Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 21

[Speaker 1]
Well, Olga says she can write in the chat, so I'm really not, you know, I'm not free. Okay, so anyone have any questions. Earl does.

And please speak it. Sure. My question is one that's come up in the Nagarjuna chat, which I know you've been following a little bit.

And it's this idea that emptiness has parts. Right. And the emptiness of parts being a part of the table and the part of the chair and the part of my left toe are all parts of emptiness.

And I'm wondering if you could speak on that a little bit, because it's always been a problem with that. Thanks. So from seeing the threads, before I jumped in, what seemed to me was that people were thinking of emptiness as one thing that was, you know, basically a positive thing.

And also, the concept emptiness, the direct perception of emptiness, and emptiness being the absence, the utter absence of something. In this case, self existence. Those are different.

The perception of emptiness is a positive thing. Emptiness as a concept is different from emptiness of, for example, Upala. So the one that I think we need to talk about is the last one.

The emptiness of me. The lack of me having some existence from my own side. Does that have parts?

If so, please tell me what they are. I think that they have parts. I want to know what they are.

I understand that the parts of emptiness are like a left and right side. It's like up and down, right, left. So you're saying that me, me, has sides.

I'm saying it would have to, or it would be just a single dot. When it's concept me, then it's of course difficult because it's not things and not thoughts. It's something in between, it's something third.

It's something which is in between. It's not things and it is not thoughts. It's a mere idea.

It's difficult. It's an idea. An idea has no parts, I think.

Then it's not. So who can tell me of, let's say that, let's take the emptiness of something easier than this thing. So if we talk about this thing being a pen, the emptiness of pen, does the emptiness of pen have parts?

Yes. What are those parts? This is emptiness of parts of the pen.

No, no, no. I said emptiness of pen. And also we have like front and back side.

No, no, no, no. I said emptiness of pen. So if we talk about emptiness of the pen, the pen that has parts, we're still talking about emptiness of the pen.

The pen which is a conglomeration of those parts.

[Speaker 2]
Ah, of absence of, we're saying about absence of self and existence.

[Speaker 1]
Right. And if we talk about the emptiness of... Okay, then there is no parts.

If we talk about this pen, this pen has parts, right? It has this... Yes.

This thing that, this thingy that clicks and this thingy that fits into my collar and these things inside, all these different little parts. But if we're talking about the emptiness of the pen, the emptiness of the pen is not talking about the emptiness of the clicky part. And it's not talking about the emptiness of the part that comes out at the end.

And it's not talking about the emptiness of the part that goes in my collar. And it's not talking about the emptiness of the spring. And it's not talking about the emptiness of the ink.

Or all those, whatever kind of parts you could come up with. It's not talking about those parts. It's talking about the pen.

We can talk about the emptiness of the parts, but those are different emptinesses. There's the emptiness of the pen, there's the emptiness of the clicky thing, right? No, I want you to, I want you to dissuade me.

That's initially I always thought that emptiness, being a negative was one thing, if you can put it that way one absence of a thing. So when somebody comes up with an idea of emptiness of parts, it makes it seem like there are many, but an emptiness according to Geshe-la is either 100% empty or not, so there can't be parts. Parts is an example of the top of my cup from the bottom, these are two parts.

Emptiness does not have that, as far as I understand. Right, it's an absence of self existence. That's it.

Good. Okay. So that's how I understand it.

That's according to the consequence branch. Right. And the middle way puts it, I mean the independent branch puts it a different way.

That may also be part of, of maybe mixing things up. And I found some quote that I put in there that people didn't like because it used the word real. So I don't know if I can find it again because it's way longer ago, and of course I didn't copy it elsewhere.

But it came from the emptiness meditations book. Oh no it didn't, it came from Shinde Lama's commentary on the Diamond Cutter Sutra. Sorry, I'd have to look it up and I don't think we want to spend that time.

Can I explain where I got stuck and where I started with this idea? Sure. I moved my piano from one wall, it's a small piano, from one wall to the other.

And I understand that a piano has an emptiness, there's emptiness of the piano. So when I moved the piano from one wall to the other, the emptiness disappeared from this wall, where the piano sat, and it moved with the piano over to the other wall. So, the emptiness did not move.

