Don't forget the gyaltsab je of all. Of all things that he's remembered for what. Luntok Rinpoche wanted gyaltsab je in the prayer, right?

Master of logic. Greatest logician. He was a great logician before he met Jatakapa.

He was already probably the most famous logician in Tibet. Then there's this beautiful story, if you don't know. He went to challenge Jatakapa.

And you know the story. If you don't ask, you know the story. Anyway, he went to attack Jatakapa.

He ended up getting converted in the same night. But he was a great logician. So he liked...

And Shantideva, Master Shantideva, was the gatekeeper. He was the debater. So he and gyaltsab je, maybe same life, I don't know.

But that was their thing, debate, right? So here's his debate. Take pain.

[Говорящий 2]
Sorry. Take that pain of others.

[Говорящий 1]
That's the chu-chen, right? Da-da-da-da-chu-chen. Shin-yin-be-ye-chu-chen.

Anya-bu-ka-da-ni. We're going to debate in Sanskrit also in Diamond Mountain. Who wants to?

Anybody who wants to. But then you'll learn it like that. And your Tibetan will go like that.

And then we'll have English for people. Anyway, take the pain of others. Now there's an assertion about it, right?

That maybe the other person doesn't believe, right? So, like, take sound, it's impermanent, right? Why do you debate something like that?

It's obvious that words are impermanent. Why do you debate something like that? Why is that the most famous debate in Buddhist logic?

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, the Aum guy.

[Говорящий 1]
Aum guy said, Aum is eternal, Aum is unseen. And he said, come on, take sound. Take the sound of Aum.

It's impermanent. What does he say? Take the pain of others.

It is something I need to stop. Maya hantab yam. It is something I need to stop.

It is something I need to stop. Because it's... Dukkha dvar.

Dukkha indreches.

[Говорящий 2]
Because it's pain.

[Говорящий 1]
Now you know that Tso Tso Nyingpa, Tsa Yen Pa Kyi Tsen, any thing that has the three relationships is the definition of a good reason, right? Which means, this applies to this, if something is this, it must be that, and if it's not this, it's not that. You don't have to remember all that, but that's the—we call this a good reason.

A must apply—C must be true of C. C must be true of A. And if C—I'll just put it here.

C must be true of A. These are the three, right? If C, then B.

If not B, not C. These are the three qualities of a valid reason, correct reason, okay? If these three statements are true of this logical statement, then it's true.

If these three statements are not true, if any one of them is not true of this logical statement, then it's not a valid statement, it's not correct. Let's check, okay? Is C true of A?

Is the pain of others pain? Yes. I mean, no one's going to debate that, you know?

No one's going to debate that. It is. It is.

It is. Ah, but now we get to number two, okay? Now we get to number two.

And that's how you're going to open your class. I mean, this is the opening of your class. If something is pain, does it mean it's something I have to spend?

In other words, is all pain something I have to spend, personally? And the me, maya, in Sanskrit, that's important. Dhakisavatara.

Anything which hurts is your responsibility to stop. Anything in the world, anything in the universe that hurts somebody is your responsibility to stop. You buy that.

And the other guy says, no. That's where we're starting your class. It's called khyapa-drupa.

These are called jeya-khyapa and do-khyapa, what we call the necessity, which in logic means these two parts here are called the necessity. So if you look on the left side of your reading, it says establishing the necessities. Necessity means jeya-khyapa and do-khyapa.

These two logical parameters. We're trying to establish them. These two logical parameters.

That's where jeya-khyapa, that's what, that's why it has that weird thing about necessities. Necessity means a logical necessity. If it's C, it must be B.

If it's not B, it can't be C. We're going to concentrate on this one, the jeya-khyapa, number two. Why?

The do-khyapa follows automatically. In any case where number two is true, number three is also true. What?

If you don't need to stop something, it can't be pain. Got that? That's wholeheartedly.

You don't need to stop it, it can't be pain. If I can say about something, you don't have to worry about it. Then it's not pain.

Why? Because if something's pain, you've got to worry about it. Anybody's pain.

So number three you don't have to worry about. I don't think you even have to get in it with your students. That's just a formal logic thing.

You don't have to worry about it. The main thing is, if it's pain, any kind of pain, is it my responsibility to stop it? Is it my problem?

That's where you're picking up. And that's where Master Shantideva starts his verse here. Somebody like to read the English, Michael?

A little bit loud. Yeah. He's on the nyamba.

And His Holiness loves these two verses. He says them all the time. You should point that out.

You should say, you know, the greatest Dalai Lama who ever lived, who we have the opportunity to see for the first time in history, he thinks these two verses are the greatest thing that were ever written. I mean, he bases his whole life, his whole teaching on these two verses. And they're great, right?

