Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 103

[Speaker 1]
Okay, we'll start. So, when we started Dalai Lama University, which was 2003, I started teaching a text called Umajiden. Say Uma?

[Speaker 2]
Umajiden.

[Speaker 1]
Uma means middle way. Chi means general. Do means meaning.

So Umajiden is a textbook from my monastery, Serenade Monastery, and it's the book that we use to study the highest form of emptiness of the Prasangika, the consequent system. Meanwhile, something happened to my computer. Oh, mine's got black columns now, leave that aside.

Yours is okay.

[Speaker 2]
Probably... What if I hit this? It's adjusted to the screen resolution.

Oh, that's good.

[Speaker 1]
So, we worked on that text in a class, a translation class, and we've been going through... It's a difficult text. I think it's one of the most beautiful texts on emptiness I've ever written.

And I don't know how far we got, but it's going to take a long time. So, I just... Every time we have classes like this in Phoenix, I'm trying to do some more, but it's going to take like 10 more years or something.

And don't be... What do you call it? Concerned if you have no idea what I'm talking about.

All right. So, there's... Just to bring you up to date, okay?

There's been an argument Do you have to see emptiness directly to reach nirvana, okay? Do you have to see emptiness directly to stop all your negative thoughts? Like, if you have anger or jealousy, desire, can you stop them forever?

And all the Buddhist schools say, yes, you can. And then they say, how? And then they say, you have to see emptiness directly.

Okay. And you can feel how understanding emptiness would stop your anger, for example. So, I'm going to give you a simple example.

Somebody comes up to you and accuses you of something. You know, they call you... They say, oh, you messed up the book ordering for the class at Phoenix, or something like that, okay?

Actually, you have nothing to do with the book ordering, but they have accused you of messing up the book ordering. And then, that's happening to you, as you know, because in the past, you accused somebody else of something, who was innocent, it wasn't their fault, but you accused them of something. And because you planted that seed in your mind, then a person is coming to you and they're saying, you messed up the book ordering at Phoenix.

Now, if you've studied seeds, if you know that the world is coming from your own seeds, then you won't... What? You won't yell back at them, okay?

You won't yell back at them. They yell at you. And, you know, it's not your fault.

And they're wrong. And... But if you yell back at them, you plant a new seed, and then you have to meet them again, okay?

If you get angry at them, you will have to meet them again. So, the question is, can you get angry at somebody if you know you created them? It's kind of difficult.

I guess we could. I guess I could. But while you're keeping in mind the fact that you created them, it's very difficult to be angry at them, okay?

If you know it's really your problem. What's the emptiness here? Emptiness means something is missing.

Something is not there. Somebody is not there. That's emptiness.

And never was. Who's the person who is not there in this example? Participant 1.

Participant 2. Yeah, a person blaming you for messing up the book order who's not your fault. Okay?

Got it? Nick's an expert at that. A person who's blaming you, who's not coming from you, doesn't exist.

There never was a person like that. If any person attacks you for any reason, that's because you did it to somebody else before. So, now the person you always get angry at is the person who's not coming from you.

Got it? In this class you've got to keep up with me. This is hard.

Okay, I'll say it again. The person you could get angry at is the person who's not coming from you. Alright?

Got it? Does that person exist? No.

They don't exist. The person blaming you who's not your fault never existed. Okay?

But that's the only person you can get angry at. Okay? If you understood they weren't there, you couldn't be angry.

Alright? It's like a phantom. If you understood they were a cartoon and not a person, you wouldn't get angry at it.

Right? Okay? So, that's how emptiness helps you overcome your anger and jealousy and desire.

Okay? The person was never there that you're angry at. And if you understand that, you can't be angry.

Okay? Now the question comes up, as you know, there are three traditional levels of practitioner in the ancient Indian Buddhist systems. Okay?

One is called, the lowest level is called the...

[Speaker 2]
Is it too warm in here?

[Speaker 1]
Is it too warm in here? Yeah, you're a great guy. I'm gonna wake those babies up.

[Speaker 2]
The lowest is called the listener.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? The next track is called self-made Buddha, who are not Buddhas, and they're not self-made, but that's okay. This class is gonna be a snow class.

And then the highest track, the third track is called Bodhisattva. Bodhisattva. Okay?

So you can go all the way from having... These are descriptions of how you go along five different paths. Every person in the world goes through five different stages in their spiritual evolution.

Okay? Anybody who goes through spiritual evolution goes through five stages. They're called sot...

Should I say sot? Sot. Sot.

Sot. Sot. Sot.

Sot. Sot. Sot.

Sot. Sot. Sot.

Sot. Then everybody, it could be, I don't know, Martin Luther King, it could be anybody, but they always go through five stages to get to be an enlightened being. Okay?

The first stage called... Well, I'm not gonna tell you the name. First stage, you have to have a disaster happen in your life.

Which is why a lot of you are here. You know? Something really bad happened in your life.

Like I know some people here whose mother... Their parents were murdered in the house. Or their parents killed themselves.

Or they... My brother killed himself. You know, everybody has a story of why they're here and they're not at a movie right now.

Okay? So, some kind of deep problem in your life gets you interested in spiritual things. You're like, could I...

Could I help the world? You know? Is the world all this suffering?

You know? And... So it's good if you have some kind of disaster.

That's step one. Step two, you start to understand that things are coming from you. Okay?

You start to understand that things are coming from you. Step three, you see directly that there's nothing that's not coming from you. Okay?

That's the direct perception emptiness. You see directly that there's nothing that's not coming from you. Okay?

That's the third stage. Step four, which might take like six, seven lifetimes. Call it seven lifetimes.

You use what you saw to get rid of your negative emotions. Okay? For example, in the case of someone blaming you for messing up the book order in feeding.

Okay? Dealing with that person through your understanding of emptiness would happen at step number four. Okay?

At step number four, you are heavy into working on your negative emotions to overcome them by understanding that the person who got angry at you who was not coming from you was. Never existed. Okay?

Alright? And if there's a person who's angry at you who's coming from you, can you really be angry with them? You see?

So step four, you are over and over and situation after situation, you are dealing with that. You are practicing. They say, gong bhava na.

It's called the level of getting used to what you understand. And it takes time. So it's not like the first time someone blows up at you, you're going to be able to apply your understanding that the guy's not there.

Okay? It takes time. It takes practice.

It takes lifetimes. Okay? Then in the final stage, which is called you finish the process.

You get rid of all of your negativities. Okay? You are no longer...

That's nirvana. Step five is called nirvana. Nirvana means you can no longer have a negative emotion.

Okay? You don't disappear. You don't go to some marshmallow paradise where, hello kitty, there is a place like that.

If you want to know, there is a place like that. It's gate number 12 in the Taipei airport. They've got the whole gate as hello kitty's paradise.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
It's so beautiful.

[Speaker 1]
And we went there and played with the little girls and stuff who were in tutus who were running through hello kitty's paradise. But... So that's not nirvana.

Okay? Nirvana means you stopped your negative emotions forever. Okay?

Because you understood that the things are coming from you and you can't get angry when something is coming from you. Why are there... So there's five stages.

But you can go through the five stages on three different levels. Okay? You can go through those five stages on three different levels.

Those correspond to the kind of emptiness you see. Okay? Those correspond to the kind of emptiness you see to stop your anger, etc.

Okay? So the lowest one is called blissfulness. They have a certain understanding of emptiness that allows them to reach nirvana.

The second level is called self-made Buddhas. Self-made Buddha means a person who has made quick spiritual progress in this life without a teacher in this life. Because they have had 80,000 teachers in their past lives.

Okay? So you can say it means quick... quick...

What do you call it? Quick nirvanas for those who don't have a teacher in this life. Okay?

Then the third level is bodhisattva. Bodhisattva is distinguished from the other two tracks partly because they see a more full kind of emptiness. They see a higher kind of emptiness.

Partly because when they reach the first level of having a disaster in their life, they are able to broaden that experience to cover other people. They don't just say life is bad for me. They say to themselves life is bad for everybody.

This kind of thing is happening to everybody and I should try to help. Okay? They get the bodhisattva intention which is called bodhichitta.

Okay? So if you have that intention to help everybody and you start the five steps the five levels you are called you are say you are on the bodhisattva track. Now there comes a debate.

Okay? Is it possible for a person without compassion to see emptiness directly? Okay?

Is it possible for a person who is not doing it for everyone to see emptiness directly? And we say yes, there has to be. Why?

Because there are people who don't have compassion ultimate compassion who do reach nirvana. Okay? It's possible to reach nirvana.

It's possible to stop all your negative thoughts and not have ultimate love yet. Okay? It is possible.

Okay? That's accepted by everybody. It's possible to reach nirvana and not have ultimate love yet.