The emptiness of the piano is, is the simple lack of self existence of the piano. The piano could be on Mars, the piano could be in my bedroom, the piano could be in the other side of your room. But the emptiness stayed the same.

Right, the emptiness never wavered, never changed. You could, you could say okay let's talk about the emptiness of the piano on the west side of the room. And then the emptiness of the piano on the east side of the room.

Those are two different emptinesses. The first one disappeared the instant it was no longer on the west side of the room. Yes, but that doesn't mean it changed and it doesn't mean there are parts.

No, because it's different emptinesses. Good. That's, that's interesting because it's different emptinesses, but emptiness is always the same.

So, the mind struggles with that. Yeah, it does. It does.

So, that's specifically my, my question is, could you say the, no that's great. Could you say the emptiness of the table and cup and pen are all jade rock of a bigger chi called emptiness. Right.

Which was the aspect of the. Yeah, because I, I thought I've heard guess let's say that before and it seems problematic. Okay, so, but then with that, that particular chi is a positive thing it's the, it's the concept, emptiness.

Okay, okay. Right. Okay.

Yeah, that would make more sense. The fact that things are empty, manifest in the emptiness of the table the emptiness of the piano the emptiness of pen. Those are the jade rocks of the chi emptiness.

Emptiness of all things. Emptiness of all things. Again, that's a positive statement.

Right. Yeah. That's, are we kind of saying that there's a difference between emptiness, and the concept of emptiness.

So when you're talking about. If you're looking at an emptiness. If you're having a direct perception of emptiness you're having the one that's going to get you out of them Sarah, you're having, you are looking at the emptiness of a thing.

And that's a projection that's coming from me. Right, but it's related to one thing. Okay.

You look and you say, Oh, me, where is this. Where is this me. And you look all over the place you know is it in my head.

Is it in my heart, is it in my toe. You're looking looking looking for this me. And then when you don't find it, that's the emptiness you're having.

If you're in this, you know, in the right state of meditation. You'll have a direct perception of emptiness. Good.

So that's one thing. So our direct perception of emptiness is one thing. Emptiness itself as a lack is another thing.

And then our concept when we say the emptiness of something is a third thing. I think so. Okay.

Okay. I think so. So when we talk about emptiness we maybe should number them.

Emptiness number one, emptiness number two, emptiness number three. But then, but then that gives the impression that there are more than one and there really isn't more than one emptiness as a, as a lack. There is just one emptiness as a lack.

You can say there are multiple emptinesses that are lacks because there's all the existing things. But how do we avoid them thinking the emptiness has parts when we say it that way? Can you have multiple?

The Geshe-la told on the Lam Rim, I see, no, no, on the Buddha Maitreya Shrine, that if something have a part, it is not, it means that it self exists. Can we somehow combine this?

[Speaker 3]
Because he said, like, if they have a new sentence to the husband in the kitchen, he said, now we're talking if something has a part, it could be, then it exists from his own side.

[Speaker 2]
It cannot be, how to say, real.

[Speaker 3]
Can we somehow combine this when the emptiness, that's why, because emptiness is meaning of emptiness as absence of self-existence, say that emptiness in this way cannot have a part.

[Speaker 1]
I'm not sure I understand. I mean, I'm not sure I understand the question exactly. I know that in, I haven't been to the last Lam Rim.

I know that in the last retreat he taught. Yeah, right, Medicine Buddha. In Medicine Buddha, the logical argument that he was presenting was one from the independent branch of the Middle Way School, which focuses on parts.

And they say, you can't, this was the argument about if things are not one, nor are they many, so they don't truly exist. And the reason that the independent branch gives as why they are not one nor many is parts. Not existing.

Is parts. Yeah. Yeah.

Now, consequence branch focuses on. Because there have been parts. So the consequence branch focuses on something existing independent of what I call it, and my mental image of it.

There is no thing that exists without my mental image and my name of that thing. So parts, you know, not so important, it doesn't get you there all the way. It's the whole process wrapped up in, you know, like Keshla said, was it yesterday?

Speaking of emptiness gives you the opportunity, the opening to speak of morality. Because where do your mental images come from? Right?