Yeah, this number 95 and 96, which is coming. This one is, look, everybody wants to be happy. Everybody has a right to happiness.

We are equal. We are nyamba. In Sanskrit, the tsumba and the nyamba is sama, which came into English as same.

I mean, even linguistically, it's the same. We're the same. We're all the same.

Everybody wants happiness. So it's not right that you just work for your own happiness. Why do you only work for yourself?

There's no difference between us and other people. Okay? There's no difference between ...

Everybody wants to be happy. So it's not logical, it's not moral, it's not right that you only work for your own happiness because we're all equal. Okay, that's the nyamba.

We're all into the nyamba, okay? So we say, what am I teaching? I'm teaching dakshin-nyamje.

I'm teaching treating all of us equally. Oh, what's the classic verse? This is it.

Look, everybody wants to be happy. So why do you just work for yourself? You know, why do you just work for your own happiness?

That's not right. Okay? That's not right.

This is Master Shanta Deva's response to an objection. What was the objection? We didn't hear the objection.

By the way, there's two ... Oh, let me do it this way. When somebody ends a logical statement with this, because, okay, because it's pain, you have two things you can answer in Tibetan.

Well, you can say three things, right? You can say, they say, du-nye-le-me-ye-che. You can say, what?

If you agree, you can say ... By the way, this is not a do, okay? Do you say to tell, right?

So you can say, right, right, in, it is, it is. Other people's pain is pain. You can agree.

You can say, in, in, it is. Okay? That's if you agree.

If you don't agree, remember there's two things you can say. Khyapa Matsyam's not here, he died, right? Sorry.

Okay? There's two things you can say. You can say either ta-ma-drup, or you can say khyapa matsyam.

Ta-ma-drup is if you don't agree to this first one. What you're saying is, C is not true of A. If C is not true of A, you say, ta-ma-drup, wrong.

It's not true that what? Pain is ... Sorry, it's not true that other people's pain is pain.

It's not true that pain applies to other people's pain. That's like saying, it's saying, other people's pain is not pain. Ta-ma-drup, at this point is, other people's pain is not pain.

Is that what the other guy's trying to say? Would you say that? No, I mean, that's not a big, like, it's not hard to accept that other people's pain is pain, you know?

That's not, unless you're like really out there on the emptiness, misunderstanding range, chart, you know, oh, nothing matters. Other people's pain is just illusion, you know? That's nobody's going to say.

But, what about khyapa matsyam? If C, C doesn't mean B. Would he say that?

Just because it's pain, doesn't mean it's my problem. Just because it's pain in general, doesn't mean it's my problem. You think he might say khyapa matsyam?

That's the thing. That's the thing. He has come up between first class, the end of the first class, and the beginning of your class.

And you've got to tell your students that, right? He's come up between there and said, just because it's pain, doesn't mean it's my problem. Khyapa matsyam.

We said, take other people's pain. You have to work on it, because it's pain. He said, did he say yin?

Did he say tam-a-drup? Or did he say khyapa matsyam? He said khyapa matsyam.

I agree it's pain, but that doesn't make it my problem. Now, now we're in a position, right? Now we've got a debate running.

We've succeeded in starting a debate. Now we just have to prove it to him, right? We have to prove to him that if something is pain in general, it's your problem.

That's where you guys are at. How do you start? See, look, we're all equal.

Everybody wants to be happy. So why do you just worry about yourself? That's now our, that's his first counter-argument.

By whom? Master Shantideva. To this guy.

We're all the same, don't you get it? Everybody wants to be happy. So why do you say khyapa matsyam?

By the way, in the second half of this verse, sorry, the next verse, let's go on to the next verse. And everybody doesn't like pain. So why don't you just protect yourself from pain?

Why don't you just worry about your own pain? Nobody likes pain. We're all equal.

Tam-a. We're all the same. So these two verses hang together.

They're a response to his what? Khyapa matsyam. They're a response to his khyapa matsyam.

Just because it's pain doesn't mean it's my khyapa. Now these two verses are like this. Everybody wants to be happy.

Why do you just worry about your own happiness?

[Говорящий 2]
A.

[Говорящий 1]
B. Nobody wants to hurt. Why don't you just protect yourself?

Why don't you just keep yourself out of trouble? So these two verses hang together like that. These are Master Shantideva's counter-argument.

Got it? Now, what questions to frame? Start thinking.

You've got till after dinner. Start thinking. What would I...

