Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 106

[Speaker 1]
Okay, we'll start. So, this is a text that we started in 2003. We're on page...

what page are we on? I don't know. We're on page 37, after nine years.

So, it's a little bit difficult. Well, I think it's 200 and something pages, which means 54 years total. But anyway, this text is about emptiness, which is the most important idea of Buddhism.

And I think the most important idea for this world, if it could be taught in a practical way that people could use. So, for example, we have DCI programs around the world. I don't know how many cities now.

156 cities are on the list. I don't know how many we've gone to, maybe 40 or something. But the idea of DCI is to try to teach normal people who don't want to be Buddhist, how to use emptiness without calling it emptiness, to get the things they want in their life.

Financial security, nice relationship, good health. And everybody deep down wants to save the world. So, after they get the first three, normally they want to do the fourth, like Bill Gates.

So, we've sort of got this idea to take the authentic teachings of the highest ideas of Buddhism, repackage it as something that normal people can relate to, and then go out and teach it in the world. So, you know, when I... I don't know how many people are here, 40 or 50 people, right?

When I teach the original text, maybe 40 or 50 people will be interested in the whole world. If I give a yoga talk, maybe 200 people in New York will come, right? 200, 300 people.

If I give a partner talk, 800 people come. So, if you want to reach... If you have a message that you believe can bring people their dreams, a new message, a new idea for how to do things, then I think it has to be presented in...

The Buddhism words have to be stripped out, and the text has to be stripped out. It has to be broken down to basic ideas that people can use in a way that they can absorb, they can digest. And I think we've been very successful.

And as I keep saying, on the last tour, we hit... Accidentally, we hit a thousand people in three of the talks on the last tour in Guadalajara and Colombia. Colombia is the first time we've ever been there.

So, I think it's working to present these ideas, and people get a feeling that they can use it in their real life. Then I say, when you hit a thousand... We hit a thousand in...

When I was in Guadalajara, I thought, oh, now the demons are going to rise. In Buddhism, they say, when you hit a real peak, then you stick your head up on the demon radar. And I think we did a good job.

Seriously. So, when you start dealing with very powerful forces globally, then things are going to happen. So, don't be so serious about it, and don't be so worried about it.

It's a compliment. I think my book's sales doubled yesterday on Amazon, okay? It went from 40,000 to...

We have to have more scandals. So, anyway, it's not the way I would have liked to have done it, but we are dealing with very powerful forces. These ideas are very powerful forces.

If you can relate them to normal people, without using Buddhist lingo or yoga lingo, if you can use normal language, a thousand people will come. But that said, the people who teach those ideas should have the authentic original books in their mind. They should be trained in the authentic stuff.

And then you can simplify it for people, but you should know the details, and then from there you should simplify it. So, you are sort of the core. People who show up for this text are sort of the core, okay?

Then I got really pissed off. Somebody online said, Geshe Michael doesn't understand emptiness. I don't mind the rest, you know.

But... I really don't mind the rest. But that was...

So, let's talk a little bit about emptiness. I mean Buddha taught emptiness, okay? And in those days people were very unusual.

They memorized what he said as he said it. They were much more advanced spiritually than we are, two and a half thousand years ago. Then there was a decline of the emptiness teachings in the world for about six or seven hundred years.

And then along came Arya Nagarjuna who brought them back. He taught the emptiness teachings again. He brought them back, the highest emptiness teachings.

Then there was a sort of a little bit of a decline, and then the next hero was Master Chandrakirti who was defending a person named Buddha Palita who was trying to restore the correct ideas about emptiness. then it's pretty much a little bit of a dip until you get to 1400 which is Je Tsongkapa, the teacher of the first Dalai Lama. So really, the teacher of the first Dalai Lama had insights into emptiness that people hadn't had for 900 years or something.

He just had extraordinary insights and he was able to express those ideas correctly in a book called, mainly in a book called Gompa Rabsa which I was trained in privately for eight years by the best scripture teacher in the world, I think. And it's a very profound book. It's almost a thousand pages.