They come from the ripening of the potential created by things you did in the past. If you did something that made someone feel good, you're going to have a ripening of a pleasant experience. And there's nothing that exists independent of that mental image, that experience, and that name, what you call it.

Whether it's parts of pens or pen or the pen or a pen, those are just names. Those are just projections. And there's nothing that exists independent of them.

Okay. Thanks.

[Speaker 3]
I got it. I forgot it. If something has a part, it doesn't exist because we have not exist something like one and not exist something like many.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Neither one nor many. Yeah, we have to come to the understanding that if something exists, it has to either be one thing or many things.

There's no other possible way of existing. It's either one thing or many things. So then they tear it apart.

So let's tear about one thing. They tear apart one thing because it has parts. And then you say, okay, if it's not one thing, how could it be many things?

Because it's not even one thing. And that kind of segues really nicely into my next question. And that has to do with depending, something depending on something else.

And that's, again, with my piano. Because I'm grappling with the idea that emptiness is also coming from us. Did I misunderstand, Gisela, when that idea came up?

Is emptiness coming from us also? Where else could it come from? Perfect.

Okay. So then proceeding from that idea, considering the emptiness is also coming from me, but I'm not creating the emptiness. The emptiness is a lack.

So it isn't something I'm creating. It is unchanging. So when I moved my piano, that emptiness popped out of existence on the west wall and popped into the existence.

It remained with the piano. But when I moved the piano, the emptiness is dependent on something. So is the emptiness dependent on my projection of the piano now on the east wall?

So I don't think they would use the word depending. Because that's like cause and condition. True, true, true.

[Speaker 3]
Right?

[Speaker 1]
So they would use the word interdependent. Okay. Interdependent meaning?

There's no emptiness without me having a perception of it. Of the piano. Okay.

I get it, I think. Of the emptiness. Okay.

So that's an interdependence, which is different from the word depending. Yes. Because depending, this is in my understanding, and I could be misunderstanding, but in my understanding, depending is more related to cause and effect or changing side of reality.

Changing things side of reality. And interdependence is related to all of existence. Whether changing or unchanging.

Awesome. That makes sense. So we may be wrong, but it makes sense right now.

Yeah, someone jump in. I mean, I see there's a big conversation going on in the chat. Someone there, those smart people could pop in with addressing that question.

Utpala, I'm not sure if you can see, but Hasso's had his hand up for a bit. Oh, sorry. Hi, Hasso.

Hello, Utpala. Nice to see you. Nice to not see you.

Yeah. I don't see you. I know.

Sorry for right now. I guess it's better to have it off for a moment. Okay.

So I was listening to the question Ella was asking. Yeah. And well, for one thing, I thought the emptiness depends or interdependence on the object that has it.

Because without that object, there is not that particular emptiness. Like, and I really like, I think it clarifies a lot for me when you say the difference between three things. Emptiness is a concept, positive phenomena or positive thing.

The emptiness itself as a lack and absence and our perceptions of emptiness. Also, any perception has to be a positive effect. So when Ella said about this thing about moving the piano and you mentioned emptiness stops existing from one side and existing the other side.

I said the emptiness of the piano on the west side. Yeah, correct. The emptiness of the piano didn't change 100%, never varied.

Right. But the emptiness of the piano in the west side of the room went out of existence the moment it was no longer in the west side of the room. Correct.

Correct. But that just opened up for an interesting idea because then we are constantly changing. So every time we change, we, let's say we lose that particular emptiness and we gain a different emptiness.

Is it correct? Like just by moving a little finger, then like the Juan Hasso who had the finger in this position, emptiness disappeared. And then the Juan Hasso has the finger in a little slight different position.

So that means that also emptiness is, you know, snap finger like boom, boom, boom, 65. Because if they say 55, 65 seats per moment are changing moment by moment, then also that same amount of emptiness has had to be coming into existence and living on existence. Is that correct?

Yeah. So we never have the same emptiness because we are always changing. Well, I mean, we have it just for an instant, I guess, and then disappears and we have a different emptiness.

Okay, let's talk about the, what is different? What are you proposing is different about the emptiness of instant number one and the emptiness of instant number five? Just the object that they are attached to.

