Дебаты дьявола с ангелом, часть 7: Растопить разногласия (2013, Феникс), занятие 2

[Говорящий 1]
So, just to recap where we are, we've been going through a text that was written 400 years ago by the first Panchen Lama. Panchen Lamas and Dalai Lamas alternate in Tibet normally. When the Dalai Lama is a baby, the adult Panchen Lama runs things, and then when the Dalai Lama, when the Panchen Lama is getting reborn, the Dalai Lama will take over, and it used to be like that.

And the first Panchen Lama was an extraordinary writer and poet, and he wrote a beautiful piece, which I believe will become one of the spiritual classics of the world, called, An Argument Between the Angel and the Devil in One Person's Mind. And it's in poetry, and it's exquisite, it's really exquisite. And in the course of this argument between an angel and a devil, in one person's mind, we examine slightly wrong ways of practicing and meditating, slightly wrong ways of viewing the world.

And rather than just writing a book called How to View the World, it's more fun, I think, and it's more, I don't know, this is a very Tibetan type of presentation where rather than telling you don't meditate this way, don't meditate this way, you have a devil inside a person's mind saying, I think you should meditate this way, and it's slightly wrong, and it will lead you astray. And then the angel corrects the devil and they go back and forth like this. So it's a very powerful and very typically Tibetan presentation.

Okay? We're about to, we're approaching a section in which the devil proposes mistaken ways of proving emptiness, the Buddhist idea of emptiness. And to do that section well, you need some background on different Buddhist proofs for emptiness, okay?

There are classical Buddhist proofs for emptiness. And to appreciate the next section of the pension lama's work, you should have some background on these on these reasonings or proofs of emptiness. So, there was a book written a thousand years ago about three particular proofs of emptiness, and we're going through that as a side treat for you guys, okay?

And really you should be able to prove emptiness. RIG PA THA YED PA'I GONE in the monastery they say, in the monastic tradition they say, you should know a thousand ways to prove emptiness to yourself, okay? I'll give you one, alright?

You've heard it a thousand times. I'll do it in two minutes, okay? I promise.

What's this thing? Yeah, if a dog comes in here, what will they do? They would chew it.

Who's right, the human or the dog? They're both right, right? According to their own life, right?

If I put this object here on the podium and we all leave and all the dog leaves, dogs leave, at that time is it a pen or a chew toy? You can say neither, okay? That's emptiness.

That's the meaning of emptiness. That's all. At that time it's a blank thing, it has a potential to become a pen or a chew toy.

If the dog walks in it becomes a? Chew toy. If the human walks in it becomes a?

Pen. If they both walk in together it becomes? Both, no problem.

Two realities are running in the same room at the same time. Like when I play Neil Young on the radio and Ningbo and Mercedes are in the car, okay? There's heaven going on in the car and there's hell going on in the car at the same moment, okay?

Got it? Okay? That's a simple proof of emptiness.

That's a typical proof of emptiness, okay? Where's the pen coming from? A seed in my mind.

How did the seed get there? I helped someone communicate last week and that created a pen seed in my mind. That seed opens and I perceive this object as a pen.

Is it a pen for me? Yes. Is it a pen for the dog?

No. In general is it a pen? I think you have to say no, right?

In general it's just available. It's a white screen. White screen in Buddhism is called emptiness, okay?

So don't be, don't misunderstand because of the word emptiness, you know? Many generations have misunderstood the word emptiness. Like I should sit and think about nothing is not the meaning of emptiness, okay?

Emptiness means to a dog it's a chew toy, to a human it's a pen. If neither one is there, it's a blank white screen waiting to be either one depending on who walks in the room. That availability in Buddhism is called emptiness, okay?

Why is that important? I think the purpose of religion or spiritual practice is to become happy, right? Happiness has many components in a human life.

I propose, I assert that we can have all of them and that's not a problem, okay? You should be financially independent. It's fun.

Not to worry about money is fun. To have the money you need to get the things you want for a reasonable, normal person. To have all the money you need to have the things you would like.

Not too many things, not too few things, not too big things, not too little things. That would be nice. That's okay, that's part of happiness.

To me that's part of happiness. To struggle with your credit card debts all the time is not happy, okay? Or to not have enough to go to a movie or to go to breakfast tomorrow at 9 o'clock at St. Francis on First Avenue in Camelback and hear jazz with the rest of us. That would be nice, you know? That's fun, that's okay. Spiritual people can also hear jazz and have whistles, eggs with all the Florentine.

Okay, that's what I'm proposing. It would be nice to have a partner. If you want to have a partner, you know, it would be nice to have a beautiful, sensitive, loyal, kind, you know, employed partner.

And would it be nice to be healthy and to have energy and to have strength and be bright and happy and active, not to have bone problems and all kinds of other problems. That would be nice. That's part of happiness.

To have inner peace is also part of happiness. To have peace in your community and among your friends and family and to have peace in your world. These are all to me desirable things.

Like people say, if you're spiritual you can have inner peace but not prosperity. Then I say, I don't buy it. You know, if you find the secret to the universe you should use it for everything.

If the secret to the universe doesn't cover covering my credit cards, I don't think it's a secret to the universe. You know. Seriously, why not have everything?

What's the problem with that? You know. Okay?

But according to this tradition, it's possible to have all those things, but first you must understand emptiness. If you come to an understanding of emptiness, it's possible to have all the things you want in life. And don't...

I ask you, don't be fooled by people who say it's not possible. Okay? I assert they are retarded.

Okay? Somebody tells you, you can have inner peace but you're not going to cover your credit cards or... you know, it's okay to...

maybe you can get healthy with yoga but I can't guarantee you a partner. Then I say, you don't have the secret to the universe. The secret to the universe is emptiness.

You must understand emptiness. Why? Because then you can get those things, those five things I talked about.

Financial independence, a nice relationship, family, good health, youthful energy, inner peace and world peace. You know, those... you can have them.

If you have a certain view of reality, you can make those things happen in your life, but you need to be trained in it. Okay? It's like learning piano or something.

Someone... someone who knows piano has to teach you. So, I'm going through these proofs of emptiness but the goal is those five things.

I'm not just trying to impress you with some Tibetan grammar or something. Okay? I want you to have those five things and you have a right, it's a human right to have those five things.

And... and don't believe anybody who tells you you can't have them. I think that's very, very wrong.

Okay? That's evil. Okay?

Alright. So, that means you have to go through these long-winded proofs of emptiness. Okay?

So, we said there were three proofs of emptiness that we're going to be talking about. One is called yu me khyen go kyi ten zik. Say yu, me, khyen go, kyi, ten zik.

A proof of emptiness based on the question of whether something is there or not before it begins. Okay? That's the first one.

Second one, se dorje, segme, ten zik. An examination of the question of whether things come from themselves or from other things. Okay?

An examination of the question of whether things come from themselves or they come from other things. Like what? Like credit card independence, like youthful energy, like inner peace, like a partner.

Okay? We're not talking about how Pluto happened or how Jupiter happened. Okay?

I mean that's probably relevant but for me, you know, I'd rather discuss, you know, how's a partner going to start or how's my financial independence going to start. You see what I mean? Let's talk about real life and real things.

Okay? How is my inner peace going to start? You know?

So that's the second question. Does inner peace begin from inner peace or does inner peace begin from something other than inner peace? Is the second proof of emptiness.

Okay? Third proof of emptiness, say, cik, tu, tral. Cik, tu, tral.

Is a thing one thing or is a thing more than one thing? Okay? Is a thing one thing or is a thing more than one thing?

Because that's another proof of emptiness. Okay? So those are three proofs of emptiness that we're going to discuss.

Okay? Last night, we started... By the way, and by discussing those three, we can go back to the debate between the angel and the devil.

But unless you have that ammunition, I can't take you to that other book. Okay? So you have to get these things straight.