It's the ultimate book on emptiness and very difficult. Extremely difficult. After it was written, the great monasteries, the three great monasteries were born in Tibet which are, the best one is Sera and then Ganden and Debu.

So these are the three, they're called the big three. Densatsu means the three, the three seats of learning. And combined enrollment before 1959 was 25,000, 30,000 monks.

From our monastery, 108 survived the cultural revolution. 108 survived. Came to where?

Came to India. Then we started to rebuild the monastery. It's up to about 3,000 now.

But in those great monasteries, and there's two great colleges in each monastery. So Sera has Sera Jay and Sera Mae. And like that, they all have different, two colleges.

So there are six great colleges of the lineage of the Dalai Lamas. Each college has their own textbooks and those textbooks are called Yikcha. And they explain Jatakapa.

So that's the lineage. You have the Buddha being explained by Arya Nagarjuna, being explained by Chandrakirti, being explained by Tsongkhapa, being explained by the textbook writer from your personal college. You're from Sera Mae, which has the best textbooks.

Then some scholar wrote me the other day, said, we shouldn't input those monastic textbooks. They're not very useful. This is from a person, I don't know, one of the leading scholars in America who never set foot in a monastery that I'm aware of.

If you read them, if someone trains you in them, and it takes about four years to learn the one on emptiness. The course in the monastery is four years. Then you really understand Tsongkhapa.

And if you understand Tsongkhapa, you understand Chandrakirti. If you understand Chandrakirti, you understand Nagarjuna. If you understand Nagarjuna, you understand the Buddha.

And there's no other way. I don't believe there's any other way. If you skip any of those, you won't understand.

And I have never in my life heard a good explanation of emptiness anywhere. Okay? That's all.

So, you're in a... I claim, okay? I'm just standing up here.

You know. I claim that you will get a correct and accurate understanding of emptiness through this textbook, okay? And you can't get a complete understanding without it.

So, it's just the state of the world that there's only 100 people here or 75, whatever. You know? To hear the only accurate explanation you can get of emptiness, I think, I believe.

And I'm not afraid to say it. Because heck, there's enough... Nobody's going to worry about a little more controversy.

Okay? I believe that. I really believe that.

So, what I'm asking is pay attention and work hard. Because this is a difficult text, but it's thorough. And if you don't ask these questions that it's going to ask today, and in the last 9 years, and in the 40 years to come, then you won't understand emptiness.

You can't understand emptiness. And somebody says they do and it can't be. Because this is the only place where they ask those questions.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So, you have to really work hard. And I don't teach this a lot. I teach it twice a year.

I think maybe someday we have to start it online because we'll never finish. It'll take 40 years. And people could learn it online.

Something like that. I think we have to go to that sooner or later when I have some time. Okay?

And I mean what I say. All right. And I don't say it often.

You haven't heard me say it very often. All right. So, we're in the middle of a discussion which says...

By the way, this book is written in the highest of the four schools and in the highest half of the four schools of ancient India. Okay? The lowest of the four schools is...

Abhidharma, Vaibhashika, which is all they have in Sri Lanka, Thailand. But they didn't get the rest. It didn't reach there.

Then the second school is... Sautrantika, which is perceptual theory. The third school is...

Mind only. Basically which says everything is coming from your mind, but much more sophisticated than that. And the highest school is Middle Way.

And the highest school has two sub-schools, the lower highest school and the higher highest school. The higher highest school is called Prasangika and the lower one is called Sautrantika. So, this text we're studying is Prasangika.

It's the highest text you can get. And all higher practices like yoga depend on this presentation and tantra. They're all based on this presentation.

And we've been in a very interesting discussion. It's very very beautiful. Somebody says, is it possible to achieve nirvana without seeing emptiness directly?

Can you see... Can you reach nirvana without seeing emptiness directly? Is it possible?

And we say, no, it's not possible. Then, let's just put it simply, which you have to struggle to do in your real life. When you talk to normal people, you can't be throwing out Prasangika and Sautrantika and...

all this stuff. You have to boil it down to what they can use. Let's take the case of the angry boss, or angry spouse, or angry partner.