The quality, let's say, of the emptiness is exactly the same, but they are attached, let's say, to a different object. Yeah. So I'm really curious about why the, and I'm not talking about you specifically, but why we want to spend so much time thinking about the thing and it changing.

The thing that's really important is that it has no existence from its own side, regardless of what it is, regardless of whether it changes, regardless of whether it's in Toledo or Oaxaca. It does not have any existence separate from my mental image and the name of it. Yeah.

So basically we are focusing. There's no change. It's exactly the same.

It's 100% and it's exactly the same, regardless of what it is we're perceiving. So will you say we have to focus more mostly on the concept than in the actual thing or no? No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying it's curious that we focus on things, stuff, objects, and not the emptiness of the object. We want to say, oh, emptiness must be changing because objects change.

But it just seems to me that if we think about, oh, emptiness means 100% completely not existing separate from my projection of it and what I call it, that that is the same for every single experience I have, every single object I could ever perceive. Or ever do, because could. I mean, it's all coming from me.

So would you agree, let's say, in the direct perception of emptiness, we will be also seeing many different emptinesses because the mind never stops changing, you see? We are seeing the emptiness of our own mind. But the mind is changing.

So we are really seeing many different moments of emptiness during the direct perception of emptiness. So when you're in the first, your first direct perception of emptiness, you are looking at the absence of self-existence of me. Yes.

The mind has that one object. It is stable on that one object. I mean, that's what, by definition, you have to be in single-pointed concentration.

The mind is not wavering. It is still on that one object. But the mind is moving or not?

I think yes, no? When you are in it, there is no moving. Someone who may be looking at you from the outside may see, well, no, they can let, well, maybe if they're clairvoyant.

But for you, you are single-pointed on that one object that is a negative, that is an absence. There is no wavering. The mind is still, perfectly, purely, completely still.

But it's not that the mind stops, right? Because they say mind can never stop. Oh, right.

No, the mind does not stop. It's just steady. But if it doesn't stop, in a way, it has to be changing, even if it's moving through time, let's say.

Well, time. What is time? Come on.

When you're in the direct perception of emptiness, there is no other conception. The mind is on one thing. And because you've trained your mind so well, you keep it on that one thing.

There's no time. There's no body. There's no me.

There's no room I'm sitting in. There's no teacher I have. There's no Buddha.

There's no anything. There's no negative emotion. There's no love.

There's no, you know, it's just that one thing. That's it. So what it's perceiving is the lack of me or the lack of a self.

No. The lack of a self-existence of me or the lack of a self-existence of my mind. No, me.

It has to be because it's everything. I don't know. It would be me.

They say that the direct perception of the absence of a me that exists from its own side is the thing that kicks you out of samsara because it's that mistaken idea of me as having some existence that is the foundation of us misunderstanding everything. We see everything is related to somehow this me, this self-existent me. It makes me happy or it makes me sad or it makes me angry or it hurts me or it helps me.

So I grab after things or I push things away based on this idea that there's some me. If everything I do is based on that and I look and I see, does that thing exist? Then, poof, I mean, it's going to, you know, that's like, you can imagine.

That would be the thing that just kicks you out. That's awesome. Of this swirling cycle of misunderstanding.

Everything, right?

[Speaker 3]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you very much. Sure. So there's so many things in the chat.

I don't have time to read, but can you speak to me? Seiji has his hand up. Seiji.

[Speaker 2]
Hi. Thank you for that answer. That was amazing.

I answer a lot of my questions. My question, I'm still having a hard time with the difference between a lack or something negative and something that doesn't exist. So emptiness as a concept exists, right?

But emptiness itself, since it's a lack, does not exist. Is this correct?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, no. It exists. So all existing things, like the first major division of all existing things is into changing things and unchanging things.

And emptiness is an absence which is an unchanging thing. It exists. It just doesn't exist from its own side.

That's all. And if you were talking with Arya Nagarjuna, because he is, you know, exemplary of the consequence branch of the middle way, he would not have to qualify it as from its own side. So if you're speaking Arya Nagarjuna by saying emptiness doesn't exist, then, yeah, it doesn't.