Alright? By the way, the schedule tonight, just to review, it's 7.30 now, we're going to go till 9.30. We're going to take a break around 8.15 for refreshments, etc. If you would like to stay for a movie, we're going to play a movie that I just saw last week, and it was...

Mosquitoes are not allowed to come to the movie. Mosquitoes can't... No, we don't want mosquitoes at the movie.

Okay? They just buzz around and get into the popcorn and stuff. Ask your mom and dad, I'll think about it.

The movie is called... Now I can tell you, it's called The Intouchables? I don't know if you've ever heard of it.

Have you ever seen that? Has anybody... Who's seen it before?

Oh, good. It's a French movie with subtitles. I hope you got the subtitle one.

And it's exquisite. It's a very much a heartwarming, you'll cry by the end and, you know, it's uplifting, not like Iron Man. And then...

So, that'll start around 9.45. Okay, we'll start on time because I don't want to keep everybody too late. Okay? Alright, so that's the plan for tonight.

To get to the movie you have to go through three proofs of emptiness. Is that a bribe? It works for mosquitoes.

So, we're halfway through this proof of emptiness. We were talking about an iPhone, if I remember. Think about the moment in the iPhone factory in China that they put on the last part.

I don't know what's the last part. There's probably some screw somewhere. Yeah, I bet it's that one.

And someone clicks in the last part and in that moment it becomes a functional iPhone. You can call on it and just before that you cannot. Like there's a casing and there's electronics and there's a glass, but it's not put together yet.

But at some point they screw in the last screw and they set it in the box and then it's ready to go. And then the iPhone starts. That's the beginning of the iPhone, okay?

The first proof of emptiness concerns was the iPhone there just before they put in the last screw? Was a complete iPhone there just before they put in the last screw? Okay?

Then it's typical in Buddhism that just to make sure you've nailed it down you would go through the four possibilities. Even though three of them are kind of impossible and ridiculous, just for thoroughness sake you would go through all four possibilities. If all four possibilities don't hold then this thing did not begin.

Okay? If the iPhone didn't begin just after there was an iPhone already or just after there wasn't an iPhone already or both or neither then we can say conclusively that the iPhone had no beginning. That there was no beginning to the iPhone.

We are trying to answer the question did this iPhone start? Was there a beginning to this particular iPhone? Did it start at some point in time?

Was there a beginning to this iPhone? And people like the physicist Hawking and people like that they are struggling with this question. It's a very profound question.

Even chemically or mathematically it's a very difficult question. When does a thing begin? So does it begin from nothing?

Or does it begin from something? Or both or neither? If it doesn't begin from any of those we can conclude without doubt that it did not begin.

Okay? So we are looking at the beginning of the iPhone. If this iPhone came about from...

from a time when the iPhone was already there okay? Okay? If there was an iPhone already there in the moment before this iPhone was finished that's a problem.

It's illogical. Why? He gave two reasons.

What? First of all, it would be redundant. I mean it's already there so why would it have to start again?

If it already was there why should it start again? What was the second reason? Do you remember?

I don't remember. Good, yeah, yeah, yeah. If it had to start again once then it'd have to start again a zillion times.

Okay? If starting... if the iPhone starting once is not enough for the iPhone to be there then it'd have to start...

keep starting all the time and that would get ridiculous. Got it? Okay?

Therefore, we can conclude that this iPhone didn't start from a place where there was already an iPhone. Okay? We eliminated one of the four possibilities.

Got it? The second possibility is more difficult. Did this iPhone start from a situation where there was no iPhone yet just before?

What do you think? I mean, that's how we think of starting. That's to us what the meaning of starting is.

First there was no iPhone, then somebody put in the last screw and then there was an iPhone started. And it will stop the day I break it, I finally drop it in the toilet, or, you know, it'll happen, it's been happening. Okay?

So, we like to think of starting as there was no iPhone, then someone did something and an iPhone started. Okay? A force acted upon an object and started it.

Got it? Let's say it again. A force acted upon this object and started it.

Can you say that? If it weren't there when the force acted, but if it were there, it wouldn't have to start. Which one?

I'm not being cute, okay? I said that last night. It would be hard for me anyway.

It couldn't have, it couldn't have started from something that was already there because if it did, it would have to start a zillion times again and again and again. Okay? But, could it be as we normally think it is that a force acted on something which was not there and then started something?

Can a force act on something which is not there? It's not possible. Okay?

And that's why, frankly, serious theoretical physicists in modern time have a real, they are struggling over this thing, deeply, struggling. Einstein spent the second half of his life. He died with his notes in his hand.

He couldn't figure this thing out. He went crazy. He was like crazy.

He spent the whole second half of his life. If there's nothing there, you can't have anything starting because a force would have to act on an object which is not there. But if something were already there already, there'd be no purpose to start it.

And it seems a quandary, it seems a paradox. The last two possibilities, let's wipe them out now so we can stick to the subject, okay? Could it be both?

No. Could it be neither? No, I mean it has to be one or the other.

Okay? You can't say something starts from nothing and something or something starts from neither something nor nothing. You can't...

We can dump the last two possibilities, okay? Did things... You can take the universe.

Did it start from nothing or did it start from something? Because if it started from nothing, a force had to act upon something which was not there. And if it started from something, there's no reason to because it's already there.

Okay? Got it? And it seems like I'm just playing with you or something like that.

But to be honest, the truth is probably subconsciously you understand that there's a problem here already since you were a little kid. You know? Mom said...

You said to mom, how did the universe start? Mom said, well, first there was nothing and then there was something. And you're like, huh?

Well, why did it start at that time and not that time? You see what I mean? If something that's not there could make something happen which is there, then that could happen all the time.

The universe would be created every moment. You see what I mean? There's no reason for the universe to start at 6 o'clock.

It could just as well start at 7 o'clock because nothing started it. Because there was nothing there and suddenly there was something there. And anyway, mom...

To me, I always pictured it when my parents were talking about that, for some reason I pictured a billiard table and billiard balls. And it was like, so mom, I mean, could a billiard ball just start rolling on the table from... from...

what do you call? From rest. Without any reason, just start rolling.

It didn't make sense to me, you know? And then if you say, well, it started rolling because another ball hit it. Well, who hit that ball?

You see what I mean? Like, neither one makes sense. As a small child, you ask these questions and then you stop asking because you feel like there's no answer, okay?

There's a third possibility, okay? There's a third possibility, which is that it doesn't start from nothing and it doesn't start from something. Rather, your mind creates a picture of something starting and then you take that to be reality.

You know, your mind... your mind pictures of a Chinese factory worker screwing in the last screw and then your mind pictures a phone in a box being shipped to America. And your mind ties them together.

But without your mind, there's no cause and effect there. There is nobody screwing in the last screw and that doesn't cause a thing to be ready to go into a box. Without your mind's involvement, without your mind tying those two events together, there's no relationship between them.

It's all a product of your own imagination. Your mind is imagining, okay? You take an aspirin and it stops your headache, okay?

You take an aspirin and your headache goes away and your mind draws a cause and effect relationship between the two, but it's false. Why? Lots of times you take an aspirin and nothing happens, okay?

If your headache goes away after you took an aspirin, it's not because of the aspirin, okay? It's because lots of people take them and the headache doesn't go away. Duh!

Duh! I mean, try to think, okay? It cannot be that an aspirin takes away your headache.

If it took away your headache, then every time you took an aspirin it would take away your headache. Who thought it took away your headache? Your mind drew a false conclusion, okay?

Your mind drew a false conclusion and that makes you suffer. That makes you suffer, you know? You undertake things to get the things you want and they don't work.

And then you get old and you get frustrated and you get unhappy and you lose your partners and you lose your income and you lose your health and you don't know why, you know? And you suffer because your mind is making up cause and effect chains that are false because something can't start from nothing and if it started from something there wouldn't be any reason for it to start. That whole thing is wrong.