Oh, and another thing, I would like to, if it were me, I'd show him something about what are the greatest Dalai Lama in history, what are his two favorite verses from the Shantideva. He's always saying, people have a right to be happy. People have equal right to be happy.

People have equal right not to hurt. This is where he gets that from. This is where he gets that from.

All right. Now, I just want you to think naturally now. Think.

Just think naturally. You're the other guy. You're the other guy.

We said everybody's equal. Nobody wants pain. Everybody wants happiness.

So it is your problem. Other people's pain is your problem. What do you think his mind would go to next?

I mean, this is very natural. I hear it constantly when I teach. I can't feel that pain.

You've got to get your students. Get them there. Make them work.

Don't lecture them. Make them talk to you. What do you think the guy's going to say next?

The guy's going to say, oh, it's very noble what you say. They're equal. I'm equal.

Nobody wants to hurt. But the fact is, to be frank, I don't feel it when you stick a needle in somebody else's arm. That doesn't hurt me.

So it's not really the same, is it? That's his thing. That's his thing.

You say, yeah, it's very noble. Yeah, yeah. Sounds good.

You get a Nobel Prize for saying stuff like that. But frankly, I don't feel it with other people. You know, people are getting killed in Iraq today.

I didn't know that happened to me. It's not really true that we're all the same. That's it.

So it's not true that everyone's pain is something I need to take care of. I can't feel everybody's pain. I've got to worry about the stuff I can feel here on moi, number one.

That takes priority. Why? I can feel it.

I can't feel their pain. So if you read number 97, who wants to read that? Let's just go around.

That's the second half. We're all equal and not wanting pain. Could you do that?

You want to do the next one? Wow. So now, second half of this verse is, OK, so cancel your 401K.

Cancel your 401K. Why? The future you is somebody else.

That's an other. That's someone not connected to you. That's a different person.

So why are you putting money into a 401K? You can't feel their pain. They're somebody else.

And more specifically, if you read the commentary, he's talking about, it's a very heavy thing, why do good deeds in this life? Because there's no future life to take care of. That's somebody else.

If you really believe what you just said, hey, it doesn't hurt me. Why should I worry about it? Well then, why are you doing good deeds?

Why are you a good Buddhist? Who are you trying to take care of? That's not you.

That's somebody else. And frankly, we do that. It's a sign of maturity in a person that they begin to think about tomorrow.

Like, maybe I'm going to die. Maybe I should do something. Most people don't even think that far.

Most people don't think as far as their own death. You are cheating the person on their deathbed by being lazy today about your Dharma practice. It's not being fair to the lady on her deathbed.

You see? You're cheating her just by enjoying your life. You see what I mean?

For goodness sake, take care of them. Then Shantideva would say, no, no, don't bother. That's somebody else.

You can't feel their pain. I can't feel her pain right now. Okay, she's going to suffer.

She's going to be on her deathbed. She's going to be old and wrinkled and all broken down and nobody will like her and she'll be dying. But hey, it's not my problem.

I can't feel that right now. So why do you practice Buddhism then? Who are you trying to take care of?

That's somebody else. Don't worry. Enjoy yourself.

Just get the most comfortable place you can and hang out. Don't worry about that future person. Okay?

That leads us into the next ... By the way, how will he ... Okay, I'll give you a round again.

I'll repeat where we are. Oh, you think that since you can't feel someone else's pain, you shouldn't worry about it. Right.

Well, can you at this moment feel the pain you're going to feel when you die? No. So why are you a Buddhist?

Why are you trying to do good karma? Who are you trying to take care of? That's somebody else.

Now what's he going to say? What's the natural thing that comes in your mind? What's he going to answer?

Yeah, and there's one thought just before that. I'm still talking about pain that I'm going to feel. You see?

You get it? Like, if you had said, why should I worry about somebody else's future life? Okay, that's a good argument.

But hey, I'm not that stupid. I mean, I know I will experience the pain when I die. We're still talking about pain that I feel, that I'm going to feel.

It's not really true that I'm separate from that person, because I am going to feel their pain. I am going to feel their pain. So this is cool.

Shantideva just won the argument. He just won the whole chapter. The guy just went over that logical cliff.

In the debate ground you'd be turning around and thinking, God, I got him now. You just walk away. He says, well, I'm going to feel their pain, so I consider him me.

And then you're like, ah, got you, you know? And it may be half an hour later before he figures out that that's where he died, okay? But you're like, you just walk, you turn your back, and you just smile, you know, because you know you got him now.

You got him right where you want him. You already got him. Why?

Why do I say that? He's just proposed that, okay, that's not really me, and I'm not feeling his pain. But I think of it as me, because it's going to hurt me.