But if you're speaking as normal, ordinary people, then you might want to say from its own side. Does that make sense?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. So then what would be the difference? Because there must be then a difference between emptiness and something that doesn't exist.

For example, in my room right now, there's, let's say, emptiness of me. And there's also a lot of things that don't. Well, and there's a lot of not existing things, right, like a green horse.

So they're both lacking. Like, you know what I mean? Going beyond the concept.

[Speaker 1]
Right. So when we talk about emptiness, we're talking about the absence of self-existence of existing things. We're not talking about the absence of self-existence of non-existing things because they don't exist.

[Speaker 2]
Or if we take it to a simple, then there's not a horse in my room, normal horse. Right. Then what would be the difference between that and the emptiness, which is a lack or a negative thing?

[Speaker 1]
So they're both lacks. The absence of a horse in your room could be good or bad depending on whether you want a horse in your room. The absence of self-existence is the highest thing.

And can get you out of samsara. So the absence of a horse is like, okay, yeah, there's a horse, or there's not a horse. I'm happy, I'm not happy.

The absence of a me, on the other hand, is the key to getting out of the cycle of pain. So they're not different in the sense of them both being an absence of something. They are different in terms of their import.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, cool. So they're both simple absences. It's just the function.

Well, one has a function, the other one doesn't.

[Speaker 1]
Well, the thing is you'd have to say absence of what? So you'd say an absence of an animal or an absence of a self-existent an existence that is coming from its own side. So those are two different things that are lacking.

[Speaker 2]
So when we say non-existing things, it has to be things that could never exist, correct?

[Speaker 1]
Right, like self-existence. Right. But are we also talking about…

[Speaker 2]
So it would be self-existence. Because I get confused why sometimes we use the purple-headed elephant, double-headed purple elephant. Things that could never exist and self-existence, they're kind of in the same category, right?

[Speaker 1]
Non-existing. Yeah, they're both non-existent. You can have the concept purple, two-headed elephant, or green horse, that exists.

You can have the concept me, that exists. But neither exists from their own side.

[Speaker 2]
Right. So could you say that lack… And this is the last part of the question.

Could you say that a lack is the same… To be a lack is not the same. Is it the same to be non-existent?

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
It's not.

[Speaker 1]
Because sometimes you could say… You could be at a restaurant and you forgot your wallet. So there's an absence of wallet in your pocket.

But your wallet is at home. So it doesn't mean the wallet doesn't exist. It just means it's not where you thought it was or where you expected it to be.

So that kind of lack is not that. Cool. All right.

Okay. I don't know. I'm just a student.

So I'm just talking, you know, blah, blah. So I hope I'm not making anyone more confused.

[Speaker 2]
No, no. I've been struggling with this myself. So I wanted to ask you.

So what I would take as a conclusion is something that doesn't exist is something that can never exist. As opposed to something that could be in a place but it's not at this moment.

[Speaker 1]
It's so interesting. And I don't just mean you, Seiji. I mean all of us.

We want to come up with the rules. You know, this is this and this is that. And that's the way it is.

Yeah. And that's the way our minds work, right? We turn things into objects.

Whether it's visual perceptions or mental perceptions. We're glomming things together into stuff and saying, this is this. So I don't think in all cases can you say that that's true.

That's my long explanation of that.

[Speaker 2]
Cool. All right. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
I mean, that's just what I think. I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
No, no. That makes a lot of sense. I'll keep chewing on that last part.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. Joy. Hello.

You have your hand up.

[Speaker 3]
Yes. Can I ask a question about the My Only Thing? Yesterday, or yesterday, yes.

Geshe-la said, there's a question, it sits substantially separate from the refrigerator or part of the refrigerator. And the answer, according to Je Tsongkhapa, is neither. But he said, he said one sentence.

He said, only when the moment the seeds sprout into a refrigerator, at that moment, then you can say the answer is yes. So at this point, how can we ever find that moment? Or how shall we catch that moment?

Or where is that line? Because he said, neither, because they are just so named. They're not really there.

They're not substantial. They're not substantial.

[Speaker 1]
Right.

[Speaker 3]
But there is a possibility that is when the moment when the seeds sprout into refrigerator.