The most fundamental actions of life are false and useless and they don't work. Turning a key doesn't make a car go. Putting gas in the car doesn't make the car go.

It's like profound, okay? It's very, very profound. According to this system, what causes a car to start?

Giving rides to other people. And only giving rides to other people causes gas to work and causes the battery to start the car, okay? It's very profound.

What makes a battery work? What makes gasoline explode in a certain way? It's giving rides to other people.

And I'll throw something else at you, okay? I already lost you so it doesn't matter. I'll throw something else at you.

It's impossible for a thing which is unrelated to another thing in content to cause it. You don't get bananas from watermelon seeds. It never happens.

It cannot happen, okay? Gasoline and getting to where you want to go are fundamentally dissimilar. There's nothing similar between gasoline and getting to Scottsdale.

There's no similarity. It's like bananas and lemons, okay? I planted a lemon seed.

I got a banana. Bullshit! It can't happen.

It never happens. I put gasoline in my car and I got to Scottsdale. Bullshit!

It can't happen. There's no similarity between the cause and the result, okay? I'm telling you something very profound.

Someday it'll hit you. I don't know when, okay? If you want to get somewhere, you must create the cause which is similar.

If you want a banana, you must plant a banana. If you want a watermelon, you must plant a watermelon. If you want to get somewhere, you must help someone else get somewhere.

And that's the only possible cause because it's the only similar cause. Okay? It's very uncomfortable until you get used to it.

You have to hear it for years and then suddenly it'll dawn on you. Suddenly you say, oh my God, you know, if I want to be financially independent, I have to help someone else to do it. And that's the only way it could happen.

It doesn't matter what kind of job I get. It doesn't matter what kind of college I go to. It doesn't matter what kind of training I have.

It doesn't matter what my IQ is. It doesn't matter what the business climate is. It doesn't matter what country I live in.

It doesn't matter what product I sell. They're all irrelevant. All advertising is the same.

It doesn't do anything. Not advertising is the same as advertising. It doesn't matter, okay?

The only thing that can make you financially independent is a similar cause, which is helping someone else to be financially independent, okay? It's so dumb. I mean, someday it'll hit you, you know.

I'm talking to you and it'll hit you. Someday you'll be driving your car and you'll go, ding! Oh, I get it.

You don't get bananas from lemons, you know. You can't drive, you can't rent a car with gasoline. Why did I ever think that?

How did I ever think that, okay? Someday it'll hit you strong. Anyway, we're planting those seeds now.

Okay. I'm going to go back to the text, all right. Uh...

The last piece we talked about last night was, it doesn't matter how powerful the cause is, if it is dissimilar to the result, it cannot touch it, okay? You can have high-octane gas, you can have nuclear energy, you can have firewood, you can have cow dung, you know. It doesn't matter.

If the object you're trying to drive with that fuel is fundamentally different from the fuel, it cannot affect that object, okay? Gas cannot run a... Gas cannot cause you to get to a place.

Neither can cow dung or nuclear fission. They're all equally powerless in running a thing which is fundamentally different. Got it?

Okay. Getting somewhere is fundamentally different from an explosion of carbon atoms. Whether it's a strong explosion or a weak explosion, it doesn't matter.

They don't resemble getting somewhere. Struggle with it, okay? All right?

It doesn't matter how powerful... You can jack up the energy content, you know, make it nuclear fission, make it whatever you want. It won't get you to Scottsdale if you haven't given rides to someone else because the cause is not similar to the result, okay?

It's irrelevant what you use. It won't help you to get to Scottsdale. You can have six mechanics in the car, you can have a new car, and if you haven't helped other people, the car will break and they won't be able to fix it.

Okay? Okay. So, I'm going to start at the top, okay?

Just to bring us back to some kind of frame of reference. It helps my credibility, I heard today, somebody told me, if I quote an ancient text. Let's see, where is that?

We lost it. Where did you go? I don't know why I just jumped like that.

Okay, here we go, , , , In general, if I gave you four choices, did the iPhone start from a situation where there was no iPhone, or did this particular iPhone start from a situation where it already existed, or both or neither? Which of the four would you normally choose, if we hadn't just had the last discussion we had? You'd say it wasn't there, and then they screwed in the last screw and then it was there, okay?

It came from the beginning of the iPhone, started from a place where there was no iPhone before, okay? This particular iPhone, okay? Yidusumena chirme mi go kyang.

He agrees, this author agrees, Lord Atisha, thousand years ago. He says, you're right, we have to say that. The iPhone, this particular iPhone, comes from a place where there wasn't an iPhone the moment before, and they screwed in the last screw and it became an iPhone, okay?

I agree. He says, I agree. But he says it in a negative way, okay?

Which is this. Just because it's not there at the time of its cause, doesn't mean it can't exist. Just because it's not there yet, at the time of the final screw, doesn't mean it can't exist.

In fact, that's the way it is, okay? Got it? Was it there, was there a finished iPhone there, while the worker was putting in the last screw?

No, not yet. Then, when they finished putting the last screw, was there a finished iPhone? Yes.

At the final moment of its cause, was there an iPhone there yet? No. In the next moment, was there a finished iPhone there?

Yes. Okay, so it is true, we can say that just because an iPhone is not there yet, while they're putting in the last screw, doesn't mean it can't be there the next moment. I agree, okay?

He's okay with that. RANG BZHIN GYIS GRUB PA ZHIG RGYU'I DUS SU MED NA, RNAM PAR THAMS CAD DU MED DGOS TE. But if there were an iPhone that didn't exist the moment before they finished putting in the last screw, which came from its own side, I would say it could never exist anyway.

I'll say it again. If there... was there, is it true there was no iPhone, just be finished iPhone, just before they put in the last screw?

That's true. Does that mean there couldn't be an iPhone after they put in the last screw? I didn't say that.

Of course there can be an iPhone after they finish putting in the last screw. But, if the iPhone that's not quite there yet, okay, as they're putting in the last screw, if you're asking, if you're telling me that's an iPhone that's not coming from my mind, then I agree, it could never exist. After they put in a thousand last screws, it will still never exist, okay?

You okay with that? If the absence of the iPhone in the last moment of its production was not coming from me, then I don't care how many screws you put in it, because it'll never be an iPhone, because it can't exist. Comfortable?

What was our example last night? In the kitchen. Who?

My partner. What happened? I walked home, I walked in the kitchen after working all day, I opened up the door, I didn't have time to set down my backpack or whatever it is you use, purse, and they started criticizing me, okay?

And then we said what? We started out last night, we said there were two partners in their kitchen. One that came from me, and one that didn't come from me.

One that's my fault, and one that's not my fault. The one that's not my fault was never in the kitchen. I thought they were in the kitchen.

That's the one you get upset at, by the way. By the way, let's switch it around, the barometer of how ignorant you are is how much you get upset, okay? Because the partner that you get upset at is always the one that was never there.

Got it? Okay. Why?

Because that's the one that's not your fault, alright? There's no such thing as a criticizing partner who's not your fault, but that's the one that you get upset at. Therefore, ergo, if you get upset, you don't understand anything, okay?

Because you can only get upset at the partner who's not coming from you. Because if you truly believed that they were coming from you, you wouldn't get upset at them, you would get upset at yourself, okay? Got it?

If you knew who your partner really was, it's impossible to be upset at them. Got it? Why?

Because then you would understand that they're coming from you. They're not their fault, okay? If you had been kinder last week, your partner would greet you with a big hug and some kind words, okay?

If they don't, it's not their fault, it's your fault, okay? Got it? If you do get upset, it's proof that you don't understand where your partner coming from, which is also proof that you don't understand emptiness, okay?

Got it? Alright. Tam jey nu mey gu de.