Okay? And the only way to reach nirvana which is what again? It's the permanent ending of your negative emotions.

Okay? The only way to reach that is to see emptiness directly. Okay?

Therefore if there are people who are not on the higher track who have reached nirvana it must be possible for a person without compassion to see emptiness directly. That's the argument. Okay?

That's the argument. Now we're at a point where these two ancient schools are arguing this point. They're arguing about this point.

Okay? They're arguing about whether in the lower schools of India there are four great schools of India they're arguing whether in the lower schools of India there were teachings about emptiness. Okay?

Or whether emptiness was presented fully. If it wasn't presented fully what's the problem? Then how did they see emptiness?

How did all those people reach nirvana? If their books if their lower books didn't teach you how to see emptiness directly how did they get to nirvana? Because we all agree they got to nirvana.

Then go working backwards they must have seen emptiness directly working backwards from that somebody must have taught them about emptiness. Working backwards from that their books, their sutras they must treat the subject of emptiness. Now what's the problem if if we admit that if we agree that their books teach emptiness then what's the opposite problem?

What problem comes up then?

[Speaker 2]
Huh?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, then why do you need the higher two schools? If the higher two schools of the four claim to have a greater understanding of emptiness and better teachings on emptiness, right? But you can see emptiness using the lower books then what's the point?

Buddha taught all four schools why did Buddha teach the two higher schools? If you can see emptiness using the two lower schools then why bother? Okay, got it?

That's where we are. The two guys debating, one of them is called Buddha Palita. He's the good guy, alright?

And then the other guy is named Baba Viveka, say Baba Viveka. He's the bad guy in this fight. Buddha Palita said the lower school's books must teach emptiness correctly otherwise they couldn't reach the learner.

Baba Viveka has a problem with that. He says if they do have if emptiness is taught in the lower two schools correctly then why did Lord Buddha teach the two higher schools? Why did he continue higher?

You know, what's the point? Got it? That's the fight that's going on right now.

Here we go. Now, Baba Viveka is the guy who invented the lower half of the middle school, okay? So, he represents the fourth school but the lower half of the fourth school.

He didn't invent it but he's the biggest scholar of it. He's Baba Viveka. Along with, I think, Kamalashiva actually.

But anyway, he followed that school. That school has an interesting position, okay? Here's what they say.

There's three levels of emptiness and the lower guys see a lower form of emptiness to get rid of their mental afflictions. And the higher, the Bodhisattvas they see the full form of emptiness. So, Baba Viveka says and the lower middle school says there's different forms of emptiness.

Some of them are higher, some of them are lower. Okay? And the people in those lower tracks they do reach nirvana.

They do stop their anger. And it is because they've seen emptiness directly. But that emptiness that they saw wasn't 100% emptiness.

It was just a little bit lower emptiness. Okay? Got it?

That's his position. What would be an example of a lower kind of emptiness? We've been talking about it.

We use Rama as an example. I think we started a couple of years ago. He was working in construction at the time in the class.

And he was driving a huge crane the kind that you build skyscrapers with. Right? And you pick up girders and you...

So you see, you know, from a distance. I was in Singapore. I was watching from a high building.

I could see this crane just picking up girders and putting them on top. And it's fast, really fast. And I was like, man, if that hits somebody it would just kill them instantly.

That's amazing how fast they were doing it. And even though you can't see it from a distance, you know there must be some guy in a little glass booth with a walkie-talkie. And they say, now.

And he raises the girder, you know. And then they say, 50 feet in front of you and he puts it across. And then they say, let it down slowly.

And he lets it down slowly. Okay? Somebody's running the show.

In the lower schools, they say, who's running the show of your body? Who runs your body? Raise your hand.

Ready? Raise your hand. You gotta raise your hand.

Okay, let it down. Do you have control over your head? Yeah, apparently.

Okay? There's a guy in the glass booth. Okay?

He said raise the hand and the body raised the head. Okay? There was a guy who was running the body.

Alright? In the lower schools, they say emptiness means there is no guy. In the lower schools they say there is no guy.

You are not in control of your body and mind. And you never were. And that's emptiness.

Okay? Why? I have a terrible cold.

You know, do you... If I was in control of my body, do you think I'd have it right now? You know?

I'd have it somewhere else, like Taiwan or something. You know? You see, like, if I was in control of...

If I was really in control of my body, I wouldn't have a cold. I know. Okay?

If you could... If you're really in control of your body, then there shouldn't come a day when you have to lie down and you can't get back up. Okay?

But there will... Unless you practice well, there will be this day. People will say, raise your hand.

We have to put, you know, a drip in your arm, and you'll say, I can't. I can't raise my hand. You're not in control of your body.

It's an illusion. Is it true that you're not in control of your body? It is true.

There's an apparent control, but it's not true. Is there a guy inside your body like there's a guy inside that crane running the show? There is no such guy.

Okay? Is the absence of that kind of guy who was never there, is that emptiness? They say.

The lower school says. The higher school says, it's true that that guy's not there, but that's not real emptiness. That's a helpful idea.

It can help you a lot. Okay? When things go wrong, when you get a bad cold, or when your mind is depressed, right?

It's helpful to think, well, I'm not really in control. I shouldn't get so upset. You know what I mean?

My mind is depressed. Obviously, if I had any power over my mind, if I really ran my mind, I wouldn't get depressed. And if I really ran my body, I wouldn't have a cold right now.

So just calm down, Geshe Michael. You know, you'll get over it or you'll die. And just calm down and don't take it so seriously.

You know, you're gonna be sick for a couple of days, and that's okay. So, does it help? It helps.

Is it an absence of somebody? It is. But is it emptiness?

We say no. We say it's not real emptiness. If something were real emptiness, the testament of being really emptiness is that it would give you control over your life.

Alright? The testament of really being emptiness is that it would give you ultimate control over everything. Okay?

It wouldn't be an understanding that helped you get by. It would be an understanding that stopped all the bad stuff in the first place, so you didn't have to get by. Alright?

What's another lower understanding? World view number one. It's change.

Tad chig namo chiggy tad chitong. Is there a Geshe Michael who will have a call forever? Okay?

Is there a Geshe Michael who will have a call for the next 130 years or something? There isn't. There's no such thing.

People either get over them or they die. Okay? But there's no Geshe Michael who's going to have a call forever.

This too will pass. Okay? Is there an absence of a Geshe Michael who will have a call forever in this room?

Is there an absence of a Geshe Michael who will have a call forever in this room? Yeah. He's sitting up there.

I mean, he's not sitting up there. Okay? Alright?

And that's a kind of emptiness. That's an absence. But that's not THE emptiness.

Okay? That's just like abandoning. Okay?

So don't feel so bad. It'll pass. You'll get better sooner or later.

Okay? Like that. That's a lower kind of thinking.

What would be the highest kind of thinking? This call came from you not helping sick people. Okay?

There are people around you who are sick, tired, need help, and you didn't give it to them. If you don't like being sick, then you should be more helpful to other people who get sick. And then you wouldn't get sick.

Now, does that involve putting up with something until it goes away? No. It involves making the thing a non-event.

Okay? It's not that I will learn better and better ways of putting up with a call while I have a call. I will stop calls altogether.

I will never get a call. Got it? Is that a better kind of emptiness?

Yes. Rather than someone training you how to cope with the bad stuff in your life, they teach you how to make it a non-event. They call it ma-ong-pa, ma-ke-way, choo-choo.

Say ma-ong-pa.

[Speaker 2]
Ma-ong-pa.

[Speaker 1]
Ma-ke-way. Choo-choo. Choo-choo.

A future event that will never happen. Okay? A future non-event.

And if I understand the highest form of emptiness, I can make calls a future non-event for me by taking care of people. Did you guys put the air on a little bit? I can't tell.

You did? Is it better? Yes.

Do you want it more cool? Yes. I think people want it more cool.

I can't feel anything. All right. Oops.

Get back in there. Did I mess up? No.

What do I have to hit? It's back. Did I fail?

No, no. It's back. It's back.

Okay, good. Now, Master Baba Nibedka in his books did say that the lower schools see emptiness. Okay?

He did say that. But the first paragraph that you see here, Sorry. I'll give you a way.

The first paragraph that you see here, it says he did teach emptiness about lower schools, but it wasn't real emptiness. Okay? He was just saying there's no guy in the glass boot.

Okay? Is the fact that Rob's not in control of his arm, is that emptiness? No.

It's not real emptiness. Okay? Is it helpful?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. Could a certain lama tell his students that was emptiness if he thought it would help them?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's what Baba Nibedka did. Okay? He said that's what emptiness is.

Alright? But it wasn't, it was tangyé. What's that mean?

It wasn't literal. Okay? He was just trying to help them out.