[Speaker 1]
The seeds sprout into your, your, your world, your experience, which is in the My Only School, you perceiving kun-chi, which is kun-chi. Yeah. I mean, the thing, I'm not sure about like the moment, how you catch the moment, other than, you know, the practice of meditation where you are able to stabilize the mind and get it to be single pointed.

Yes. And then in a sense, when you're off the cushion, when you are so familiar with being one, the single pointed in meditation, when you're in your day to day world, if you have a focus of mind, your experience has the feeling of being slowed down. So maybe you catch it then.

I don't know. It's for me, the important part of all that was that, or the thing that was really like, oh yeah, okay. This makes sense.

Was that you can't say seeds and kun-chi are one in the same or not because the word seed is just a label that we use when the kun-chi ripens into the world. Then we say, oh, that came from a seed, which is in the kun-chi. Like it's just, it's just a way of talking about that, that process of moving from potential to experience is seed.

Otherwise we could just say it's all kun-chi all the time. Oh yes. I see.

I don't know.

[Speaker 3]
Did that help? I think, I think that moment should be in deep meditation. I don't know.

Cause kind of, kind of too difficult to catch that maybe.

[Speaker 1]
Right.

[Speaker 3]
And does it relate, if we are going to relate this seed and refrigerator with chi and chejak, so we can, can we also say chi is not, because they are all not substantial. They are just so named or just given a label. So we say chi, we can also say chi is not separate from the chejak or part of the chejak.

They are just, so chi and chejak, they are not naturally connected with each other. So we can say this chi, this quality is just names. Is that equally related, which this seed and refrigerator?

[Speaker 1]
I, I, I don't know how to answer that. I think that's a mind only expert question of which I'm most certainly not one. And, but what, what occurs to me is just thinking about relationships versus being one in the same, that those are two different things.

Things can be related or not. And one in the same or not. And that those are two different ways of approaching.

I think again, I could be all wet. Most likely I am. And I will spend eons in hell for this past hour.

I'm so sorry.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you so much.

[Speaker 1]
Anybody else want to be thoroughly confused, Tim?

[Speaker 2]
Fairly confused. So I have a, I've had a strange idea during class that I wanted to pass out. Cause I don't understand so much.

The way that Geshe-la has, you know, cause I've, I've been watching the Nagarjuna debates as well. That we've been doing in telegram. And Geshe-la writes, makes this chart.

In he made it in DCI first. Where he makes this chart that like, he draws a changing thing like this. And then he draws an unchanging thing as a straight line across.

Right. So like emptiness is the straight line across. Right.

And then the changing thing that. Like, you know, the piano, right. Is this.

And the emptiness of the piano is a straight line. Right.

[Speaker 1]
And so the. The bottom axis is time. Yes.

I'm sorry. The horizontal axis is time. And the vertical access.

Access is. What would you say that is?

[Speaker 2]
It doesn't really give that as an example. It's just more. Okay.

They have to show that the emptiness is. You know, emptiness is unchanging, right. It doesn't waver.

It's not up and down. Okay. You know, so here's the idea.

This is actually totally in a different direction. We were talking about mental images. We were talking about Chita drug.

And I kind of applied. You know, this. So if we understand the specific car as this, right.

This. This changing thing. Right.

And then we have cardiness as. Unchanging. Right.

it. And I wondered if that could be a way of helping us understand chi and chitra. Like the image that opens up, car, right?

Versus carness versus a car. And I've never heard it that way. And I've wondered, you know, I think my thinking is wrong on it, but like, can we understand at least conceptually that maybe help us understand how emptiness is unchanging, that the chi is unchanging.

[Speaker 1]
And I don't even know if I think you can, I think you can say that only related to a particular moment.

[Speaker 2]
Like, like, like the one, like that one, that one moment, that one perception, or not, not so much time related, but that one circumstance.

[Speaker 1]
Because I think when you look at a car, let me, let me approach it this way. I think this, this concept of chi, chitra, quality and characteristic or quality and manifestations, instances of quality, is to get us into the habit of seeing things as mental images. You know, there's no way we can point to a car without it being a mental image of a car and car.

[Speaker 2]
Well, I think what you clarified, it just clarified something in my mind that a mental image is not a chi. Right, right. Okay.