Then he quotes Arya Nagarjuna. Arya Nagarjuna is a Buddhist thinker who's so extraordinary, he goes by the name of Sangye Nyipa. What does that mean?

The second Buddha to come in this world. It's like saying Jesus number two, or Obama number two, you know, like, if you like Obama. So, he's often given the name the second Buddha in this world.

He was so brilliant and so amazing that they called him Buddha number two, okay? He wrote a book called Root Wisdom, and that book has, for 18 centuries, has been the basis of all study of emptiness, okay? Ultimately, the book worth all the books we study go back to him.

He's the great great great great great great great 42 grandfather, okay? Here's the opening lines of his most famous work. YOD CHE CHAL BA LTAR PA RDZIN MED CHE CHAL BA CHE BA DANG DE CHOS YOD DANG MED PA LA SKAD PA'I GNAS PA MI CHAL LO Just for good luck, okay?

Recite the most powerful words ever written on this planet. Say, YOD CHE CHAL BA LTAR PA RDZIN MED CHE CHAL BA CHE BA DANG DE CHOS YOD DANG MED PA LA SKAD PA'I GNAS PA MI CHAL LO YOD CHE CHAL BA LTAR PA RDZIN If you say that this iPhone exists, you must believe it can never break. MED CHE CHAL BA CHE BA DANG If you say it doesn't exist, then you must be saying an iPhone is impossible.

DE CHOS YOD DANG MED PA LA SKAD PA'I GNAS PA MI CHAL LO Therefore, wise people don't say either that it exists or it doesn't exist, because they're both wrong. Does this iPhone exist, yes or no? Yes or no?

You're wrong. If I break it, does it not exist? If I smash it, does it not exist?

You're wrong. That's it, he's saying wise people say it doesn't exist and it also doesn't not exist, okay? That's the most profound words ever said in India, okay?

What are you talking about? Does your partner exist who's criticizing you in the kitchen? Or Rob Ressinger or whoever it may be.

Do they exist? Do they exist? Is there somebody standing there criticizing you in the kitchen yard?

Yes. Do they exist? No.

Why not? They don't exist the way you thought they did, they don't exist the way you thought they did, okay? How did you think they did?

Oh, they decided to criticize me, okay? All right, how do they really exist? How do they really exist?

They're coming from me, okay? If I break this phone, did it, did it, is it, does it stop existing? If I break this phone, does it stop existing?

Yes or no? No, it doesn't stop existing, okay? Because I broke it.

It stops existing because the kindness I did in helping people communicate with each other wore out, the seeds wore out, and it broke, okay? It didn't break, okay? Got it?

Did the telephone break? No. Did it break and stop existing?

No. So, can you use it? No.

Does it work? No, I didn't say that. Well, why?

It wears out, the seeds wear out. Where? Does the glass wear out, the plastic wear out, the spring wear out, the, you know?

No, your seeds wore out, okay? How? You stopped helping communicate, people communicate.

If you help other people communicate, the phone will never break. Does the phone break? Yes or no?

No, it doesn't. Aiya. Does the phone break?

No. Do your seeds wear out and the phone stops working? Yes, then you can say yes, okay?

Wise people, kyepe nepo mi jau. You ask them, does it break? They say, no.

You say, did it start in a factory? No. Did my, did I start to see a phone work because of seeds in my mind by helping other people to communicate with each other?

Yes. Does a phone stop working because I didn't help anyone communicate recently? Yes.

Does a phone break? No. Did the phone begin?

No. Do I see the phone start because I help people communicate? Yes.

Do I see the phone stop working because I stopped helping people communicate? Yes. Did the phone break?

No. Did the phone stop working? No, I didn't say that.

Okay, you comfortable now? You okay? You alright?

Okay, that's all. Very, very, very famous. Very famous.

What will happen if you believe this stuff about the phone? What will happen? What will happen?

What will be the natural human reaction to a person who believes the philosophical positions I just proposed? They will help other people communicate. They will put their heart into helping other people communicate.

Why? Because they want the goddamn iPhone 6 to work better than the iPhone 5. They want iPhone 6 to really work.

Got it? I'm fed up with Apple. Yeah, me too.

Let's help people to communicate better. Wise. That's good.

Yeah, I like it. Let's fix Apple. Got it?

It would be nice if Apple worked. And of course it will take much, much more seats to get Microsoft products to work. Okay, alright.

I'm not kidding, you know that. Alright. Okay, I went, okay, Suni.

Then he refused that it could both exist and not exist, and neither exist nor not exist. We're not going to go through that because it's just obvious. Okay, if it can't exist then at the time that it's made already, if it can't already exist at the time it's made, it can't exist and not exist, or neither exist nor not.

Okay, that's obvious. I'm not even going to go there. Now, those of you who are purists and really want to understand these things, let us state the syllogism.

Okay, this is the formal reasoning. This is the formal traditional statement of the first proof of emptiness. We're giving you how many proofs tonight of emptiness?

Three. Here's the formal written version of this first reasoning. Okay, nyukchu chen, nyukchu chen, when you make a proposal in Buddhist logic, you always say what you're talking about first.

Nyukchu chen means, let's talk about this iPhone. Okay, but what's nyukchu mean? Nyukchu means a sprout.

Okay, nyukchu means a sprout, and it came to mean bamboo, and the bamboos were used for pens in Tibet. Pens in Tibet were just pieces of bamboo that were sharpened and dipped in a bottle of ink. Okay, so, but in this case it's talking about a sprout.

Okay, so for me it helps me to visualize, I just planted a bunch of watermelons, and I'm happy to say they came up. There's nothing cuter in the world, I mean even a baby is not cuter than a watermelon you can hold in the palm of your hand. A watermelon after two days, the flower comes and then the flower pops off, and then this cute little baby watermelon, they're this big, you know, and you just want to hold them and kiss them, you know, they're like, you're so cute, you know.

So imagine a watermelon seed, and it just broke open, and there's this little green quarter-inch little thing popping out, okay, that's called nyukchu, okay. You got to get this feeling of it, it's like a baby with the head just out, you know what I mean, like, wow, here it comes, you know. Okay, nyukchu chen, nyukchu chen.

RANG BZHIN GYIS SKYE BA MED TE, okay, it does not start by itself, it cannot start by itself. RANG BZHIN GYIS SKYE BA MED TE, cannot start by itself. Why?

YOD PA DANG, MED PA DANG, GNYIS KA DANG, GNYIS KA MA YIN PA, RANG BZHIN GYIS MI SKYE BA'I PHYIR, means it couldn't start by itself from itself. I'm sorry, it couldn't start from itself from having been there. It couldn't start from itself from not having been there.

It can't start from itself from both having been there and not having been there. And it can't start from itself from not having been there and both not, you know what I mean. Okay, that's the formal statement of the first proof of emptiness, Okay?

An iPhone cannot start from a situation where there was no iPhone in the moment before. Neither can it start from a situation where there was a finished iPhone the moment before, and neither can it start from an iPhone being there and not being there the moment before. Neither can it start from a situation where there was no iPhone there the moment before, and also there was an iPhone there the moment before.

Got it? Okay? Not possible.

Therefore, an iPhone cannot start. There cannot be the first moment of an iPhone. Not possible.

What you believe is happening in a factory is an illusion, and it's wrong, and you suffer because you believe that. If you think an iPhone can be produced in a factory in China, you will suffer for the rest of your life, and you will die with nothing.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay?

[Говорящий 1]
If you believe that iPhones are produced in factories in China, you are deadly wrong, and I emphasize the deadly. Okay? You will waste the rest of your life.

You will struggle to make money, you will struggle to have relationships, you will struggle to have good health, you will struggle to reach inner peace, and you will struggle to have world peace, and you will fail in all five. Okay? If you believe an iPhone is produced in a factory, okay, you will suffer, and you will waste your life, and you will struggle for a whole lifetime, and come up at the end empty-handed, because that's not how stuff works.