That's all. I mean, okay, it's not technically me of the present, but since I'm going to feel it, I just kind of stretch my me out that far. So now Shantideva's got him, right?

Why? Yeah, hey, if you can stretch it to him, what's the big deal about stretching it to other people? See?

Oh, you just admitted that your me is a concept. We got him. We got him.

You got to tell people this. You got to get your students there. They got to hear that at this point.

He's got him. As a logician, the guy's trapped already. You just admitted that your concept of who me is is an idea.

You see? It's artificial. You've decided to include your future self, when in reality they're two different guys, right?

We got him. He can't go anywhere now. He's going to end up having to include that lasso.

I think of it as a lasso or a big rope. In Judaism, there's this thing I heard about Shabbat or Shavuot, I don't remember, where you can draw a line. Yeah, you agree to stay, and it's actually a rope, or you draw it on the ground or something, and it's a boundary of where you're not going to go out during Shabbat or something.

And it's the same thing. Like, you draw your boundaries. You just said so.

I mean, we got him. He's dead now. Logically he's dead.

He just stretched himself to somebody else. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, like that telephone line. Yeah, yeah, I heard that.

We do too. We do too. OK.

Got it? OK. So now we're going to counterattack.

We're going to start the counterattack. Are you saying that you define your needs artificially? Are you proposing that you decide who's you, and that it's not something natural?

OK, that's where we're going. OK, who wants to read 98? OK, so we're kind of at a place where, look, he came back with, oh, I'm going to have to feel that pain.

Still my argument's good. The pain that I have to feel is me. The pain that I don't have to feel is not my problem.

Then he said, that idea is all wrong, because it's two totally separate people. I mean, one has died already. One is going to be born.

What are you talking about? Aren't they two separate people? Isn't John still, are they going to call him John still in his next lifetime?

I mean, it's two different people. It's completely different people. After you die, you go through the bardo.

You change identities. Totally different person. You're not the same person.

Is that a good argument? So put it. They're going to call you something else.

Assuming one of you, I don't know, has to take a rebirth, which won't happen, right? Suppose it's Dr. Tossam Giridhara. Suppose you had to.

Are you going to be called the same? Are they going to call you Spillwell or Wayne? They're not going to call you Wayne.

You're a different person. You're a different person. That argument.

OK? So why collect good karma for your future life? That's a different guy.

Don't worry about it. You just said, Just because it's pain doesn't mean I have to worry about it. Other people say, I don't have to worry about it.

So why are you worrying about your future life? Oh, because I have to feel that pain. Come on, that's a different person.

OK, that's where we're at now. This verse is, come on, that's a different person. That's a totally different person.

They're going to give him a different name. He might have different sex. Might be an animal.

Might be a spider. What are you talking about? That's a different person.

Now, guess what Delta J says at this point about Master Shantideva's argument to a Buddhist. Let's say what he said again. You don't have to worry about your future life.

[Говорящий 2]
That's a different person. It's not technically true.

[Говорящий 1]
Technically it's not true. You are the same OK, so Delta J, being a logician, he's covering his logical, ludicrous math. He's saying, look, technically this verse says, sometimes in debate you can use a false statement to trip somebody up.

And that's why it's so hard to translate the debate text. Sometimes the wrong loop, sometimes our side is a dumb argument just because it might work on the guy. Sometimes we present a false argument because it might have changed the guy's thinking.

This is like that. You're like that. You're not a different person.

Of course you're the same person. Kang Saki, you. You're the continuum.

You're the person. You are the same person. You are the same person.

Yeah, well, we're getting there. We're setting him up, by the way. We're setting him up.

We want him to worry about that. We want him to think, why is Delta J saying something stupid? Why is Master Satyadeva saying it's a different person?

I mean, all Buddhists accept it's the same person. And he's like saying, no, it's a different person. Other people's pain is not your problem.

He's like making fun of the guy. This is your kind of thinking, right? Oh, he's separate.

It's the other. He's starting to attack his whole concept of other. He's starting to undermine that castle.

He's digging under the wall. You know? Oh, it's somebody else.

I don't have to worry about it. That's your mindset, right? Okay?

He's undermining his thinking already.

[Говорящий 2]
It's kind of beautiful.

[Говорящий 1]
So now Delta J is going to say, let's give an example of where one other takes care of another that you think is very acceptable.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay?

[Говорящий 1]
Do you accept the idea that we should help others remove their pain just because it's pain? The guy says, no, I can't because it doesn't hurt me. Well then, Dwarren, next verse.

By the way, there's an em dash after hand. It got lost when we converted it. Yeah, yeah.