They couldn't get the higher form of emptiness. So he said, look, they said, what's emptiness mean, Master Baba Nibedka said? Okay, Rob is not in control of his body and mind.

That's emptiness. There's no Rob who's in control of his body and mind. He told them that even though it wasn't technically true.

Because it would be helpful to them. Got it? Okay.

Okay. So we're translating it as we know. If it were not that way, then we ask you to consider the argument which says the argument above which said are you telling me that it was what do you call it meaningless for Lord Buddha to have taught the greater way because are you telling me that that it was a waste of time for Lord Buddha to teach Mahayana?

Now, you can you can give two answers. You can say, chichir, or you can say, duh, right? Are you telling me that it was useless for Lord Buddha to teach the greater way?

You should say, chichir. You should say, why do you accuse me of saying that? I'll say it again.

Are you telling me it was useless for Lord Buddha to teach the greater way? You gotta say, I didn't say that. In a debate, chichir means that.

I didn't say that. Why are you accusing me of that? Because emptiness was taught in the scripture collection of the lower way.

Got it? What do you say to that? For this, you can either say yes or no.

Is it true that Lord Buddha taught emptiness in the scriptures of the lower way? Yes or no? Yes.

Wait. You guys decide. Let me know.

I'll take a slurp while you're... Did Lord Buddha teach emptiness in the lower scriptures? Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, he did.

[Speaker 1]
Chittam Chittam Chittam Yampa This is one of the four pillars of Buddhism. And that was taught in the opening days of his career to these lower guys. Okay?

Everything is empty. Okay? Did he teach emptiness in the lower scriptures?

Yes. So why did he waste his time writing the higher scriptures? Okay?

Okay? So we're saying consider that argument above. By the way, this is the argument that Baba Viveka gave to Buddha Palita.

Alright? Buddha Palita, who's on our side, said Lord Buddha did teach emptiness in the lower scriptures. And then Baba Viveka said, So what?

Are you telling me that Lord Buddha shouldn't have taught the Mahayana? Because, because according to you he taught it already. He taught emptiness already.

Okay? This is lower middle way attacking who? Which school?

Higher middle way. This is lower middle way attacking higher middle way. Buddha Palita wasn't around to defend himself when Baba Viveka was born.

Okay? So a knight in shining armor came to defend Buddha Palita. Who was that?

Chandrakirti. Okay? Whose whose teachings on emptiness are the basis of all teachings on emptiness in the rest of the Buddhist world.

Okay? Tibet, China, Japan, Korea. These are the foundation of all teachings on emptiness.

So Chandrakirti who lived like thirteen hundred years ago he came to Buddha Palita's rescue when Buddha Palita was being picked on by Master Baba Viveka. Okay? Got it?

That's why we follow Master Chandrakirti. But in fact the founder of our school Jetsa Kappa saw emptiness after a dream in which he said he saw one scripture plastered across the entire sky. B B B That was Buddha Palita.

He saw Buddha Palita's word plastered across the sky. Buddha Palita's classic is called Buddha Palita. It's like if the writer's name is John Smith then they call the book John Smith.

Got it? Okay? So Buddha Palita's famous book is called Buddha Palita.

So Jetsa Kappa had a vision of Buddha Palita written across the whole sky. And then he he saw emptiness shortly after that. Okay?

And you can see it in his paintings. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Yeah. Talk.

Talk about it. Talk about it. Okay.

Okay, I have to lift you out of the water.

[Speaker 1]
Alright. That happens for me. Okay.

When you say this are you are you saying because emptiness was taught in the scriptural isn't that a scriptural collection of the lower way in general? Okay. Or are you saying because emptiness was taught in the unique oh boy in the unique scriptural collection of the lower way.

Got it? This is a hard text. Okay?

This is one of the hardest texts there is. Just just enjoy it. Okay?

Just sit there and it's like Alice in West does some pose and I just kind of watch. You know? Okay?

So the other guy somebody came up to Buddha Palida and said are you are you telling me that it that it was meaningless for Lord Buddha to have taught the greater way? Right? And then Buddha Palida said he answered why are you accusing me of that?

Why do you say that? He says well because according to you he already taught it in the lower way. Got it?

Okay? Who's who's attacking Buddha Palida with these words? There's only one other guy here.

Baba Viveka. Baba Viveka's attacking Buddha Palida with these words. Got it?

When Baba Viveka attacks Buddha Palida with these words saying well you know because Buddha already taught emptiness in the lower way is he saying because Buddha in general taught emptiness in the scriptures of the lower way or is he saying because Lord Buddha taught emptiness in certain scriptures of the lower way or in special scriptures of the lower way? Okay? That's the question.

Okay? Alright? Is Master Baba Viveka saying because Lord Buddha taught emptiness in the scriptures of the lower way in general or is he saying to Buddha Palida because Lord Buddha taught emptiness in a special collection within the collection of the scriptures of the lower way?

Got it? Which do you think it is? What do you think his accusation is?

He's talking to a guy who says that these people reached Nirvana which means they saw emptiness and then he's saying well are you saying that then that Lord Buddha didn't have to teach the higher way? And then Buddha Palida says I didn't say that. He says, yeah you are because you said in the lower scriptures he taught emptiness.

Is Master Baba Viveka saying you're saying Lord Buddha taught emptiness in the lower scriptures all around the lower scriptures or is he saying Lord Buddha taught emptiness in certain special parts of the lower scriptures? Which one do you think? All of them.

It's all of them. Okay? Because it was the first thing Lord Buddha said.

He said We'll get there. Okay? The very four pillars of Buddhism which are spread to all Buddhist books include the statement that every single thing in the world is empty and has no nature of its own.

And that's everywhere. That's all throughout the Vinaya and that's all lower school. Okay?

Got it? It wasn't in some special section of the lower way. All right?

If it was the first then it must be incorrect. Because even Master Bala Viveka himself because even Master Bala Viveka himself would be left with no answer. Sorry.

If someone asked him accused him I'm going to give you a thing. I'm going to give you an example but I want you to tell me what I should call it. Are you ready?

Somebody comes up and says all fruits are blue. Okay? Somebody comes up and says all fruits are blue.

And then you say to them well, take a banana. And they say okay. And then you say so you're saying it must be blue, right?

Got it? What what can they answer? See, they can't say anything.

See, we can we call it Korsu. Korsu means you said all fruits were blue. Are bananas a fruit?

Yes. Yes. Are they blue?

No. Well then, Korsu. Korsu means three circles or something like that.

It means now you've gone and contradicted yourself. Got it? I'll say it again.

He came up and said all fruits are blue. And we said take a banana. Is it blue?

And then he says no. And then we say well, you know, what's your problem? I guess we can translate it as what's your problem?

How do you want to translate it? I mean, I need a semi-scholarly word for a person contradicting themselves. See what I mean?

You You guys are sleepy.

[Speaker 2]
This is it. You contradicted yourself. Self-contradiction.

[Speaker 1]
Is someone accused him of contradicting himself? How's that? Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
When the consequences of his answer were considered you have to add that, okay? That means okay, Mr. Fruit Man let's go through this. Okay?

It's called a reality check. You say are all fruits blue? You're the fruit man.

Go, go. Come on. Are all fruits blue?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. Is banana blue?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Are bananas blue?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
You contradicted yourself when the consequences of your answer were considered. Got it? Okay?

That's all. Now what's this mean? If Master Baba Viveka is talking about if he's saying that all the scriptures or most of the scriptures of the lower way teach emptiness, right?

Then does he have a foot to stand on when he's fighting with Buddha Palita? He said to Buddha Palita are you telling me it was useless for your Lord Buddha to teach the greater way? What's Buddha Palita going to say?

It wasn't useless. Now he's going to say yes, it was useless because he's taught he taught emptiness throughout the lower way. Who believes that?

Does Buddha Palita believe that Lord Buddha taught emptiness throughout the lower way? He apparently doesn't believe it if he accused Buddha Palita of that. You see?

Right? If he said to Buddha Palita sarcastically oh, so you're telling me it was useless for Lord Buddha to teach the greater way? Buddha Palita says why are you saying I said that?

He says, well, because he taught it all throughout the lower way. Then he probably is going to add according to you okay? Which implies that Bhagavad Gita doesn't believe it.

Okay, good. But does Master Bhagavad Gita have to agree that the lower sages in general did teach emptiness?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
He has to. In which case his own argument would turn back on him. Okay?

So he cannot have meant throughout the lower way because he believed that. Okay? Got it?

Okay, it's hard in a way. And that is so the case because Master Bhagavad Gita Bhagavad Gita You can't do this with alcohol. Because Master Bhagavad Gita accepted that emptiness was taught was taught in the scriptural collection of the lower way.