Okay? What produces an iPhone? Helping other people to communicate, and that's the only thing.

That's the only cause which resembles the result. Duh! Okay, okay, you want a banana, should you plant a mango or a lemon?

Maybe plant a banana? Okay, you want an object which will help you communicate. The cause must be helping other people to communicate, that's the only similar cause.

Got it? A factory in China doesn't resemble an iPhone. Phew!

A factory in China is not greater communication. It cannot cause an iPhone. Struggle with that, fight with that, okay?

Fight with that. You're working against a whole, you're working against 50,000 years of human thinking. Okay?

Struggle, struggle against it. Things, cars don't run on gas. Money doesn't come from better advertising.

iPhones aren't made in factories. Struggle with that, because only then will you be liberated. Okay?

Seriously. Phew! All right, next.

I was intrigued by this because I was trying to find these three proofs of emptiness in the ancient scriptures before Tibet, you see, from India. Buddhism reached Tibet a thousand years ago, roughly. Buddhism was going on in India for a thousand and more years before that.

And we, due to Dan Stiver's work, excellent work, and his team, we just finished inputting, after 25 years of work, all the ancient scriptures from India. They're done. They're on the internet.

They're free. It took millions of dollars and thousands of hours of work, tens of thousands of hours of work. Okay?

They are there. But when you're studying this stuff and you hear, you know, when I look up this stuff and I say, I wonder if that comes from Tibet or from India, like, is this something that the lamas made up? Or is this something that Buddha was talking about?

I always go and look, you know, I'm curious. So I took these three proofs and I traced them back, and I hit a wall at a thousand years ago. I'm like, uh-oh, the lamas made up this stuff.

You know, this is not Buddha at all. And thankfully, the first Panchen Lama had the same question in his mind, and he proved, he found them without the computer. I don't know how he did it, but he found the original texts by the Buddha where he gives these three proofs of emptiness.

So I have the pleasure, I was dying to find this and I found it, right? I have the pleasure to tell you where it came from and give you the quotation from Lord Buddha himself, okay? This proves that this proof comes from Lord Buddha.

And what's cool is that this book that I'm going to quote, which is called Lankar Shekpa. Say, Lankar? Shekpa.

In Sanskrit, Lankavatara. Lankavatara. Say, Lankavatara.

Lanka? Avatara. Lankavatara.

Okay? Lanka means Sri Lanka, okay? Lanka, in the ancient times Sri Lanka was called Lanka.

Ceylon was called, sorry, Ceylon was called Lanka, okay? When Hanuman jumped out of India to save Sita for Rama, he jumped to Lanka. If you're a yogi you should know this story.

So Lanka means Sri Lanka. Avatara means a journey. In this case it means a journey to Lanka.

And I'm happy to say, Jigme, Venerable Jigme is cataloging all the ancient Indian scriptures taught by Lord Buddha. She's working on it. Part of every day she works on it.

She's up to... She's up to 120 out of 900 works, but she's getting there. I'll give it another six years or so.

We do long-term stuff, okay? But she just cataloged Lanka... She just cataloged the Lankavatara.

We were just working on it last week. So I thought so sexy that that's where the first proof comes from, is the book she cataloged last week at the cafe in McGuireville. Okay, here we go.

,LANG ZHIG LAS, ,LOD DU CHEN PO RANG GI SEMS NANG BA'I NGOS PO MED PA DANG, ,YOD PA DANG, ,MED PA LAS KHYE BA MED PA'I PHYIR, ,NGOS PO THAMS CAD NYID MA SKYES PA STE ZHES PA DANG, Buddha said, Oh, oh bodhisattva of great intelligence. This is a certain bodhisattva. The Buddha is talking to this bodhisattva.

,RANG GI SEMS LAS, Objects as they appear in your own mind never begin, because they don't begin from something that was there, and they don't begin from something that wasn't there. Okay? That's the source of the first proof of emptiness, is a lecture by Lord Buddha.

Okay? If you're interested, I could give you the whole page of quotation. I don't know if we have time for that.

You want to? We won't get to the second proof, it's alright. What the hell, let's do it.

I'm sorry I'm cursing so much, I'm not supposed to curse. Okay. Let's do the whole quotation.

Huh? What? I don't think I have time for both, but we'll stop in 15 minutes for a break, just because it's too much to...

You'll get indigestion if I don't give you a break. Okay. I love this, I love this.

By the way, this is the quote. This page, I'm giving you the whole page. I went to her work, I went to the files that she cataloged, I found the whole discussion because of her work.

You see? It's kind of sexy. Here's the whole context, here's the whole discussion, and you'll see that something else cool that you know about is there.

It's the source of something else too. Okay? LOD DUR CHEN PO O Wise One, he's addressing a bodhisattva.

DE PHYIR SKYE BA LUM PA DE DAG THEG PA GSUM DU MA BA YIN TE That's why foolish people have to talk about three different tracks. Okay? In Buddhism there are three different tracks.

Two of them are wrong. Okay? But they were created by Lord Buddha for people who are a little bit dumber.

He created two false tracks for people who couldn't get the highest one. Okay? In the hopes that they would graduate.

MA YIN TE SEMS SANG DU RTOG PA DANG BA MED PAR MED PAR NI MI MA'O They don't know enough to... to say things are only... They don't know enough to say things are only images in your own mind.

Okay? Got it? They don't know enough to say things are only images in your own mind.

MI MA'O LOD DUR CHEN PO DE DAG DE DAG DE PA DANG MA WON PA DANG DA LTA BRJUNG BA'I DE BZHIN SHES PA NAM GYI RANG GI SEMS NO BA'I SPYOD PA YUL MI LUNG PAR MI SHES TE Therefore they don't grasp what the Buddhas already know, that the beginning of an iPhone is coming from a seed in your mind when you helped other people to communicate. Okay? It doesn't exactly say that.

They... They don't understand what the Buddhas already understand, that products of their mind are real outer things. Okay?

This is a product of your mind, of some help you gave to someone last week to communicate. And it's not an external thing that was made in a factory. Is it coming from your mind?

Yes. Is it mental? No.

Does your mind project it into the outside world? Yes. Can you make a phone call on it?

Yes. Are you living in your own head? No.

Are you living in a world which is projected from your own head? Yes. Well, when you project another person, can you have a conversation with them?

Yes. Are they in your own head? No.

Are they coming from your own head? Yes. Are you lonely and you're the only person in the world and everybody else is in your own head?

No. Okay? I'm serious.

Other people around you are real. How you see them is coming from you. Okay?

You can have conversations with them, you can fall in love with them, you can have a baby together. That's real. Okay?

That's okay. They exist. All right?

Are they coming from your mind? Yes. Are they real?

Yes. Are they outside of you? Yes.

Can you have a meaningful interaction with somebody who's coming from your own mind? Yeah. You always had.

All right. LOD DU CHEN PO CHU ROL GYI NANG BA SEM GYI CHU YOD DU NGON PAR GZHAN PA DANG GZHAN PA DE DAG DRO BA'I KHOR LO RAB TU KHOR RO O Bodhisattva, those who don't understand these things will continue to suffer in a never-ending self-perpetuating cycle of mistakes. Okay?

Like what? In the kitchen. You will yell back at your partner when they yell at you.

Why? Because you don't realize that they are coming from you yelling last week. And you will make them yell again next week.

And you live... Those who do not understand that the partner who criticizes them in the kitchen is coming from their own mind will respond to that partner with the same sort of criticism. And they will continue to live in this self-perpetuated cycle of partners who yell at them.

Because every time you yell back you create another one. Okay? So Buddha here is saying those who don't understand that the partner is coming from them will yell back.

And they will continue to circle in the circle of pain. LOD DU CHEN PO GZHAN YANG DE BA DANG Oh man! My...