Good. Right. Yeah, yeah.

He's starting to set that up. The message I'll be giving is starting to set that up. It'll come in the next verse, I think.

He's starting to set that up. Right now he's saying, if you step on a thorn, if you step on a nail, and the nail's sticking you in your foot, then you shouldn't pull it out. This is called a telangira, right?

Prasangika. This is a telangira. Sarcasm based on the other guy's wrong view.

That's what our Madhyamika school is called, right? Prasangika. Oh, well then I guess if you stepped on a nail, you wouldn't pull it out, right?

Why do we say that? Yeah, that's right. It's the foot that hurts.

Well, why should the hand pull it out?

[Говорящий 2]
Right?

[Говорящий 1]
According to you. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just asking.

I guess you won't pull nails out of your feet anymore, right? Why? Because it's the foot that hurts, not the hand.

The hand's fine. The hand's not hurting at all. The hand doesn't hurt.

That's other's pain. Get it? It's so beautiful.

That's somebody else's pain. That's the other's pain. You're setting them up for John's pain.

You're setting them up. You know what the guy's going to say. What's he going to say?

They both belong to me. Oh, how much is you? How far did you go?

It's very beautiful. You've got to meditate on this. You'll find ten other levels there.

Yeah, that also has happened in the last two verses, and it's important to understand that. That has also happened in the two last two verses. One, the last verse was considering me as you stretch the boundary over time.

Are you your future life? You see? What we call a continuum, a gyuh, a santana in Sanskrit.

Are you your you tomorrow also? And are you both your hand and your foot, spatially, in one moment? So one is the concept of me over time.

One is the concept of me in space, in a single moment. So the word's right. Like the last verse is setting you up for the idea of me over a period of time.

This verse is setting you up for the idea of me covering many objects in the present time. But it's so beautiful. The hand didn't get hurt.

Why did the hand go to the assistance of the foot? And others can't help themselves, but we can. That's cool.

You can say all this stuff. He said the foot can't pull the nail out itself. And you meet so many people who just can't cope.

So help the foot. You've got fingers, he doesn't. He can't stretch his toes around and take a nail out of his own foot, so why not help?

Yeah, that's a cool point. That's a nice point. I was going to take a break, but let's not take a break, because we're so close to the break time.

Also, the logic is flooring. I don't want to interrupt you. Verse 100.

This one gets hard. The guy says, this is interesting. Here's how it goes.

This is going to be the hard one for you guys. It's hard for me. But listen carefully.

The guy says, right, it's not logical. In the verse it says that's wrong. I agree it's not logical.

So he didn't go the way you thought he was going to go. He didn't go the way you thought he was going to go. He said, I agree it's not logical for the hand to take a thorn out of his foot.

I agree it's not logical. I also agree it's not logical for me to collect good karma for a future person who's separate from me. He's trying to hang on to his viewpoint.

This gets into the mother's story. You say, croc, croc, croc. You go like this.

His logic has already fallen off the reasonable scale, but he's still holding on to it. You're like, OK, let's keep going. You'll make more and more of a fool of yourself.

At this point it's just graceful to say you're right. But he's like, no, no. I agree it's illogical that the hand takes care of the foot.

And I agree that it's illogical that I'm taking care of my future self. But you know where he says hold on to the self? The Alpha J says, what he's saying here is, but I conceive, hold on means conceptio, right?

I conceive of myself that way. I agree it's artificial. I agree I think of myself that way.

It's artificial. He's an idiot. I agree the hand is not the foot.

I agree they are different. One is other than the other. They are other parts, other things, right?

And I agree that I'm not my future self. But I think of myself that way. I think of the person in the future who's going to bear the results of my laziness.

I think of him as me. And I think of my hand and my foot as being one thing. And I agree it's not technically logical.

But I think that way. I conceive of myself that way. And our self, which is the result of a decision or some kind of projection, is love.

Oh, you should get rid of it. You have to get rid of those ideas. Self exists on its own side.

Me exists from its own side. It's not just something you make up. Oh, you have to get rid of that idea.

Are you saying that the things you see in the world are your projections? Oh, no. They're real.

That's why he's out here. You've got to get there with your students. It's very hard.

Are things just what you think of them to be? No, they're real from their own side. He's being sarcastic, right?

He's setting him up. Oh, no. Things aren't just what you conceive of them as.

Things are real. You really enter your skin. The table exists from its own side.

Everything exists from its own side. Don't think like that. Oh, that would be so long.

We can't do that, can we? Me is coming from its own side. How far I stretch is written in stone.

It's not just something you think up. It's not just a conception or a projection. No, no.