That's how I was using it in that, in that. So that's not what a chi is. Okay.

Thank you. That actually clarified a lot for me. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Great. I'd like to just say that Tim, your example helped me, even though it was incorrect, it did help move my mind into a better position. So thank you.

[Speaker 2]
I'm glad my confusion could help.

[Speaker 1]
Anybody else got confusing things to talk about? Or unconfusing things to talk about? Nope.

We can all go have lunch or breakfast or dinner.

[Speaker 2]
Hey, Oopala, I'm Gibson.

[Speaker 1]
Hi, Gibson.

[Speaker 2]
So based on the question from Tim, the question I have, and I also asked a word, but I feel thinking about it, is the image of the pen, changing or unchanging. And because I heard the presentation by Geshe-la, he make a presentation that the pen quotation, it doesn't change. So I wondering if the pen quotation image doesn't change, and then where does it come from?

Because if the thing is coming from somewhere else, it must be changing. So he used the idea that whenever we try to put the image on one thing, we have to go to like a library. And the first thing you see is that your mom told you that is a pen.

And in that moment, you have an idea of a pen. And that image is perfect and unchanging. So my question is, where is that image coming from?

And why is it unchanging?

[Speaker 1]
It would be unchanging, in one sense, because it never wavers. Your perfect mental image of pen.

[Speaker 2]
So are you saying that the perfect image is just like the situation when the tip of the nose of the mouse going to the room? And the fact that this room have the mouse is the same as the perfect image?

[Speaker 1]
I think so. I think that I really have to think about your question. Things that are popping into my mind are about that.

Ultimately speaking, the whole idea of changing things is just a notion, because we only experience one thing. The mind holds only one object. And we like pull together different experiences into one thing and say that's changing.

But is it really? I mean, Arya Nagarjuna says, you know, there's there's no going. When you watch someone leave the room, you're putting together different experiences of an object getting smaller and smaller and smaller.

And a door opening or you know, changing and then changing and then no more object and we call it going. I don't know. That's just what comes to mind.

And I don't know. I would have to really think about your question. Okay.

And are you talking from the mind only school or from the consequence?

[Speaker 2]
I think I'm talking based on the consequence.

[Speaker 1]
So Anatole, who is very wise, says you might consider that it's unchanging because it's an absence, the absence or opposite of everything that it's not. But, but Anatole, isn't that an idea of Svatantrika?

[Speaker 2]
I think that's in Dharmakirti school.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So Gibson, I think you have a question you get to keep on asking. And let's keep on talking about it and, you know, trying to find, trying to further our understanding.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, because when Geshe-la talking about that, we have a library of all the potential seed and we just to grab it and to like to have a projection, have a projection on the, how to say, the foundation of the pen. And it's, when Geshe-la say it is a perfect image is, let me to think about that the library is already there. It's never start and end.

And we just to like a librarian to get the database from our own, our own library.

[Speaker 1]
But the idea of a library is very mind only. The idea that there's a bunch of seeds, that there are a bunch of seeds is very mind only. And in the consequence branch, they, they're coming into and out of existence every instant.

Got it. I don't know if that's helpful. Oh, well, I mean, it's really wonderful that things have no self existence, because now I can dedicate our coming together and we should all dedicate our coming together and discussing these things in our desire to understand how it is that the world works so that we can help all, all of us, each one of us, ourselves and everybody else, end suffering.

May it be so. So thank you. And thanks to Tim and thanks to all the translators.

And thanks to Zoom. And thanks to the internet. And thanks to my all of our computers that made it possible.

Thank you, Michael, of course. Okay, have a great dinner, lunch, breakfast.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you, Paula. Thanks, Paula. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Thanks, Paula. I want to read the chat. Is there a way for me to copy the chat?

[Speaker 2]
I'll download it right now and send it over to you. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Great, because it looks like they were really, you know, people were saying, Christina, that's so deep. I want to know what it was. Let's see, where did you go?

Somewhere I have it.

[Speaker 2]
I'll save it for you. Don't worry.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 2]
I'll send it over in a second. Thanks. Thank you, Paula.

Thanks for a great class.