I don't have good karma with this machine. LOD DU CHEN PO GZHAN YANG DE BA DANG MA'ONG PA DANG DA LTAR BYUNG BA'I DE BZHIN SHES PA NAM CHUD THAMS CAD MA SKYES PA DON DO Therefore, oh Bodhisattva of great wisdom, we can say that every Buddha who ever lived in the universe in the past, and every Buddha who lives in the universe now, and every Buddha who will ever live in this universe, how many of those? Every living being will become a Buddha.

According to Buddhism, every living creature will become a Buddha in time. Everybody in this room, if you're not a Buddha already, you will become a Buddha. So, everyone who ever was a Buddha, everyone who ever is a Buddha, everyone who ever will be a Buddha, which means everybody, CHOS THAMS CAD MA SKYES PA DON DO They are unanimous in declaring nothing begins.

Okay? They all say the same thing, nothing begins.

[Говорящий 2]
All right?

[Говорящий 1]
Got it? Comfortable? Just nod, you'll probably get cookies.

DE'I PHYI PHYIR BZHIN LA DI LTAR TE Why? LOD DU CHEN PO RANG GI SEMS NAM BA'I NGOS PO MED PA DANG YOD PA DANG MED PA LA'I KHYER BA MED PA PHYIR NGOS PO THAMS CAD NI MA SKYES PA TE RE Because, things don't start from having been there, they don't start from not having been there, they don't start from both having been there and not having been there, and they don't start from having been there nor having... not having been there nor having not been there.

Okay? All four. Who made this reasoning?

The Buddha. Where? In Langkavatara.

Okay. LOD DU CHEN PO CHOS THAMS CAD Okay, here we go. This is the last thing before your break.

LOD DU CHEN PO CHOS THAMS CAD NI RIG PONG DANG DTA DANG PHUNG BU DANG NGA MO RA DANG TSUM PA'O What's a RIG PONG in Tibetan language? RIG PONG. A RIG PONG is a rabbit, okay?

RIG PONG means a rabbit. What's a DTA? DTA.

Yeah, Ashwini horse, okay? What's a PHUNG BU? In modern Tibetan they say PHUNG BU.

It's a donkey, okay? A jackass, all right? And a NGA MO?

You know what a NGA MO is? Midnight at the whale aces, sing your camel to sleep. Camel.

NGA MO means a camel, okay? RA means horns. RVA means the horns.

DANG TSUM PA Equal in ontological status. Everything in the world has equal existence to the horns of a rabbit and the horns of a horse and the horns of a donkey and the horns of a camel. You choose.

You know, you can do camel bullfighting and get gored by... There's a joke in Tibet. He was gored by the horns...

He was gored by a rabbit with horns, which means nothing happened. You see what I mean? They don't have horns, got it?

This PHUNG's reality is equal to the reality of the horns on a rabbit's head. Okay? Got it?

And that's a big joke in Tibet. They always say rabbit horns, but now you can say camel horns or jackass horns or horse horns, okay? We opened up, we expanded our horizons.

Okay. Then you can prove that you're really well-educated Buddhists, just say, well, rabbit horns are the same as jackass horns, you know. It says that in the Lankavatara Sutra.

Okay. LOD DU CHEN PO CHI BA SO SOGS KYIS BA RNAM GYIS YANG DAG PA MA YIN PAR YONGS SU LTAG PA'I RANG BZHIN DU RNAM PA LTAG PA'I PHYIR DNGOS PO CHENG THAMS CAD NYID MA RGYAS PA STE So, infants don't understand these things. What's an infant in Buddhist philosophy?

Someone who doesn't understand the stuff we've been talking about. Philosophically, they are equal to a six-month-old baby. You know, mentally, the world is full of six-month-old people.

Okay? All right? They understand as much about life as...

it's as if every car that you pass today in Phoenix was driven by a six-month-old baby.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay?

[Говорящий 1]
They understand as much of life, about life, as a six-month-old baby. Okay? Nothing.

Okay? Nothing. They will struggle for the rest of their lives to try to buy an iPhone instead of helping others to communicate.

Okay? They will struggle to get the money to buy a thing which they think was made in a factory.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay?

[Говорящий 1]
And then you have some hope of breaking out of that pattern. Okay? You have some hope of breaking out.

And it's hard. It takes time. Okay?

It takes a lot of training. It takes continual conversations like this, and then suddenly it hits you, you know? Oh, I...

I would make more money if I just helped other people to make money, or... I could feel younger if I helped other people eat better, or, you know, I could have more peace if I just was more thoughtful of others. You see what I mean?

Okay. All right. I think we'll stop.

That's the end of the quotation from the Lankan Avatar Sutra. Then he's going to quote a few other sources, okay? Just to prove.

In Buddhism it's traditional to quote a bunch of sources to prove something. All right. We have about another 25 minutes, so hang in there.

I know it's late, and it's tiring to go through these thoughts, but what else is there to do? He quotes two more scriptures to support what he said. The first scripture he quoted was Lankan Avatar Sutra, The Journey to Lanka.

And now he's going to quote two other texts. This is a tradition in Buddhism. First you prove something logically, and then you quote authoritative sources.

So this is a tradition. So I'm going to repeat it. Even though the first quotation was enough, he thought two more would be nice.

Okay. Here's his next one. So I'm going to scroll down.

Oh, where'd you go? Okay. Here we go.

Dong ni dun chupa le kyang. Okay? Dong ni dun chupa le kyang.

Dong ni dun chupa is called The Seventy Verses on Emptiness. It was written by... I think it's Nagarjuna.

I think it's Arya Nagarjuna. Yeah, I think so. Dong ni dun chupa le kyang.

YOD PA YOD CHER SKYE MA YIN. Stuff that's already there is already there, so there's no point for it to start. Okay?

Got it? Just nod. Okay.

ME YOD PA ME CHER SKYE MA YIN. Stuff that wasn't already there isn't already there, so there's no point for that to start. Okay?

Or I can... you can also translate it as stuff that wasn't there doesn't exist anyway, so how could it start?

[Говорящий 2]
Okay?

[Говорящий 1]
Again, I ask you to... to work on the idea that a cause... for two things to have a relationship, they must both exist.

Okay? You can't say... a rabbit horn struck a drum and caused a sound.

Okay? There can't be a relationship between a rabbit horn and a drum, because the rabbit horn doesn't exist. Okay?

So, for there to be a relationship between two objects, they must both exist. Okay? There are only two kinds of relationships possible in the world.

One is cause and effect. Okay? A caused B.

Okay? And then another relationship is like... I don't know...

One is a kind of subset of another. To be one is to be the other. Okay?

To be a Toyota is to be a car. There's a relationship between Toyota and car. But if Toyotas don't exist, there can't be a relationship between Toyotas and cars.

To be... To relate to each other, they both have to exist.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay?

[Говорящий 1]
So, some impetus must strike the object which is created. You see what I mean? Some force must bring into existence the second thing.

Right? Some... The cause must act on the effect.

But the effect doesn't exist until the cause stops. Okay. CHOS MIN THON CHOS NYID CHOS MIN And because it would be contradictory, we can't say that something starts from nothing and also starts from something.

Okay? That's easy. SKYE BA MED CHOS NENG GAG MED Now, check this out.

Because there's no beginning, there's therefore no staying or ending. Okay? Because there's no beginning, neither is there any staying or ending.

Okay? iPhones don't start. So, we don't have to even talk about them staying or stopping, because they don't start.

Okay? Got it? All right?

That's... That's Nagarjuna. All right?

Domba Dunche. Seventy verses. JUPA LAS KYANG Jupa is what?

Jupa in Sanskrit is Avatara. What's... He's going to quote the Avatara.

Which one? Bodhicharya is not the Avatara? Bodhisattva Charya.