Got it? He did accept that one Buddha taught emptiness in the scriptures in the lower way. So he cannot have accused Buddha believed that of saying that the Maya was useless if it was because Lord Buddha taught emptiness in the lower way in general because he also believed that.

Got it? Okay. So it must have been some other meaning.

Okay, here we go. But the latter would also be incorrect. The idea in your system that both Master of the Vedanta and Master believed that the sutra in which Lord Buddha said all things nothing in the world nothing in the universe all things in the universe are empty and employed in the self nature.

Right? Is a unique scripture of the greater way is unfounded. Okay.

So I'm going to skip to something else. Okay, are you ready? This is a little aside.

Otherwise you can't understand this very well. Say These are the four what do they call that? Confucius Ni Guai Le Ma Ah What do they call his sayings?

Analects? Yeah. It's like the Analects or something like that.

His sayings. Okay? Chökyi Domshe is the four summaries of all Dharma.

You can call it the four pillars of Buddhism. You can call it the four pillars of Buddhism. Here they are.

By the way these are also called Chakya. What is Chakya?

[Speaker 2]
A seal.

[Speaker 1]
A seal. Okay. Actually it refers It refers to the thing with which you make the seal, which we also call a seal, unfortunately.

When you use a seal on wax, you come out with a seal. And they collect those jade seals from the emperors and all that. So chakya means a seal.

In what sense does chakya mean your spiritual partner? Yeah, you should never be separated from your spiritual partner. Any more than a king should never be separated from their seal.

Because the seal is what validated a document in ancient times, up until quite recently, maybe 1920s, in China. The emperor had a seal. And if they wrote a letter and said, the bearer of this letter gets 24 kilos of gold from the treasury, and if they put a stamp on it, then people knew what his stamp looked like, and they would give the 24 kilos of gold to anybody who had that letter.

And that was the only way to confirm that this letter was from the emperor. And of course it was more than a death penalty to try to copy it. In fact, if you did try to copy it, you would be killed by having your skin peeled off.

Your close family would be hanged. The second cousins would be beaten to death. And then the third cousins would be driven out of the country.

So there was this inducement system not to do bad things. Because your whole extended family was punished. That was the system.

So, nobody would copy the emperor's seal, who was not crazy. So, this kartakichakyashi, you can see in the second line of the book. kartakichakyashi.

Say kar. tak. tak.

ki. ki. chakya.

chakya.

[Speaker 2]
chi.

[Speaker 1]
The four seals, or the four certifications, that something is kar. What's kar? Like a conger.

Yeah, the word of the Buddha. How, as a Buddhist, do you know that a book is worth reading? It has to cover these four subjects.

If it doesn't cover these four subjects, it's not worth reading. Okay? So, probably most manga is ruled out.

Okay? Do you know manga? Japanese comic books.

I only know them because I have a close friend who reads them constantly. Okay. And these are the four ideas that mark a book as a Buddhist book.

These four ideas are not in the book. Either directly or by implication. And the book is not worth reading.

First one. Say. duje.

tabje.

[Speaker 2]
mitakpa. mitakpa.

[Speaker 1]
Anything which is brought about by causes will pass. Anything which is brought about by causes must pass. Okay?

duje tabje mitakpa. Your life. Your car.

Your house. Your family. Okay?

Anything which had a cause. Your body. Must pass.

Okay? That's the first principle of... pillar of Buddhism.

Here's the second one. sakje tabje dunyawa. Say sakje.

sakje. tabje.

[Speaker 2]
tabje. dunyawa. dunyawa.

[Speaker 1]
Anything which is involved with negative thoughts will cause you suffering. Anything which is involved with negative thoughts will cause you suffering. Okay?

If... If... If in a day you have thoughts of anger, jealousy, desire, you will suffer.

You must suffer. Okay? Here's the third one.

Say sakje tabje. sakje. tabje.

tabje. tabje. tabje.

tabje. All things are empty. And nothing has any nature of its own.

All things are empty. And nothing has any nature of its own. What does it mean to say nothing has any nature of its own?

You can consider Cowgirl in the Sand by Emilio. Okay? The greatest rock and roll song ever written.

Okay? Is it a good song in itself? No, it depends on who's listening.

Okay? My roommate in college, I used to play it over and over. And then he would say, Turn off that screaming eunuch.

So apparently he didn't hear it the same way. Okay? So when we say it doesn't have a nature of its own, what we mean is, in the case of your favorite song, it's not good from its own side.

The song is not good from its own side. There's nothing good in the song. When I say nature, you have to think in the song.

It's coming from you. If you hear something good, it's coming from you. Now, more difficult, is fire hot in itself?

Is heat in the fire? No, some people don't experience, people don't experience this room in the same way. Some people say it's too hot, some people say it's too cold.

Temperature is relative to people, to different people. Okay? Even that thing which defines the thing as what it is, is not inherent in it.

That's really radical. Okay? What makes fire, fire?

It's hot. Even that thing which defines the thing as fire, is not part of it. It's coming from you.

Okay? When they say nature, that's what they mean. It's very radical.

It's very, very radical to say The very quality which makes fire itself, is not in it. It's coming from you. Okay, got it?

Much less cowardly said. Okay. Then the last of the four pillars of Buddhism.

Say, Nyangenle, Nyangenle, Denpa, Denpa, Shiwao, Shiwao, Nyangenle Denpa, Nyangenle Denpa, Shiwao, Shiwao, the only peace you will ever find is Nirvana. The only peace you can ever find is Nirvana. If you are left to things which are created by the karmic seeds in your mind, you will suffer.

You must suffer. You must overcome the creation of the world by your negative deeds and thoughts. Otherwise, you must suffer.

How much of the world in which you are currently engaged, what has been created by your negative emotions? 100%. 100%.

Okay. Alright. There's a debate about the teaching.

Like, teaching is difficult to say. Okay? It was created by your anger or desire or...

We have to talk about that. There's a debate about that. Okay?

There's a debate. Okay. Anyway, there's a debate whether teaching would be created by your negativity.

Alright? So these are the four pillars of Buddhism. These were taught since the first day that Lord Buddha ever taught.

Now we go back to our text. Did the Buddha say all things in the universe are empty and devoid of any self-nature? Did the Buddha say that?

There's no Buddhist book that doesn't say that. That's one of the four marks of a Buddhist book. Got it?

Okay. He's doing a really extreme example to win this debate. He's saying like, Hey, what do you think?

Did the Buddha ever say that all things in the world are empty and devoid of any self-nature? This is the first thing Lord Buddha ever said. And if you don't say it, the book's not a Buddhist book.

So did Lord Buddha ever say that? Did the books which he taught say that? Yes.

Did he teach the books of the lower way?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
So do they fulfill the four requirements of a good Buddhist book? Yes. So in all of the scriptures of the lower way, did Lord Buddha say directly or indirectly all things are empty?

Yes. So don't tell me, you know. Don't tell me there's some special collection where he said that.

You got it? Alright. Because everybody agrees to that.

And for you to make up some special collection where he talked about emptiness, where he didn't talk about emptiness in the other books of the lower way, is... I almost said a bad word. It's just bad.

It also started with B. Okay? It's just a stupid idea.

This whole idea of you guys is stupid. Now there's a problem with the text here, okay? I don't know if any of you noticed.

Right here. Sorry. You'll see.

That's the problem. Come on. Right here.

What's that say? Greater way. What are we been arguing about?

Lower way. I can't help you. Either that someone made a mistake in the scripture, or...

They say, the author of this book, Kirtan Devadhargi, when he got to this book, he was so old that they were propping up his eyes with toothpicks. And he was writing. And...

So, in our monastery, we say, don't change it. It's a... It's an expression of the courage of Kirtan Devadhargi.

He was sitting there with toothpicks in his eyes. Uh... Or you can go to great lengths to say, maybe he is talking about the idea that special section of the greater way is stupid, which would also imply that the idea of a special section of the lower way would be stupid.

Okay? Alright? I don't know which one.

It's a little weird. And if it weren't that way, then the previous argument would have been... Delve means...

What do you call that? It means no connection. But there's a good word in English.

That argument would have been... Irrelevant. Irrelevant.

Yeah. Okay? That's good.

Okay. I'm going to leave that. Uh...

This brings us to the second part of our presentation, where we cover two different points.

[Speaker 2]
Uh...

[Speaker 1]
Uh... On... Uh...

Address... Uh... Defeating...

Arguments... Which were not good... Uh...

In the commentary. These include... Defeating...

Arguments... That our position... Contradicts...

The... What are the differentizations? In...

In defeating... Arguments... That our position...

Contradicts... Uh... The root text...

In commentary... Of... The higher way.

So, we're going to have some more arguments about... Whether or not the... People on the lower track see emptiness.

Okay? And these arguments don't come up in the books on the middle way. These arguments come up in different books.