Someone's yelling at you, right? Then, nirvana is defined as... Huh?

NIRNIR BALUBBA BAM MI SOGS TANGO giving up your negative emotions forever because you've been able to see emptiness directly. Okay? We say nirvana is giving up your negativities forever.

Anger, jealousy, desire, that's nirvana. So, if a person has reached nirvana yesterday, would they look different today? Not much, okay?

I mean, they might be more smiley or something, but physically they wouldn't look different. Nirvana is not the same as enlightenment, right? Enlightenment comes much later.

When you go from no negative emotions up to omniscience, knowing all the objects in the world, in the universe, at the same time, past, present and future, that's Buddhahood, that's enlightenment. And that's a big jump. That's a big difference, right?

So, let's say I'm working on my anger. There are two ways to work on anger. One is we call band-aid.

Temporary... What do you call it? Suppress the anger.

You can suppress the anger. And that's all the Buddhist teachings you ever heard in this world. Okay?

They're like, you know, certain books from... Do I have to say their name? No.

You know, try to be nice. Somebody is mean to you. Try to smile, you know.

Don't fight back. Try to be friendly. Then you're a real Buddhist, you know.

I like that. Breathe, breathe slowly. You know, and...

You know, like you hear that kind of thing. Then that doesn't fix your anger. It suppresses it.

Okay, I'll breathe slowly. And then it will be suppressed for a while. You know, if you do yoga, if you do a hard yoga, chronically you suppress your negative emotions for a few hours.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So you'd have to do a hard yoga every couple hours to reach nirvana. And if it's Jenny teaching, it's hopeless. Because you would die before you reach nirvana.

But anyway... So what's a better method to deal with your anger? It's to understand emptiness.

It's the only way to eliminate anger permanently. Well, what... How does that work when your husband's yelling at you?

Instead of trying to breathe more slowly or something like that, you look at your husband yelling, and you think, he's empty. What does empty mean? He's not the way he looks to be.

What's that mean? He's not yelling at me. Okay?

The husband who decided to yell at me isn't there, and never was. Okay? There's no husband who decided to yell at me this morning, and he never was there.

There's no such thing. Okay? Husbands don't decide to yell at you.

Your karma from yelling at somebody else last week ripens in your own mind. And you think you see a husband yelling. But there is no husband there, except for the one coming out of your own karmic seeds.

Okay? So, you're responsible for every irritating person you ever met. Period.

Then you can start to deal with your anger. You can remove anger permanently. Okay?

Somebody yells at you. Somebody criticizes you in the New York Times. Then what should you do?

Write back in the New Yorker. You know? What should you do?

Where are they coming from? Who created them? I did.

I created them. Why? I was judgmental.

I was saying nobody understood emptiness except me and stuff like that. Okay. And then I planted a seed, and then I'm forced to see them.

Then I don't feel angry at them. I don't want to attack them, because I don't want to be attacked again next week. Okay?

So, then my anger goes away, and I reach nirvana. Okay? Only understanding emptiness can make you reach nirvana.

Only. Okay? So, that's the argument.

Now, this text has reached a point where that idea is being challenged. Okay? Other people, which are called Shen Luke, other guys are coming and challenging the author and saying, no, I believe you can reach nirvana without seeing emptiness directly.

Okay? And why? Because you see it in two of the most important books of Buddhism.

Okay? That you can reach nirvana without seeing emptiness directly. Okay?

What are those two books? One is called Abhisamaya Alankara, written in the 4th century by Arya Sangha taking notes from Maitreya, the future Buddha. Okay?

The next Buddha to come. So, that's a book that was written 16 centuries ago. In that book, it seems to say, you don't have to see emptiness to reach nirvana.

Okay? Then there's another book called Gilama Uttara Tantra, which is not a tantra. The tantra in that book just means a string.

Okay? That was written by Master Sangha also, Arya Sangha, taking notation from Lord Maitreya. They were written in the same period.

Five great books by Maitreya were written down at that time. Two of them seem to say, you don't have to see emptiness to reach nirvana. You don't have to understand that your husband is coming from you in order to stop being angry at him.