Huh? Yeah, Madhyamaka Avatara. Entering the Middle Way.

Okay, who wrote that? Master Chandrakirti. Okay?

So, here we go. YOD NA SKYE BYAS CI DGOS YOD NA SKYE BYAS CI DGOS I'm going to bring it up to the top of the page, just so you know where I am. Oh, we're off?

What happened? Oh, is there somebody to put my computer... Oh, I've never been up there?

Have I been up there? Somebody put me back up there? Have I been up there?

So, I'm sorry. All right, you'll just have to hear me. YOD NA SKYE BYAS CI DGOS If something already existed at the time it's...

at the time it was going to be starting, there would be no reason for it to start. If it already existed at the time when it's time for it to start, then there's no point for it to start again. ME LANG DE NI CI ZHIG BYA If a thing didn't exist, then what would the cause act upon?

Nothing. NI LA DE CI BYA NI DANG BRAL LANG DE CI BYA What's the point of both of those situations, and what's the point of neither of those situations? Okay?

It was there before it started, or it wasn't there before it started. ZHES BYUNG BA LTAR MDOG DANG BRTAN BYAS NAM NA RIG PA DE BZHIN DU MANG PO You can take all the sutras spoken by Lord Buddha, you can take all the shastras written by ancient Indians, they all say the same thing. Okay?

No point on quoting more, it's enough. Let's go to the second reasoning, okay? We finished the first reasoning.

You probably feel like it's finished, I think. Okay. Okay.

Now he's just got a verse here. It's just a verse hanging out there, and it says, DNGOS PO RANG LAS GNYIS KHYAD ZHING GZHAN DANG GNYIS GANG LAS KYANG MIN RGYUD MA'I LAS MIN DE YI PHYIR DNGOS GNYIS KYIS RANG BZHIN MED Stuff doesn't... Things don't...

Things don't start from themselves. Things don't start from something else, other than themselves. Things don't start from both, and things don't start from neither.

Same thing, you go through all four possibilities, okay? Did the iPhone start from the iPhone? Did the iPhone start from something other than the iPhone?

Did the iPhone start from both? Or did the iPhone start from neither? Okay?

If none of the above, we can conclude that the iPhone didn't start. Okay? Do iPhones start or not?

Start or not? They don't. Okay?

They don't. There's no process in the outside world by which one thing makes another thing start. Try to forget what mankind has thought for two million years.

It's wrong. It's mistaken. Okay?

Nothing outside of you causes another thing outside of you. Okay? It's not true.

Do things start? No. Did this iPhone start?

Yes. Okay? Why?

Because I helped two other people to communicate with each other, and that created a seed in my mind that the process by which that seed breaks open and creates an announcement from Apple Corporation in Cupertino that a factory in Shanghai is now putting out a product which FedEx will fly to me if I go down to the Biltmore Fashion Plaza. Okay? That process, how helping two other people to communicate with each other causes those events, I'm not going to talk about tonight, but it's an interesting subject.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay?

[Говорящий 1]
And it's explicable. It's something you can explain. Out of your mind, a seed broke open in your mind, out of your mind came images of a company in Cupertino, California, and a factory in Shanghai, China, and a FedEx facility in LA to forward it to Phoenix.

Okay? To put it in the Biltmore Fashion Plaza or to Apple Store. Okay?

All of those things are the means by which your karma brought the phone to you, but they are not producers of the phone. They didn't make the phone. Your karma made the phone.

And your karma produced all those things to bring the phone to you. How your karma does that, how a seed breaks open in your mind and creates images that actually function is another story. We're not going to do it tonight, but enough said.

Okay? That's how it works. You help two other people to communicate.

You hear yourself do that. That creates an imprint on your subconscious. That becomes a seed.

That cracks open and creates tiny little images and sounds of a company in Cupertino, California. Is it California? Yeah.

Building a factory in Shanghai which ships a product to FedEx in LA which is unpacked in Phoenix at the Biltmore Fashion Plaza. Okay? Those are all coming out of the seeds in your mind.

Shendanyika nekyam rim. Things don't start from themselves. Things don't start from something else.

Things don't start from both. And things don't start from neither. Which one of those four possibilities is even possible normally?

Yeah, the second option, that the phone came from a factory which is not the phone. Okay? Or a baby came from its parents.

Or a flower came from a seed which was not it. You see what I mean? That's how we normally think.

Okay? Alright, here we go. By the way, if a verse in the text I'm working in right now suddenly pops up, who wrote it if it's not attributed to anyone?

Who wrote it? Huh? Give me some choices.

Buddha, not correct. What book am I reading to you? Who wrote this book?

The first Panchen Lama. But what's the book about? It's the Three Proofs of Emptiness as presented by Atisha a thousand years ago.

He's quoting Atisha.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay?

[Говорящий 1]
There's not a lot of books by Atisha to quote, there's only one. Bodhipadapadipika. Right?

The Lamp on the Path to Freedom. Okay? The Enlightenment.

Okay. Dinitsa Ushirabde, then he quotes Nagarjuna. dak le mayin, shen le min, ni le mayin, gyu me min.

Things don't come from themselves, things don't come from something else, things don't come from both, and things don't come without any cause at all. Okay? That's Nagarjuna.

Got it? Ngopo kang dang, kang na yang, kye wa nam yang, yo mo yang. Therefore, nothing ever starts.

Okay? Do things start? Did this class start?

Is it going to end? If it didn't start, it's never going to end. Did this class start?

No, it didn't start. Right? Seeds are opening in your mind.

A stream of seeds are opening in your mind. Okay, that's all. How many seeds per second, by the way?

What's the speed of this movie? 65. 65 per millisecond.

Okay, that's the speed at which karmic seeds open in your mind. And it gives you the illusion of time moving. My hand looks like it's moving.

It's really just... karmic seeds opening in your mind. Okay?

Like that. The video is very high quality. Nyingma, what's normal quality of a good video on a computer?

24 images per second. Your mind is running at about three times that, which is pretty smooth. It allows for sounds and smells and globules flying through the air and stuff.

Okay. The other data. Dawaishabdhi.

Dawaishabdhi. What's Dawa? In Sanskrit?

Chandra. So, if he's quoting a Chandra, who is it probably? Chandrakirti.

Okay? But he says Shab. What's Shab?

It's the honorific for Ganga. What's Ganga? Leg.

Leg. Okay? Who said that?

Good. So, why would he refer to Chandrakirti as honorable feet? Yeah.

It's a custom in ancient India to refer to your teacher as the honorable feet of Khen Rinpoche, the honorable feet of the Dalai Lama. It means, it assumes that your head is touching their feet. You call them Mr. Holy Feet, Dalai Lama. Okay? Shab. Okay?

Shab. And in some cases, it became a permanent part of their name. Who's Naropada?

Naropa. Okay? Naropa is Naropada.

Okay? Got it? Alright.

Nine more minutes, Keshe Michael, you get to watch a movie. Ah... DE NYID DE LAS...

DE NYID DE LAS BYUNG MIN GZHAN DAG LAS DAG A LA ZHIG If something can't start from itself, how could it even... how could it ever start from something else? Okay?

SAKSAD DRAG GI BRTAN PA'I BRTAN SNYING PO'I BRAL BA YIN NO These are all summaries of... of other root texts. UN KYANG, SDI DAG GI BRDOD NYIN CHAD PA NA BRDOD PA'I RANG BRAL DU BRDOD MA YIN ZHA BYA BA NI YOD PA NYID KYIS BRDUG CES RANG NAS SKYE BA DANG BRAL GI YOD PA DANG NI MA YIN TE I'm going to skip.

What should I skip to? I'm going to do one last part, okay? I'm just going to take a bit from the end for you, okay?

[Говорящий 2]
Ah... Where is that? No.

Oh yeah, hmm.