Okay? What other books? Say, uh...

Lutoken... And Gilam...

[Speaker 2]
Lutoken... Gilam...

[Speaker 1]
These are both books by Maitreya. These are both books by the next Buddha. Okay?

Uh... Which were written down in the 4th century. Okay?

Uh... They represent the thinking of... What schools do you know?

Mahayana? Yogacara? Mahayana?

Uh... Yeah, the higher way. Gilama.

Uttara Tantra. Which is not a tantra. Okay?

It's not a tantra. It's called the... It's called the tantra, but it's not a tantra.

That's my only school. School number three. What's, uh...

It's lower middle way. Okay? So we've covered arguments that appear in the higher middle way in the commentary by Chandrakirti.

But were there arguments presented in other schools about this question of... Can you see emptiness directly without... Without having compassion.

Without having ultimate compassion. And that used to really bother me. The question used to really bother me.

Because it seemed to me that if seeing emptiness is the most difficult thing in the world that you would have to have the karma of compassion to see it. Right? And it used to really bother me.

The position accepted by our school is that you don't have to have compassion. You see? He had a similar section in this text earlier on.

He asked a question which comes up a lot in our DCI retreats around the world. Business retreats. Do you have to have a true concern for others?

For the practice of using generosity to make money to work. Do you have to have a true concern for the recipient of your giving in order for that giving to produce money for you? No.

The answer is no. It's really weird. You can...

I like to compare it to a physicist. Physicists come very close to understanding emptiness. A physicist would say you're not walking on the floor.

Your feet never touch the atoms on the floor. They get in their cold calculated way without any concern for the welfare of the objects of their science. The victims of their science.

I mean... What do you call it? A true scientist.

Not like an Einstein who later had second thoughts. But a cold rational scientist would just blow up a city to see if the bomb worked. You see what I mean?

In theory, they would be concerned about whether the bomb would work or not. And there were people like that. Most of the people who invented the atom bomb that was used in Japan like Oppenheimer and Einstein, they were working at Princeton.

They changed their attitude afterwards. Before they were like, gee, I wonder if this will ignite the entire atmosphere. Which they didn't know that it wouldn't when they set it off in New Mexico.

There were a lot of them that thought it would ignite the atmosphere in the entire world. And they just wanted to see. You can have deep insights into the nature of reality and not really care about what happens to people.

But not the highest realizations. Okay, here we go. Here's the first.

Do you guys need a break? What time did I start? I started at 2?

How late did we go? I'll give you a break in like 10 minutes, okay? I know this is totally like, I don't know, rocket science to you, but I was in Singapore and I gave a talk to a large audience.

I told you at the trade union, 600 people came. I figured a lot of them never came before, so I maybe dumbed it down. Then we had a debrief afterwards.

And this French guy attacked me. He just attacked me. He said, Keshav, that's exactly the same talk you gave last year when you came to Singapore.

We had to wait a whole year for you to come back and give the same talk again. I'm like, I'm sorry, but there were like 300 people in the audience who never heard it. So what am I going to do?

Do you want me to just forge on ahead and leave them all in the dust? And he was like, yeah. So I'm kind of forging on ahead.

This is the class where I get to do what I, you know, something really challenging. I'm not going to dumb it down for you. If you want the dumbed down version, you can come to the DCI talk.

Alright, here we go. Because otherwise I'll never teach it and no one will ever learn it in English, okay? Because I don't think there's anyone who could do it.

Alright, here we go. Here's the first. The first is coming from here.

Someone makes the following. Someone comes and makes the following argument. It's incorrect to say that everyone who is a higher being, who is a realized being has undergone the perception of emptiness.

And it's also incorrect to say that the tendency to believe that things are real is a mental affliction. Okay, so this needs some explanation. Is it true that anyone who has eliminated their negative thoughts forever has seen emptiness directly?

Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Is it true that misunderstanding your world is a mental affliction? There's a big debate about it, okay? There's a big debate about it.

Is it a bad karma to misunderstand your world?

[Speaker 2]
Yes. The scriptures say no. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
The first link in the wheel of life is karmically neutral. Okay. I mean, there's arguments like that.

Okay. They lead you to negativity. It leads you to it.

But whether it is itself bad karma is a debate. It's interesting. Okay.

Now, mental affliction obstacle means an obstacle which prevents you from achieving nirvana. Okay. That's a technical term in scripture.

There are two kinds of obstacles. The one called mental affliction obstacles is the kind that prevents you from achieving nirvana. Okay.

The problem is if misunderstanding your world is a mental affliction obstacle, then you must overcome it when you achieve nirvana. Got it? Okay.

If misunderstanding your world is a mental affliction type of obstacle, then you must overcome it when you achieve nirvana. Which would imply that anyone who achieved nirvana saw into this directly. Right?

Because they overcame their tendency to see things the wrong way. Got it? So can the lower schools accept that misunderstanding your world is a mental affliction obstacle?

There are schools of thought which say the lower arhats, the lower people who have achieved nirvana cannot have seen emptiness in its highest form. Got it? We're talking about schools of thought which say what makes them lower is they don't understand emptiness in its complete form.

Got it? If you define nirvana as overcoming all of your negativities and if you throw in misunderstanding your world, and you also agree that these lower guys achieved nirvana, then you must be agreeing that they have seen emptiness in its highest form directly. Okay?

Without having compassion. And they have trouble with that. They have a problem with that.

Okay? So they don't want to throw avidya, misunderstanding your world, into the mental afflictions that you overcome when you reach nirvana. Because that would imply that you saw emptiness directly.

Even if you were in a bodhisattva. Okay? That would imply that you saw the highest form of emptiness directly without having kindness.

Okay? And that bothers them. Got it?

So this is one of those guys. He's saying, it's not true that you have to see emptiness directly, even to reach arya, even to reach a papa. Third one.

He doesn't say dharchamba. I thought he should have said dharchamba, but that's another point. Okay?

It's not true that you have to have seen the emptiness to reach path number three. Directly. The highest form of emptiness.

And it's also not true that you have to overcome your ignorance to reach nirvana. Because if you did, then those lower guys, who don't have love, would have seen emptiness directly, in its highest form. He has a problem with that.

Got it? Yikes! Okay.

And that's because of the minds which say, because they have been able to eliminate their misunderstanding of the object, but not yet their misunderstanding of the mind, which holds this up to. So he's quoting... Now, this is a trick.

I'll start it, and then I'll give you a break. Okay? And then, probably half the people will leave.

I remember getting this lecture in Dharmsala in 1974 and falling asleep. Okay. He's quoting the Abhisamaya Avakara.

He's quoting a book written by no less than the next Buddha, Maitreya. Okay? He's quoting a book by the next Buddha.

Okay? And that book says, there are people who reach a point where they can understand the emptiness of, let's say, Rob, or the pen on Rob's notebook. Right?

There are people who have reached a point where they can understand the nature, or the emptiness, of the pen on Rob's notebook, but not the perception of the pen that I'm having when I look at the pen. Got it? And so this school, which is what school again?

Abhisamaya Avakara. Lower Middle Way. They say, it's more difficult to understand the emptiness of the perceiver than the perceived.

And that's not a bad position, I don't think. You can demonstrate the emptiness of the pen rather easily. You hold it up.

You say, what's this? People say, bee. Bee.

Then you say, you know, is it a pen to a ko? Ko? Dog?

Dog? Yeah. Is it a pen to dog?

You say, no. And then you say, well, then what is it to a dog? It's a chitoy.

Then if I put the pen here, and all the dogs leave the room, and all the people leave the room, then what is it? Which one is it? You have to think neither.

Okay? Right? Am I right?

If you nod, you can have a break. Just nod. When the teacher asks a question, just keep going.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So that's, you know, anyone can demonstrate the emptiness of a pen in like, in what? It took a minute? 30 seconds?

Okay. But the emptiness of the mind which is perceiving the pen, that's a little more subtle. Okay?

That's a little more subtle. Could I, could I have been having a perception of a chitoy? Yes.

Is the perception itself locked in to a perception of a pen?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Could it have just as well been the perception of a chitoy? Yes. And then in that case, what would that have made me?

A dog. A dog. Got it?

It's a little more difficult to talk about the emptiness of the perception of a pen than it is to talk about the emptiness of the pen which you perceive. The Abhisamaya Alankara school, the lower middle way school, states that self-made Buddhas understand the emptiness of the pen, but they don't get it about the perception of the pen. About the perception of the pen.

Got it? They call it, say, sungzin? Sungzin.

Gitopar.

[Speaker 2]
Gitopar.

[Speaker 1]
Sungzin gitopar.

[Speaker 2]
Sungzin gitopar.

[Speaker 1]
Sung means that which is held. Zin means that which is holding. Then, last question.