You can suppress it. You can breathe slowly. Okay?

Like that. Or you can be friendly. Okay?

Like that. Alright? It seems to say that.

Those two books seem to say that. So, we're in the middle of that argument. Okay?

We've probably been there for a couple of years. I don't know. Because I have to re-explain it every time.

So anyway, in the first book, which is called The Ornament of Realizations, Abhisamaya Alankara, we studied that for twelve years in the monastery. I memorized the whole thing. Okay?

The whole textbook. You have to... In that text, they seem to present three degrees of emptiness.

Okay? Say, dakme... charak...

sum. Dakme... charak...

sum. So, I'm going to give you a little slide class about dakme charak sum. And then I'll erase the whole thing.

Okay? Jigme. Or maybe I'll put it in a separate document.

How's that? Dak... Let's make it bigger for you.

Is that big enough? Can everybody see it okay?

[Speaker 2]
Let's say... Okay.

[Speaker 1]
What's dakme mean? No self. Okay?

By the way, it doesn't mean myself, it can mean itself or herself or himself. Is your husband himself? When he yells at you.

Yeah, he is. Somebody's yelling at you. There's a guy there.

You can punch him. Your fist will be sore the next day. There's a guy there.

Is he himself? Is he coming from himself? No, that's the idea.

Okay? When they say no self, anatman in Buddhism, it doesn't mean there's no guy there. That's dumb.

Somebody's yelling at you. Okay? It doesn't mean that.

It means that, can you point to the husband who's yelling at you, that's not your fault. You know, I tell people, raise your right... raise your finger, you know.

Point to the Geshe Michael who's giving a talk about emptiness, who you didn't create. Then you just go like... Okay?

That's emptiness. That's no self. There's no Geshe Michael's self like that.

It just means no guy, or no thing, or no girl. Okay? No self means that.

Don't get all philosophical on me. Okay? There's no self.

There's nobody. Okay? Three degrees of nobody.

Is that okay? Three degrees of nobody there. Okay?

Tra means subtle. Rak means gross. Sum means three.

It means in this school, what school, whose text? Ornament of Realizations written by Arya Sangha taking dictation from the future Buddha. Okay?

In that school, in that text, which is which of the four classical schools of India? It's lower middle way school. Svatantrika.

Okay? So the lower half of the higher school says that there are three degrees of emptiness or selflessness. Okay?

And I threw them into your Maha Mudra six levels. Okay? I stuck them in there so you would learn them.

I stuck them in there fifteen years ago. Okay? If you've ever learned the six flavors of emptiness, I stuck them in there.

Okay? They are divided into two types. Cukkidagme.

Let's say Gansaki Dagme. Cukkidagme. And Chukkidagme.

Okay? The fact that there is no consort there. Person there.

Okay? And let's say A and B. Okay?

And B. The fact that there is no thing there. Okay?

So when you say... Are you ready? Anybody got a Chuto I can borrow?

What's this thing? You got to say it depends on who's looking at it, right? If a human looks at it, they'll say a pen.

If a dog sees it, they'll say it's a... something to chew on. If all the dogs left the room and all the people left the room and I left this thing on this lectern, which one would it be then?

Then around the world, on every continent, people go like this. You know? It wouldn't be either.

Until a dog comes in, it becomes a... Chuto I. Then when a human walks in, it becomes a...

Pen. When they both leave, it's a... You can go like that.

Okay? That's the lack... That's the fact that there is no thing here.

That's the second one here. Okay? Chukkidagme.

Chukkidagme. Then Gansaki dogme. Is Geshe Michael giving an interesting talk today?

Is there a Geshe Michael giving an interesting talk? To some people, maybe. Okay?

To the people who are already asleep. And I just started. Everybody's like this.

Not me. It's not interesting. So people can also be empty.

Meaning, I'm not interesting and I'm not boring. It just depends on you. Okay?

Geshe Michael who is interesting from his own side is not there. And never was. Okay?