Got it? He's setting him up. You should reject that with all the strength you have.

Got it? Think about it. Where you start, where you end, oh, God, that's not artificial or something you just make up.

That exists in and of itself. It's always been that way. It always will be that way, because it's not coming from us.

Got it? He's setting him up. Next one.

This is hard. These students are going to be yawning. They're going to be tired.

It's going to be hot. Michael, you've got to find a place with heavy air conditioning. Really, really.

Like it's 50% of whether this is going to succeed depends on the air conditioning. I'm not kidding. I'm not kidding.

I'm not kidding. I'm really not kidding. You can't get this if it's hot.

No, really. This is hard. So, it's what Dwar was talking about.

We're talking about how do you project this part, and then you project an idea onto them. That's how the world exists. When you're standing at a pot, just before you see emptiness directly, on the stone, you're looking at some silver, some round, and some black, straight.

Silver, round, and black, straight. It cannot identify itself as a pot to you. The visual faculty cannot perceive pots.

It can only detect shapes and colors. You're standing in front of a stone. You are seeing black, straight, round, silver.

That's all. Then something else kicks in and makes it a pot. Who?

Your mind, your past karma. It's not a pot. It's not a pot by itself.

It's just a collection of parts, black, straight, round, silver. It's all the eye can detect. If you see a pot, that's got to be coming from where?

Your mind. You are projecting that. That is artificial.

Give me some examples. Well, over time, you could say all the Dorotheas since you were born, of 9 o'clock, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, up to the current day, moment, I think of those as me. That's okay.

That's me. But it's artificial, right? He says, unreal in the birth.

That means artificial, okay? It's contrived, can't we say? It's a decision you've made.

You think of those as you. How much do you include in you? Oh, all the me's from when I was born.

Oh, that's like a rosary. Who's got a rosary? Just throw it.

It's a custom in the monastery. Santana in Sanskrit, gyut in Tibetan. A string, a string or rosary, a string of beads, a string of events.

Dorothea of her first year, Dorothea of her second year, Dorothea of her third year, Dorothea of her fourth year. And we call it what? A rosary.

Is this a rosary? No. It's a bunch of beads.

Well, why do you see a rosary? Because in my past karma, my mind groups all those beads together and calls them a separate object called rosary. But really, even the word beads is tricky, right?

Beads. It's just beads. Separate beads.

Separate. Separate's important in this teaching. Separate beads.

I choose to think of them as a rosary. I project rosary onto them. They are not rosary, they are just a bunch of beads.

A car is a bunch of parts, carburetor, tires, wheel, engine, transmission. Then I choose to call it a car. I mentally think of that as a car.

Got it? So in that sense it's unreal. It's artificial.

Unreal means made up by me, contrived. I think of it that way. I make it that way.

By the way, what Master Shantideva doesn't get into here, which is ACI's shining thing. We don't have anything different from any other Buddhist group in the world. We teach the same books, same stuff.

I was on tour around the US. Man, things have changed. Every town has 20 Dharma centers.

And they are good. They all got courses. FPMT started to have courses, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's everywhere.

Even the Kagyus are into study courses now. So why should people come to ACI? In one way it would be nice if we were redundant.

That's fine. We achieved our goal. That's cool.

But you've got to talk about karma. When you get into this emptiness stuff, you've got to say karma. Why do I think of it as B?

Is it just a decision? No. It's like forced on me by my past B.

Did I take care of other people? I mean, once people start to copy that, we can retire. Really.

That's all that we've got to say. That's all we have. And that's all business books, yoga books, relationship books.

We've got all the Christian stuff coming. Why? That's all we have to offer.

Emptiness and karma. Okay, it's artificial, but why did I think of it? How did it come to me?

Why do you see it as a rosary? And people didn't see this. When I first carried a rosary around New York, it's different from carrying a rosary around New York now, or since His Holiness has been walking around more.

People saw it as a Catholic rosary. I mean, up until 1980, it could only be a Catholic rosary. Now you see people walking around with beads and you're like, or a hippie bead.

It could have been hippie beads. That was when I was young. Now there's a third possibility.

They're Buddhists. They're Buddhists. It's a Buddhist rosary.

Where'd that come from? It's just karma. You've got to get used to that.

It's just karma. So over time, santana, a collection of parts over time, it's unreal. Meaning, it's artificial.

I decide. Do I decide? That's my question.

That's why I went there. Do I decide? Not really.

My karma decides. Okay, next one. What about an army?

Why does he have an army here? That's his example of parts spatially and not over time. So which of the verses before does the rosary relate to?