In the Vajrayogini scriptures, and in the scriptures on yoga, the inner body, the chakras, the channels, prana, they say inside of your body are sungzin giti shing. Sungzin giti shing. Vines of ivy, which are either the held or the holding.

Okay? And when you achieve enlightenment, when you really achieve perfect yoga, even just asanas, you have eliminated the vines of the holding and the held. They're called the vines of the holding and the held.

So, just to try to make it more relevant to everybody, okay? We've been doing yoga, right? There are three main channels in the body.

What do they call it in Sanskrit? Right side? Pingala.

Pingala. Left side? Inda.

[Speaker 2]
Inda. Inda.

[Speaker 1]
In the middle? Sushumna. Sushumna.

Okay? The pingala and the ida cross over the sushumna. They're here, here, here, here.

All the places where Lady Niga Yoga is supposed to attack. Right? What's the purpose of Lady Niga Yoga?

To untie those knots. To untie those. These two side channels are called the vines of grasping and what is grasped.

In the Vajrayogini sadhana you can see those words. The vines of the grasping and the grasped. What it refers to is this idea.

What it refers to is this idea. There are certain products in your body which cause you to misunderstand the things which your mind is perceiving. And there are other channels, products in the body which cause you to misunderstand the mind which is perceiving the things which you misunderstand.

Okay? Which one is it? The inda.

When product flows through the... When you give a general talk about Lady Niga yoga, you tell the audience what's running in the left hand channel? Your desire for too many Starbucks biscottis.

The third biscotti that you eat, there's got to be some product running in the inda. Okay? And if you did yoga before you went to Starbucks and if you improved the flow of product in the inda, you wouldn't want the third biscotti.

You might have noticed that. After a good yoga session you go out, you don't feel like mis-eating, abusing your body with bad food. Okay?

On the right side is what? Pingala. If the product is flowing to the right side, you get upset in a traffic jam.

If there's irregularities about the flow of product on the right side, you get angry easily. So pingala is related to anger. Red color, sun.

In the yoga sutra, it's called the surya channel, sun channel. The left channel is called the moon channel. Right?

Chandra. But on a deeper level, which I never go into in DCI retreats because they would fall asleep. On a deeper level, the tendency to misunderstand the objects in the world is running through the right channel.

And the tendency to misunderstand the perceivers of the world is running through the left channel.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Misunderstanding how you perceive the pen, the perceiver, is running through the left channel. Misunderstanding the pen which you perceive is running through the right channel. So, the purpose of yoga is the same as what he's been describing here.

Okay? It's to prevent those side channels from functioning. And misunderstanding your world and what perceives your world.

Got it? Now, I'll ask you a question. If you answer it correctly, you can have a break.

If not, you have to listen to more philosophy. According to their idea, the self-made Buddha track, they're able to shut down one of the side channels but not the other. Which one do they shut down?

Yeah, they can shut down the right-hand channel. But they can't shut down the left-hand channel. They grasp the emptiness of the objects which they perceive.

But they cannot grasp the emptiness of the perceivers of what they perceive. Got it? If you answer it correctly, you get to have a break.

So, come back and we'll go back. We'll start back in like 10 minutes, right? Can we go till 5 or something?

Okay. Okay, so... Oh, we've been down there.

Okay. So, we're... Okay?

Very well. Okay. So, the other guy, a new other guy, has come up to us and said, look, in Dhyanvi Samarankara, the ornament of...

the Jewel of Realization Samarankara, this book is by whom? Maitreya, written down by? These are big shots.

These are Paul and Pusa. And these are big people. And...

they... they said these lines. What these are saying is that...

That's it. Got it? It's still the other guy.

He's making an argument. Why? Why did Maitreya himself say that people on a lower track...

And it's assumed that he's talking about vibration of mind, okay? That they do grasp that Rob's pen is empty, but they cannot grasp that the mind which grasps Rob's pen is empty. Okay, got it?

That implies that people on a lower track had less than a full understanding of emptiness. They only understood the emptiness of half the stuff. Got it?

That implies that they didn't need to see emptiness in its full form to eliminate their negative emotions. Got it? Okay?

It seems to be saying that. The Abhisamaya Anukarata, the jewel of realizations, seems to be saying that. We also see the tendency to believe that things are real is played as being an obstacle for missions.

At the point in the scripture which says that Okay, it says literally Okay, that quotation doesn't mean anything to us yet. To say negative emotion and all the things of the three paths, it doesn't mean anything yet to us, okay? But we know that the other guy is interpreting it to mean what?

Please. That misunderstanding your world is not an obstacle to nirvana, it's an obstacle to omniscience, okay? Which implies you wouldn't have to get rid of it to reach nirvana.

Which implies you wouldn't have to see emptiness directly to reach nirvana.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
That's all. So he's rebutting us. You know, we've been trying to say that, I mean, you have to focus on the lesson of this for yourself.

Okay? What's the lesson of this whole last 50 pages for yourself? It's that unless you understand emptiness, you cannot become happy.

It's not possible. It cannot happen. In this school of thought called Buddhism, no, I mean, there's many other schools of thought, but in this school of thought it's not possible to become a truly happy person without understanding how much of that world is not coming from its own side.

Okay? It's not possible. You will never be happy unless you understand that you are creating the things around you.

Got it? And that all the things you're upset at don't exist. Because by being upset at them, you are assuming that they're coming from their own side.

And those don't exist. Okay? Got it?

Now, I went and got some quotations, which is why we're doing the ACIP effort, right? And I pulled out... Oftentimes, in a scripture, they will use a quotation to prove something, believing that all the listeners know this minor scripture.

But we don't. Okay? They will quote a piece of a scripture on the assumption that you already know that whole section, by heart.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
And I memorized the whole thing, but I forgot the whole thing. It's 75 pages long. I think the day after I finished it, I started forgetting it.

Now it's complete. But... They assume that you know what the whole section refers to, and you don't.

So what I did, I went and... First of all, I went to the Tengger to get the... The original scripture, the Asanga and Maitreya's original book, to get the surrounding lines, the context.

And then I went to the greatest monastic scholar of all time, to see what he said about those lines. Choninama. From?

Sarah Mae.

[Speaker 2]
Just by coincidence.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? So, up here, you see, this is the original text from the Tengger, with the surrounding lines. Tengger means ancient books from India, before Buddhists have got to Tibet.

And then here's the explanation that you find in the Tibetan monastery, in these lines. So I'm gonna... I'm gonna read it for you, Choninama's explanation of these lines.

Then we have to go back, and see why they seem to be a problem. They seem to be a good weapon to use against us, when we say, you must see emptiness directly, in order to be happy. Even just to be happy.

We said, you have to see emptiness directly, even to be happy. Just to be a happy person. We say, it's not possible otherwise.

He's fighting with us. He's got some ammunition, that he claims comes from a book by... Maitreya.

So we're gonna go to the book by Maitreya. We're gonna see how those lines were explained by a great monastic scholar from the 1600s. And then we're gonna go back and see if they can be used as ammunition against us or not.

Okay, here we go. I'm gonna start with a Tibetan explanation. Nientzhu drachma yukti dok go ten chö chen.

Consider the fact that they have overcome negative emotions. Consider that fact within the mind stream of a person, on the lowest of the three tracks, who has achieved Nirvana. So what's our...

In a debate, you always give an example. You give something we're gonna talk about. Let's talk about what?

Let's talk about a person who has achieved Nirvana in the lowest of the three tracks. And let's examine what he no longer has in his mind. Meaning negative emotions.

Got it? Chö chen. Noma nientzhu nang go te.

Noma nientzhu nang go te. Nyo mo pape nientzhu ki chawa yinpe chen. Noma nientzhu nang go te.

It's something that... Hang on. Oh.

Okay, this is a... This is a huge misspelling in the typing. Okay?

Sorry. I mean, it's totally incomprehensible. This part here should be nang tak.

Okay? Instead of nang go. So this is a mistyping.

It will take a hundred and fifty years to type in all the scriptures of Buddhism. It will take seven hundred years to edit. Okay?

So we're somewhere in the first twenty-five years. Seriously. That's where we are.

So anyway. Noma nientzhu nang go te. Nyo mo pape nientzhu ki chawa yinpe chen.

That is what we call the purity of a listener, a disciple, shravaka. Right? Because it is a state in which that person on the lowest track has overcome all of their negative emotions.

Okay? So the nirvana of a person on the lowest track is defined as that point they get to where they've eliminated all their negative emotions. That's all.

So far everything's fine. Rang gyal ja chok pe gyur kyi go ten pi chur chen. Now consider...

You can say the nirvana in the mind of an arhat who is a self-made Buddha. Second track arhat. Second track nirvana reacher.