[Говорящий 1]
I'm going to give you the third reasoning just for good luck, okay? It's just a taste. The next time we meet we'll do it, okay?

This is called... What's the third reasoning called? Cittudvā.

Is this one thing? Or is it more than one thing? Wrong, okay?

Okay? Is this one thing? It's not.

Is it more than one thing? I mean, obviously not. Okay?

If it's not one thing, how could it be more than one thing? Because more than one thing is made up of separate things. Okay, anyway, here we go.

YANG NA CI NANG GI NGO PO THAM BYED BDAG NI CHOS CAN So I'm going to give you the full form of the Cittudvāki Tantric. This is the full classical traditional form of the reasoning called things are not one and things are not more than one. Okay?

This is one of the most important proofs of emptiness. Alright? And it's the one which the angel and the devil are going to fight about, which is why we got off on this subject, okay?

Here's the one that the angel and the devil are going to fight about next time in the last seven minutes that we have. Okay? This is the most complete and the most exquisite form I have ever seen of this particular syllogism, this logical argument.

Okay, here we go. CI NANG GI NGO PO THAM BYED BDAG NI CHOS CAN means consider all things in the universe. Both CI and NANG, you know the words CI NANG because you know CI NANG THAB LA RDZO BO PAS.

Yeah. Those people who have been here for a while, they know this famous quotation called CI NANG THAB LA RDZO BO PAS which means, you must practice both the outer and the inner methods to spiritual enlightenment. Okay?

Give me an example of an outer method. Yoga. What's an inner method?

Meditation. Which is better? Yeah, bad question.

I like that Gandhi movie, did you see that? Gandhi's first TV interview. Now the guy, the interviewer is this British guy, he says, well, what do you expect the British government to do?

And he says, well, we want total independence for our country. And then he's like, oh, well are you willing to go back to prison to achieve this? I'm always ready to go back to prison.

Well, how do you propose to do this? We have many methods at our disposal but non-violence is one, civil disobedience. He says, are you actually prepared to die for the cause of India's independence?

And Gandhi goes, that's a bad question. Why did I say that? Oh yeah, it's a bad question to say, should you use inner means or outer means to enlightenment?

You should use both, okay? CI NANG THAB LA RDZO BO PAS. Here it says, let's consider all objects in the world, CI or NANG?

Outside or inside? What are inside things? Your thoughts.

Your thoughts, okay? What are outside things? Your nose, your friends, okay?

Phoenix, Tucson, okay? Let's consider all the stuff in the world, whether it's outside of us or inside of us, okay? CI NANG GI NGO PO RNAM, CHOS CAN.

RANG BZHIN GYI MED PAR NYID DU NGES TE. They are... they do not...

what did he say? They are unequivocally things that cannot come from themselves. They are unequivocally things which cannot come from themselves.

Why? RANG BZHIN GYI DUG PAS GCIG DANG, DE ROL DUG PA'I DU MA'I GANG NUNG DU BYAS RNAM PAR CHEN NA. Because if we explore them to see whether they are a single thing which has come from itself, or more than one thing which has come from themselves.

Got it? When we explore them to see whether they are a single thing which has come from itself, or they are more than one thing which has come from themselves. When we explore that question, get this, nice?

Get this, next thing. YUL BRTEN DUG PA'I NGO PO NYID KYI DU TZAM YANG MI MIG PA'I. DE MI MA MIG PA'I PHYIR.

You draw a blank. Okay? You draw a blank.

Because there's not a single atom of them that could come from themselves. Okay? I'll repeat it.

Let's consider all inner and outer things. When you examine whether they are a single thing which comes from itself, or whether they are more than one thing which comes from themselves, you draw a... you come up with nothing.

Okay? You come up with nothing. Why?

Because there's nothing about anything which could come from its own side. There's not a single quality of any object in the universe which could come from its own side. Stated positively, everything about everything you ever experience is coming from you, from seeds in your mind that were planted there by kindness to others or the lack thereof.

Got it? Okay? There's not a single atom, there's no quality of any person you ever met.

There's nothing about any person you ever met and there's nothing about any object you ever saw which is not coming from how you treated other people. And if you search to try to find something about them which is coming from their side, you come up with nothing.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay?

[Говорящий 1]
Therefore, is it possible in the universe for there to be one thing or more than one thing which is not coming from how you treat other people? So, can we say there's nothing which is one or more than one? Yeah, you can, okay?

Is there anything in the world which is one thing? No. Was there anything in the world which is more than one thing?

No. That means there's nothing in the world that's anything. That's right.

Okay? Once you cover one or more than one, you covered everything. Got it?

This is an old trick. Okay. He's not done.

We got one more minute. It's going to work out perfect. Perna, say perna, melong, nangi, suknyen, shinok.

Perna, melong, nangi, suknyen, shinok. So, a classical Buddhist syllogism should have four parts. State the thing you're talking about, all existing things.

Make a... Tell us what you propose. None of them exists from its own side.

Tell us why. Because those... nothing can be one from its own side, nor can it be more than one from its own side.

Give us an example. It's called tumpe yangdad. It's the fourth part of a syllogism.

Okay? Give us an example which proves your statement. Okay?

Give us an example which proves the the proof you're trying to make. Melong, nangi, suknyen, shinok means everything in the world is like a reflection in a mirror. They are all reflections in a mirror.

Okay? What's he trying to prove? What's his dukja?

What's his proposal? Nothing outside or inside of anybody is coming from its own side. What was the reason he proposed to prove it?

Because nothing is either one... Yeah. Because if you try to find one thing which is coming from its own side, or if you try to find anything which is more than one which is coming from its own side, you will come up with nothing.

What's your example to prove this? Everything in the world is like a a reflection in a mirror. That has a lot of connotations.

I'll cover two and we'll stop and we'll see a movie, okay? Number one. Watch a little baby in front of a mirror.

What do they do? They reach out, they start making faces at the baby in the mirror. A lot of times they get irritated at the baby in the mirror.

They're like... and then the baby goes... and they're like...

and then the other baby goes... Then they get... they actually get upset, they get confused, and the adults are giggling, you know?

You just giggle. It's so silly. Don't they understand?

Oh, you mean like your husband in the kitchen? He... Get it?

Okay? Get it? Got it?

You know? Hopefully one day you will graduate to some kind of adulthood where to get angry at your husband in the kitchen because he criticized you will seem as foolish as an infant who is making faces at the infant in the mirror because the infant in the mirror is doing these things back to them. You see what I mean?

Oh, this child... this infant is foolish because they didn't understand that's themselves in the mirror. Duh!

Did you yell at your husband in the kitchen yesterday? Are you better than the baby? Got it?

Is it funny? Not really. Okay, so the first implication is there's an unreality going on.

Okay? It looks like there's a second baby but there isn't. Okay?

There's a baby under that glass but he's not a real baby. He can't drink milk from his mother's breast. He can't...

You can't change his diaper. He's a flat image on a piece of glass. Right?

Okay? The first implication is of illusion. The second one is of karma, of justice.

That baby in the mirror will do exactly what you do. Okay? The husband that you create in the kitchen will exactly mirror your own behavior.

Okay? If you get angry at your husband in the kitchen, you are really getting angry at the little baby in front of the mirror who's like... And then the baby in the mirror goes...

You know? And then it's so silly that the baby gets upset at the baby in the mirror because the baby in the mirror is just a baby in front of the mirror. Got it?

It's so silly to get angry at your husband in the kitchen. He's just making the face that you just made last week. He's just you.

He's a reflection of your state of mind. Got it? The irony of it all?

Good example? Okay. It's all like a reflection in a mirror.

Okay. I don't know about you. I'm ready to relax a little bit.

Let's give away the good karma. Okay? And we'll complete this discussion next time.

[Говорящий 2]
Sean, you want to do it? Okay. Satsang with Mooji