So it's no use to fight about, don't say that stuff about my teacher or something like that. Because that's like telling a dog, you know, don't see this as a Chuto I. You know?

Write with it. And they're like, you know, okay. Okay, Gansaki dogme and Chukkidagme.

Each of them has two flavors. Okay? That's why I use the letters.

One, I'm going to start it from the bottom. Okay? I'm starting from the roughest forms of emptiness.

By the way, in this school they won't call them emptiness. They will call them lack of a thing or lack of a person, lack of a self. Okay?

But I'm not going to confuse you. For us, I'll call it a kind of emptiness, but it's not really in this school. It's a kind of a lack of being there.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Gansaki dogme, the Rakta one, what do you call it? Gross? You want to say gross?

Gross means to me like disgusting, but... Roughest? Rough.

Let's say gross, okay? Gross version. A yelling boss who will last forever.

Okay? I'm getting all these emails from people. The best thing they can offer me is, don't worry, it won't last forever.

I like to think of Lincoln. He was in the middle of the Civil War. I mean, he was killing tens of thousands of human souls and he was a very religious man and it deeply disturbed him to be responsible for that.

And all he could say at one point was, this too shall pass. This also will pass. And it always passes.

Okay? Okay? So the grossest version of emptiness in this school is a problem which will...

well, a problem person who will last forever. Is there such a person? Does there exist a problem person who will last forever?

No, there's no such thing. Okay? Can you say they are not there?

Can you say they have never been there? A problem person who will last forever. They've never been there.

Okay? Never have been there. Couldn't be there.

Okay? Things change. Everybody changes.

Okay? Is that emptiness? No.

Is it helpful? Yeah. It's comforting.

Someone writes me and says, don't worry, in like ten years, you know, when the internet goes down, that article will be gone. You know? When there's a nuclear war or something.

You know, like, don't worry, it'll pass. Okay? All right?

So that's comforting, but it's not going to remove your negativities. Okay? Somebody can say, don't be angry at those people.

And it will help me to be not angry, but it probably won't stop me from being upset sometimes. Okay? I'll still, like, wake up in the morning and go, you know, before I put on my Buddhist hat.

Okay? So, it's a stopgap. It's a band-aid.

It doesn't last... It slips. Okay?

It's comforting, but it's not... It's not like a solution, a real solution. Got it?

Okay. Okay. Number two.

Why are you doing that? Subtle version. A yelling boss that I have any control over.

Okay? Okay? Your boss is yelling at you.

Do you have any control over... current control over the situation. Let's say current control.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Do you have any current control over the situation? Let's go to you, okay? Raise your left arm.

Lower your left arm. Do you have control over your left arm? There's an illusion of control over your left arm.

You don't have control over your left arm. It's temporary. Okay?

Unless your practice is amazing and miraculous, and your yoga is miraculous, and you break the secrets of yoga, you will die, and you will let... gravity will win. Okay?

Gravity is pulling on you all day, and one day gravity will win, and you'll be laying on the bed, and somebody will say, raise your arm, and you'll go... and you won't be able to raise it. On that day, you will realize, you never had control over your arm.

Okay? You were not in control of your arm. Okay?

There's an illusion of control. You have served the sick, you have served the needy, you have taught yoga classes. That seat allows you to raise your arm one more time.

Okay? But those seats will run out, and there'll come a day when you cannot raise your arm. You don't have control, current control over situations.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
You can write to the New York Times, op-ed, you know, don't say those things. You can... you know, you can pay somebody, you can go send an army to New York.

You don't have control. You don't know what will happen. You see what I mean?

You don't have control over these things. So don't be so, you know, frustrated, and don't be angry and sad. You can't control.

Don't... What made you think you could control those things? You can't.

It's obvious. Okay? Don't be all upset about them.

Is that... Is the lack of a controllable situation emptiness? No.

It's a higher kind of lack of something. There are no controllable situations, but it's not emptiness. Is it helpful to think that...

to realize that you cannot control a situation? It's helpful. By the way, does that mean you should just roll over and not do anything?

No, you have to try. Try, but don't get upset if it doesn't work, or if it makes things worse. Okay?