Let's talk about that. Seru rang sang gyur kyi man bak gyur te. This is the purity which belongs to a rhinoceros.

Okay? So those kinds of practitioners, they were called rhinoceroses. And they say it's because rhinoceroses like to stay alone.

They don't like to peer on other people. They are loners. The rhinoceros in scripture means a loner.

So they don't join the company of other people and they practice on their own and they reach their nirvana on their own. Okay? You can call them rhinoceros.

You can call them self-made Buddha. It's actually... Technically it's one part of the self-made Buddha.

Okay? Seru rang sang gyur kyi man bak gyur te. Suk chiro dung dzin gyi she che gyur pey do pa pan pey nang gyur gyur te This is a...

This is a... a freedom that they have from... Suk chiro dung dzin gyi she che gyur pey do pa.

Okay? Suk means physical man. Chiro means outside.

Dung dzin which means... takes it as being outside. She che gyur pey means this is an obstacle to...

omniscience. Omniscience. What does it mean to...

hold that things are outside? What does it mean to say that things are outside? It has two meanings really.

We'll get to it. One. They believe that the reality of things is in atoms.

Okay? They believe that when I pick up this clock if I wanted to reach its reality if I wanted to understand its ultimate reality I should take it apart. Take off the face, take off the buttons, take off the stem.

Divide the stem into sections of the stem and then get down to the component atoms of the periodic table. See? This many carbon atoms, this many...

and then that would be the building blocks of the thing. They believe that. Got it?

Who else thinks that? Everybody in the world. Okay?

The entire world believes that. Okay? The reality...

this clock is made of atoms. Those atoms each have a specific identity. There's some called carbon, there's some called...

and molecules. You know, okay? We get down to the...

or you could say elements. You get down to the basic elements. And then you found the reality of the thing.

That's where the thing is coming from. If it had more iron it would be green. Because iron absorbs the yellow and the red spectra.

Okay? Like that. They would believe that.

Okay? They would say that's where the clock is coming from. And that is the modern scientific view.

Okay? So... what he's saying is that...

if you... in the system of this book, which is what book? Ornament of Realizations.

By... My turn. In his system, on track two, when you see emptiness, you grasp that this eight, that the reality of this clock, is not its tiny pieces.

What's holding up the wall? What's holding up this wall? Is it...

Is it the... What do you call that? Tensile strength of the molecules that are inside the concrete.

[Speaker 2]
In which school?

[Speaker 1]
Let's say in high school. Let's say in the high school. Is it the tensile strength of the materials in the wall that is holding up the wall?

Because we host people. Yeah. We...

For instance, I mean, the wall is a projection from your mind, whose substance is composed of your kindness towards others who needed a place to stay, or they needed a place to have a program. And you provided such a place. And that put a seed in your mind.

And therefore you see a wall holding up the roof. I gave this lecture in 1999 in the Quaker House on 14th Street? In the East Village.

And we talked about the World Trade Center. And we were saying, what keeps up the World Trade Center? Is it the tensile strength of the beams of steel and concrete?

And then we were saying, no. That building can only stand as long as the collective kindness of the people who interact with that building remains. It's those seeds.

And when those seeds were out, the building must come down. Even if the steel still has this tensile strength to hold up the building. You see what I mean?

It must come down. And it's really weird. So in this school, when you overcome the idea that it's the chemicals in the wall that's keeping it up, you have seen emptiness.

When you no longer believe that outer object's reality is imparted to them by the chemicals in the wall. Alright? Got it?

That's tied up with the worldview that the object and the subject are coming from the same karmic seed. Okay? Those are tied together.

We'll see how. We'll see how. Chah Pak Gekul Den Cheh Chen Now consider the Nirvana that's reached by Bodhisattva.

Okay? So we finished the first two tracks. Now we're on the third track.

In the first track, you eliminated your mental afflictions. In the second track, you eliminated obstacles too. Shedzin jipa.

And in the second paragraph. In the third track, Chah Pak Gekul Den Cheh Chen Gyel Sen Lön Kyi Lönpa Tapa Yinpe Lam Sum Kyi Jipa Chirin Nyanpa Te Phang Pei Chang Sim Kyi Tawa Yinpe Ye Chup The Bodhisattva track person's Nirvana is one in which they have eliminated all of the obstacles relating to all three tracks. Okay?

Got that? This is whose system. Lower middle way.

Then he takes another one. Sang Gekul Den Cheh Chen Consider the Nirvana in the heart of a Buddha. Nam Kung Shin Tue Tak Pa It's called the purity of all things.

Why? Gyel Sin Lön Pa Gekul Den Cheh They have eliminated both obstacles. To their omniscience and obstacles of negative emotions.

They've eliminated both. That's the meaning of those lines of description. All the things I just said is the meaning of the lines of description that the guy used against us.

Why did he pull out that line of description? What was he trying to prove?

[Speaker 2]
That the lower hearts overcome misperceptions of objects that haven't overcome misperceptions of their own mind. Let's go back.

[Speaker 1]
He said it's incorrect to say that you need to see emptiness directly to remove your mental afflictions. Okay? Let's just say it that way.

Why? Because there are people who have removed their mental afflictions who understood the emptiness of the object but not the subject. Got it?

Their understanding of emptiness was incomplete but they still reached Nirvana. So it's not true that you have to understand emptiness fully to get rid of your negativities. Got it?

Because in that book it says these guys still see their mind as self-existent but not the pet. Got it? Then he quoted...

Now we can translate this more responsibly. Now we can translate this more responsibly. And watch where my cursor is, okay?

I think Alistair and Nibo are the only ones... I don't know who keeps up here. Yoho, Shedja, Laksmaki, Nyamchir, Lama, Seru, Gyelsangnam Gitappa.

The purity... Going backwards, okay? The purity achieved by bodhisattvas and rhinocerai and the disciples which means listeners.

Okay? Happens when their mental afflictions and the normal thing and all three paths is destroyed. Yeah.

Got it? I'll say it again. By the way, try to understand what a future Buddha is saying.

It's like he's on acid. It's just like he's on acid. And you can never...

It takes years. It takes 12 years to cover the 75 pages of the Abhisamana card. We spend our first 12 years in the Keshe program.

That's 6 pages a year. Okay? Of constant debate and learning.

So, because it's so psychedelic. Okay? What he's saying here in these lines is that the purity or you could say the cessation achieved by these three tracks.

What? The one we call student track, which means? Listeners.

The one we call rhinoceros track, which means? Sattva buddhas. And the one we call bodhisattva track, which means?

Bodhisattvas. Okay? The cessation achieved by those three tracks is respectively...

Okay? Ready? Yomos?

Mental affliction. Sejah? All normal things.

And Lamsung Ki means of all three paths, which means the obstacles of all three paths. All three tracks. Got it?

So it's totally difficult. Now let's go back to he used the quotation. We also see the tendency to believe that things aren't real.

Explain as being an obstacle to new missions. At the point in the scripture, which includes the line, they end. You see?

The negative emotions. Normal things. And those are...

Now we have the correct translation of that line. What? So I'm going to go...

We got to go really slow, but we are going slow. Which kind of emptiness does the Red Osprey's guide see? Does he see the emptiness of the pen?

Yes. Does he see the emptiness of the mind which is perceiving the pen? No.

No. He doesn't. Okay?

His understanding of emptiness is incomplete. He understands the emptiness of the pen, but he doesn't understand the emptiness of the mind which is perceiving the pen. Got it?

But what does he eliminate? What is he able to eliminate?

[Speaker 2]
Obstacles to new missions. Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So can we say that you need to see full on emptiness to even remove your mental afflictions? No. You can remove your obstacles to omniscience without understanding emptiness fully according to this very reputable scripture written by a Buddha.

Got it? Okay? Now you must be misreading it, but we don't know how yet.

Got it? Are you alright? Okay?

Yes.

[Speaker 2]
I want to know what's left to overcome on the third path.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And that must too be the case. Because it is stated that because our tendency to think that things are real is first divided into three types.

Lesser, medium, and great. And each of these is then divided into three types on its own. Including for example the lesser form of the lesser the lesser form of the lesser form of this tendency for a total of nine.

Okay, so this is the point. In these systems when you overcome your misunderstanding of objects they categorize your misunderstanding of things into nine different kinds. There are nine different degrees of misunderstanding.

They come from dividing three into three. What are the three? More subtle ignorance, less subtle ignorance, and obvious ignorance.

Okay? Very subtle ignorance, medium ignorance, and gross ignorance. Got it?

Then the subtle ignorance itself is divided into the grosser form of subtle ignorance, the medium form of subtle ignorance, and the most subtle form of subtle ignorance. Got it? Which makes a total of nine.

Got it? So there'll be a grosser form of middle form of ignorance, there'll be a middle form of the middle form of ignorance, and there'll be a more subtle form of the middle form of ignorance. Got it?