Which of the verses before does the army relate to? Oh, by the way, the word army is artificial because it's really just a bunch of guys, individual folks. Yeah, the army one relates to the hand and foot.

Spatially, in the current moment, these parts I consider me. In the way that two hundred guys on a marching field, I think of as an army. They're not as individual guys.

Now, which verse relates to the continuum one, the rosary one? Oh yeah, my future self. I'm taking care of my future self.

Okay, got it? Okay, it's getting hot. This gets weird.

That of one with suffering doesn't exist, so who could control it? What is the that and what is the it? You would never know without a commentary.

What is the that and what is the it? That of one with suffering doesn't exist at all. Yeah, Kuntila said a me.

The me, capital me. Okay, so remember the that here. The that here is your atma, your self-existent self, self-existent Chelsea.

The self of a person doesn't exist at all. There is no Chelsea. So who controls it, meaning what?

What's the it? No, you would never know. It's her pain, how she feels.

Chelsea doesn't exist, so who could control how she feels? Who is it that figures out how she's going to feel? Got it?

What's the that, I ask you? What's the that? Her self-existent self.

What's the it? How she feels. Let's say how she feels.

They do, you could say, pain, suffering. Suffering and pleasure. So let's review where we are now.

Okay, Josh Moe. Let me get this straight. Your hand pulls out something from your foot, even though they're separate things.

Right. Is that right or logical? No, it's not logical.

But are you doing it? Yes, I choose to do it. It's artificial, I admit, but I do it.

I do it. Why? I decide who's me.

I decided all these parts are me. Is that artificial or real? Oh, it's sort of unreal in a way.

So, so are you saying you're unreal? Yes. So how can you control anything?

How can you decide not to have it? How can you decide to take care of yourself? Is this artificial?

You don't exist, really. Are you saying that you're a projection? Yes.

Then how can you take care of your own pain? How can you do that? Are you saying you're just the way you tend to think about the parts?

Yes. So are you saying that you're not really there in a way, in a sense? Right.

So who's taking care of your pain? Who's working out for number one? There is no you.

There is no number one. This is where it gets confusing, right? I'll say it again.

Are you proposing that the idea of me is artificially defined? Yes. So who's taking care of you?

Who is it that washes out for you? You said other people's pain is not something I need to worry about. Well, I propose that your pain is not something you should worry about.

Why? Because you don't exist. You're not real.

Of course I'm real. No, you're not. You're just who you decide to be.

You decide to be your hand and your foot, right? Yes. You decide to be your future self and yourself.

Right. So you're artificial in a way. Right.

So why are you taking care of yourself? There is no self. You just said so.

Okay? Everybody's confused. That's great.

Okay. You've got to cook it, as Rinpoche once said, right? You've got to cook it.

You've got to cook it. Who gives you? I suggest it's just your foot that hurts.

That's a separate thing. Now you're introducing mental pain. We're just talking about the physical pain in the foot.

The hand doesn't feel that. If you decide it to, if your daughter's sick, do you feel concerned? That's all.

We always said that example, hey, god damn, somebody's scratching their car down there. This red car. John's like, red?

What year? No, I mean, I'm jealous. No, I mean, and then it's like, my car.

And then it all changes, right? It suddenly changes. I met John Brady today.

I got spinach going down the sink drain, you know? And I'm like, it's okay. In two weeks I'm out of here in a week, you know?

And then, but in Arizona I'm like, get the spinach out of the drain, man. We'll have to, 800 bucks to pump this thing out, you know? And, you see, I've decided that my drain is part of me.

And his drain is not part of me. No, you see, you decide. You decide.

It's the difference between your concern for your stuff and someone else's stuff. You've got your you going around your drain, right? Diamond Mountain drain.

And it doesn't extend around his drain. You see? No, it's a decision.

It's unofficial. It's very unofficial. Even on the body it's unofficial.

That's very hard to do. There is no definition defined me. There's no naturally, there's no natural definition of who I am.

It's always artificial. How big or small I make it is artificially defined. That's his point.

That's all he's saying. And, in fact, all objects are the same. They're all just collections of parts.

Where I decide, how many parts I decide to include, how many parts I decide not to include, it's artificial.

[Говорящий 2]
Next verse.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay, the word's fixed in Sanskrit as niyama. Does it sound familiar? From where?

Yoga-sutra. Niyama niyama, right? Two of the eight limbs of yoga.

Niyama niyama asana. Anayama pratyahara. Dharana, jnana, samadhi, sabhango.

These are the eight limbs of yoga. Niyama niyama. Niyama means in Tibetan, damcha, or nirmala, that which you cannot just forget.

Meaning, damcha means a commitment you've made. Niyama means commitment. Pledge.