Try if you want, but don't get freaked out if it doesn't work. Okay? Because you can't control the situation.

Let's go to Chökyi Dogme. It also has two versions. Gross version.

There is a pen there made of atoms with sides to them. This is a little complicated. Sorry.

Which isn't coming from the same karmic seed as me standing here to receive it. Oops. Let's start a little bit more basic, okay?

By the way, this class is hard. If you don't want to... This is like Jenny Brill's yoga class, you know?

You can always just do... What do they call that? When they refuse to do the pose and they flop down on the mat.

Give up asana. Child's pose. You can always do that, okay?

You can always just look around the room or fiddle with your fingers or something. This is a hard class. I only get to teach it like once every three months.

And I ain't making it easy, okay? Kind of I am, but anyway. And this can save your life, okay?

This can prevent the day that you can't raise your arm. If you really understand it, you can save your life, okay? Which is why we're doing it.

So, first I'll ask you a question. Is Geshe Michael looking at the pen? Yes.

Who made the pen? According to this system, who made the pen? If I'm holding a pen and I'm looking at a pen, who made the pen for me?

I did. How? I gave other people pens in the past and I got more pens back.

More than I gained. That's the whole idea, right? I created this pen for me.

Who put me here? I did, okay? Now, this school of Buddhism, which happens to be the mind-only school, says that Geshe Michael looking at the pen and the pen that Geshe Michael is looking at both come from a single karmic seed.

Like two branches of a tree, okay? Have the two branches of a tree come from separate seeds? No, it was one seed, it grew a sprout, which turned into a trunk and then that split into two branches, okay?

It might look like they are separate, but they are not. Causally, they are not. Causally, both branches have flowed out of the same seed down below, okay?

Who put me here to see a pen? I did. Who put the pen here for me to see?

I did, at the same time, okay? It looks like we're separate, but historically, we're flowing from the same cause. Why is this relevant to your life?

When your partner is yelling at you, who put you there? I did. Who put them there?

I did. When were they both planted? On the same day, in the same hour, in the same moment, when you yelled at your kids, three weeks ago.

Okay? Two separate things are flowing from a single cause. Okay?

That's a lower school idea. Do you feel comfortable with that? Is there something lesser about this idea?

Is there something that can be corrected about this idea? I, and the pen, am flowing from a single incident that happened three weeks ago. Is there some flaw with that idea?

No, there's not. It's beautiful. It's perfect.

Okay? But, it's the lower school's idea. Why?

What's the problem? You have to add something. Okay?

And many, many teachers don't understand this point. Okay? You have to add something that makes it wrong.

You ready? The pen, which I, which me and him flowed from the same karmic seed. Okay?

Has atoms. It's made of atoms, which have sides to them. Left and right sides.

Up and top, bottom. Bottom and top. Got it?

This is called, who thinks that in the modern world? A school called science. And it's wrong.

I gave a talk at Princeton. It was very cool. It's called A Better History of Time.

I invited Stephen Hawking's publisher. He was freaking out. Okay.

Scientists believe that this thing is made of pieces. That's all. Got it?

This is a subtle point. That have sides to them. Left and right side.

Up and bottom side. They are the smallest dilly-woppers in the world. But they still have a left side and a right side, or they couldn't be there.

If the left side of the thing touches the right side of the thing, the thing couldn't be there anymore. Am I right? It must have some diameter.

Right? Or bunches of them couldn't make a whole pen. If the little bitty things that make this pen don't have any fatness to them, then a whole bunch of them together is not gonna be a half inch.

It's not possible. If the left side of the atoms is touching the right side of the atoms, then they don't have any width. And you can put a zillion of them together and it still wouldn't have any width.

Got it? This school, higher school, says there's no such thing as an atom where the left side doesn't touch the right side. Okay?

Things don't have sides. The computer doesn't have a side. The computer you're looking at right now doesn't have a left side or a right side.

We say that. Comfortable? In Tibet, they say, comfortable?

It's uncomfortable, but it's true. Okay? Is there a husband who's yelling at you who's not coming from you?