Which makes a total of nine. Okay? Which of those nine do you think you have to overcome to reach the Buddha?

Just say it, can you? Just... The subtle form of what?

Subtle form. Got it? You overcome that, then you hit Nirvana.

I'll say it again. Your tendency to misunderstand your world can be divided into three kinds. The people who are making big mistakes about their world.

The people who are making medium mistakes about their world. And the people who are making subtle mistakes about their world. Okay?

The people who are making subtle mistakes about their world can further be divided into three. The people who are making obvious subtle mistakes. The people who are making medium subtle mistakes.

And the people who are making subtle subtle mistakes. Who's closest to Nirvana? The people who only...

All we have left is a very subtle form of the subtle form of misunderstanding your world. If they overcome that, what happens? They're in Nirvana.

They hit Nirvana. Got it? Here we go.

Okay. Because our tendency to think that things are real is first divided into three types. Lesser, medium, and great.

And then each of these is divided into three types of its own. Including, for example, the lesser form of the lesser form of this tendency. For a total of nine.

Got it? And what the uninterrupted path of the end of the final moment eliminates is this. I'll say subtle, right?

That's maybe better, right? Because lesser would seem to be less powerful. But actually the lesser is more powerful.

I'm in-depth in it. Why? It's still the other guy talking.

All of these arguments are being presented by the other guy. He's made three different arguments. One was, I don't even remember.

One was that people on the second track can overcome their tendency to see the penance coming from its own side, but not their tendency to see their own mind as coming from its own side. Okay? Got it?

A. B. Maitreya himself said that people who still have that problem nonetheless overcame the obstacles to omniscience itself.

Much less nirvana. So it's not true that you have to see full emptiness to reach nirvana. Got it?

That's his second argument. Here's his third argument. Misunderstanding your world is divided into many, many different forms.

And now you have to know this. These are code words. What does uninterrupted path mean?

Parche Mela. What does that mean? Rinpoche, when he got...

We lived for, what? We lived for 25 years together in a Mongolian community, which some of you know about. It was populated by several thousand escapees from Hitler's concentration camps.

These were tough people. They jumped over the fences. They ran to the forest.

They survived. They were dumped with the Jews. The Jews and the Mongols were put together.

They were foreigners. And they were killed. So you're talking a whole town inhabited by these incredibly tough people who still wore...

some of them still wore jackboots. So we would be studying a scripture like this, and then somebody would just bang on the door by putting their hand through the door. Because this was their level of subtlety.

And then Rinpoche would turn and say, Parche Mela. Which means what? You know, Parche means interruption.

Me means without interruption. La means path. Parche Mela is a philosophical term used to refer to the direct perception of emptiness.

Parche Mela refers to the direct perception of emptiness. Okay? So he would say...

Somebody would smash the door down. He'd say, uninterrupted path. Meaning, we got interrupted.

Okay? That's a joke. So Parche Mela means the direct perception of emptiness.

Okay? The final moment means the last moment before you reach Nirvana. You go into meditation.

On? Emptiness. And that overcomes...

The subtle form of your tendency to think that things are coming from the outside. Okay? That's how you get to Nirvana.

The millisecond before Nirvana, you are always in a meditation on emptiness. And that overcomes your most subtle of the subtle forms of your tendency to think things are coming from the outside. Got it?

Somehow bringing that up in the other guy's mind proves that you don't have to see emptiness directly to get to Nirvana. It would seem to prove the opposite to me. Okay?

I don't. You probably have to think about it. Okay, we'll just start the next paragraph and then we'll take a break.

A well-deserved break. By the way, if this is the first class you came to in this series, come back tomorrow. There's a better class.

Okay? This is just for the hardcore people. And I...

If we don't do some hardcore stuff, it's not really fun, right? It's nice to do... It's nice to give everybody a little mix of things.

[Speaker 2]
You know?

[Speaker 1]
Just to go over basic stuff all the time gets tiring in a way. So, I throw in one hardcore class every couple of classes. Okay?

So, you're in a hardcore class. Don't stress about it. Come back tomorrow night.

Don't give up. There's something more digestible tomorrow night. Okay.

Here, then, is our own position and what it means. Here, then, is our own position. When the scripture says that someone is able to eliminate their tendency to believe that the objects which their mind holds are real, but is, at the same time, unable to eliminate their tendency to believe that their states of mind which hold these objects are real.

Okay? Got it? When the scripture says that some people are able to eliminate their belief that the pen is self-existent, but not their belief that the state of mind which receives the pen is self-existent.

Okay? Got it? We don't have a sentence yet.

When the scripture says that, which of the following three things do you think this refers to? He's going to give him three choices. Okay?

When you say a guy reaches a point where they understand the ending is at the pen, but not the perception of the pen, what does it mean to you? What does that really mean to you? And he's going to give him three choices.

Okay? I added the numbers because it was so incredibly confusing. Okay?

Here are the three choices. Ready? I'm going to say the choices and then we're going to take a break.

And by the time you get back from dinner, you will understand them completely. Chirubi ten seme drupa shirchen ne suma dene du tok zumba dene du matopa dan chepa yin nam Yin nam, for those of you who are studying Tibetan, means is it that or the nam means or Then he'll say the second choice. So at the end of the first choice he says or Okay?

Nam means or. Okay? Chirubi ten seme drupa shirchen ne Take as a given the fact that outer objects are established by a correct perception.

Take as a fact that outer objects the existence of outer objects is confirmed by a correct perception. Take that as a given. Okay?

shirchen ne suma dene du tok Given that they first understand that Okay? That this outer object can be confirmed and that it's not what it seems to be. Okay?

But that the mind holding it they don't understand that that's not what it seems to be. Is that what you mean? Okay?

Is that what you mean when you say they understand the antithesis of the pen but not the antithesis of their own mind? Got it? That is our first option.

Usually all three options are done. suk, sung jin, sema, dan, zei, shen, yin, pa, ma, ke sung jin, sema, suk, dan, zei, shen, yin, pa, ma, ke Or I gotta get this straight, okay? This is really hard.

Or are you saying that they grasp that the pen is coming from the same karmic seed as the perception of the pen but they don't get it that the perception of the pen is coming from the same karmic seed as the pen? Okay? I'll say it again.

Or are you saying that they grasp that they get it that the pen doesn't come from a separate karmic seed from the perception of the pen but they don't get it that the perception of the pen is coming from the same karmic seed as the pen? Got it? Okay?

Got it? Okay. I got one now.

I'll just keep going. Okay. Or are you saying Third choice.

Third bad choice. Or are you saying that they are able to eliminate the misunderstanding which takes that flower to be an object but they are unable to eliminate the misunderstanding about the state of mind which holds it? Okay?

Got it? He gave us three choices. These are three choices.

We're asking him to clarify what he means when he says these people at the second level okay they understand the emptiness of the pen but they don't understand the emptiness of the state of mind which is seeing the pen. Got it? Then we're asking him to clarify what do you mean by that?

And then we're gonna what do you call it stab him in all three. Okay? Alright?

So I put a seed in your mind for the three choices and when we get back we'll go through the three choices and we'll see which one he meant. I think the sexiest one is he gets it that the pen comes from the same karmic seed as the perception pen but he doesn't get it that the perception pen would come from the same karmic seed as the pen. Because that's a question, right?

Okay? Got it? Because generally we've all studied Mahamudra we all know that which number item?

Four? The pen and the perception of the pen the fact that they don't come from a separate seed is their emptiness. Okay?

And just to throw another thing in for you scholars, okay? I always had a little bit of trouble distinguishing that from number six. Okay?

It seemed like pretty good to me. To understand that the pen doesn't come from a separate karmic seed than the observer of the pen would seem like another version of number six to me. Okay?

He throws in a qualifier this author throws in a qualifier to understand that the pen which is made of atomic elements comes from the same karmic seed as the mind which perceives the pen. Now there's a problem with it. Got it?

So it's almost comfortable for me. It's almost more comfortable for me. Got it?

And by the way when the mind-only school says that there are no outer objects what they're really referring to and we have to study that is outer objects which could consist of elements. Okay? There's a question of whether the mind-only school really believes mind-only.

And just bear in mind that that might be a wrong name for them. Okay? Alright?

Okay. Now you're free. Have a nice day.

We'll see you at what? Seven? No, let's do it again.

You want to do it again with me? Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Again, the point that everyone can take home whether you've heard this book or not and whether this all sounds like just gibberish to you or not very important to you the point you can definitely take home is that in this school, in Buddhism you will never be happy until you see that everything around you is coming from you. It's not possible.

They say it's not possible to be a truly happy person until you see that everything is coming from you how you treat other people which is quite similar to some other philosophy. Okay. Alright.