Niyama means a pledge. What are they, by the way? What are they?

Contentment with what you have. Napa? Napa, a spiritual hardship.

Which means study, spiritual study. What about the niyama? You pledge, it will be this way.

I pledge. This is what niyama means. Damcha in Tibetan, I swear.

I swear, it's that way. He says, the fixed thing is niyama. The word fixed is niyama.

He says, hey, what's fixed? What's niyama? What's fixed about you and me?

What's so natural, defined about you and me? There's nobody who owns that piece. You just admitted that.

Huh? You did. You said it was artificial.

You said, you decided that you would include your hand into your foot. You decided that the guy who gets your 401k money will be you. You decided that.

That's artificial, isn't it? Yeah. So why do you keep insisting that there's this difference between you and other people?

You just, you can't say, kyalma chung. You can't say kyalma chung. You can't say, their pain is not my problem because it's their pain.

You can't say that anymore. Why? Because the idea of they is artificial.

There is no fixed day. There is no fixed you. Give it up.

Okay, he's like, what's the year's teacher in the, what is it? Tin Chit, right? It's like Tin Chit in Tibetan, Sanskrit means.

Why do you keep hanging on to that? Why do you keep niyama? You know, oh, it's a vow, it's a pledge, it's definitely fixed.

Why do you keep hanging on to that? And then at the same breath you're saying, your hand takes care of your foot. What's wrong with you?

Why are you taking care of the guy with the 401k? Oh, oh, I decide who me is. Oh, we got you.

Then it's artificial. Right. So why do you keep hanging on to this distinction between me and you?

It's artificial. You just agreed it was artificial. Okay?

This verse is like, why do you keep hanging on to that? Why do you keep saying it's fixed? Definite.

Me ends here, you start there. Come on. Okay?

Got it? Tin Chit. What the heck?

Oh, this is our last verse coming up. Who's turn? Okay.

Yeah, yeah, this is tough. The guy says, no, no, no. Me stops here, you start there.

Oh, yeah? But it's artificial, right? Yeah, yeah.

It's artificial. Okay, well, let's turn it around then. This is cool.

Let's turn it around then. Just because it's pain, it's not something you have to worry about, right? Right, I said that.

So just because you have to remove pain, doesn't mean you have to remove all pain. That's what I'm saying. So I have an idea.

Let's not remove your pain. Why? You decide.

You decided not to... Master Shantideva says, if you're going to remove any pain at all, remove all of it. The line is artificial.

If you're going to stop pain, stop all pain, for God's sake. The guy is like, no. So Shantideva says, well then stop stopping your own pain.

Why? It's part of all pain. Get it?

I'll say it again. The guy says, we say to the other guy, are you going to remove pain? Yeah, but only mine.

No, you don't feel like if you remove any pain at all, you should remove all the pain in the world. No, I don't feel like that. Okay, so let's not remove your pain.

Why? Because it's part of all the pain in the world. Logical?

I mean, according to his thinking it's logical. Got it? It's very tricky.

You've got the hardest class of the ten. That ends it, by the way. That's the end of it.

The hardest class of the ten. I'll say it again. Hey guy, are we going to remove your pain?

Yes, definitely. Are we going to remove other people's pain? No.

Why? I can't worry about all the pain in the world. Okay, so let's not worry about your pain.

Why? It's part of all the pain in the world. I know.

What do you guys think? Oh, yeah, she said something which is, I think that's the best answer. Practice.

It's a habit. It comes from the habit. And you know what Master Shantideva said, give up potatoes first and don't give away your house.

Like, get good at it first. He's going to, the next class we do in the evening today is all going to be about the power of habituation. Like, you can get used to anything.

And I would venture to say that mothers, I've not been a mother in this life, but you get to a point, no, where the pain of your child is as unbearable as your own pain or more. I would think, no? I think so.

I think so. I guess I would say that with practice you can change that. There's also an argument that Shantideva doesn't do.

And I wonder about it sometimes, and you think about it. Won't other symptoms of pain eventually hurt you anyway? Or is that not true?

I don't know. He doesn't give that argument. I don't remember that argument.

But isn't it true that eventually we're all so interconnected, that's what His Holiness would say, that you can no longer tolerate... Yeah, that eventually the problem in Iraq will come back to us in a very personal way. That even just on a practical level, quote practical, which is impractical, but anyway, you can't ignore other pain because sooner or later it will hurt you.

I find this with people that I'm around. Like, if you aren't concerned about other people's mental health and spiritual health, then if you continue to be around them, sooner or later it will hurt you. It's just a studying time bomb for yourself.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.