Yes or no? You gotta stay with me or I'm stopping. I'll go sit in the room and read the rest myself.

It won't take me 12 years. Is the husband who's yelling at you coming from you? Yes.

Is there a husband there who's not coming from you? No. Now you're catching on.

Is the left side, is the computer top, which the reason I bought the Apple, you know why? Because this, when you open it, is right side up for other people. It's considerate.

That's why, you know, I thought, that's so beautiful. They're thinking how other people will see it. See, it's not like it's the right side up for me.

Anyway. You can't see the top of the computer without looking at the left side and looking at the right side. Okay?

It's not possible to see the top of the computer without looking at the left side of the computer and looking at the right side of the computer. But the human eye is incapable of detecting the left side and the right side at the same time. You have to focus on the left side.

That's why the eye keeps going like this. And then the eye goes over to the left side and it looks at this side. Okay?

It's not possible to see the top without seeing the left and right sides simultaneously. But you are incapable of seeing the left and right sides simultaneously. You cannot be seeing the top of a computer.

It's not coming because you saw the left side and the right side. Okay? The only way you can be seeing what you're seeing is if it's coming out of your own head.

And that's one of the proofs for emptiness. It's very interesting. You can't simultaneously see the left side and the right side.

Because you have to look at the left side and then you have to shift over to the right side. Your eyes don't work like this, okay? You feel like that, but it's not true.

Your eye looks at this side and then your eye looks at that side and then it pastes them together. See what I mean? That's a sign that the top doesn't exist outside of your mind.

Your mind is projecting a whole top out of your head. You're watching a picture in your own head. Okay?

Who put the picture there? It's popping out of a karmic seed in your subconscious. Who put the karmic seed there?

You. How did you put the seed there? You raised funds to buy a computer for Phil or something.

Venerable Phil. Okay? Like that.

Got it? There is no computer top there. And it never was.

Okay? Now, hang in here. Hang in there.

Am I coming from the same karmic seed as the top of the computer? If Geshe Michael is observing the top of the computer, is Geshe Michael and the top of the computer both coming from one incident in the past, at this moment? Yes.

Okay? I was nice to him. And then I got a seed in my head.

That seed popped open. And it created two things. The computer top and me to look at it.

Got it? One seed created two things. Got it?

Is that true? Yes. Is that the way it really is?

Yes. Then why are we in a lower school? Why is this the mind-only presentation?

Because they say that top has pieces to it. And those pieces have sides. Okay?

And physicists are struggling with this now. Ask a physicist if your foot touches the ground ever. And they'll say, no, it doesn't.

Okay? They draw atoms like this and like this, but really the nucleus and the whatever the other stuff is, electrons, they're like half a mile apart. You're walking somewhere where there's no matter, but it holds you up.

And they're struggling with this idea. They'll come, sooner or later they'll figure it out. Okay.

So that's the gross version. That's why I added atoms with sides to them. Okay?

That makes it the mind-only school and not the... which middle way? Prasangika.

Prasangika. Okay? You should have complained about that years ago.

I don't have a problem with worldview number four, was it? Was it three? I don't remember.

With Mahamudra that says me and the thing are coming from different... from the same seed. That's acceptable to highest middle way.

You see? Why is it so low on the ladder of six worldviews? Because you have to throw in the idea that the stuff you're looking at is made of little atoms that have left and right sides to them.

Got it? Once you throw that in, it becomes a wrong idea. If it's not in there, it's a right idea.

Got it? Just nod. If you don't understand, keep nodding.

And I'll move on. Okay. I remember hearing this lecture in India like 38 years ago.

I didn't know what the guy was talking about. Subtle version. ,,Lo nu men la nangway wang gi shaktsang mayin par, ,,Yur rang gi tummo muyang bi duluk gi ngu ne dupa," How do you say that?

There is a pen there, part of which is coming from its side, and part of it of which is coming from me. Simply put, okay, to make it simple. Is there a bottle here?

Anybody who doesn't think so, come here. Okay, there's a bottle there. Is it coming from its side or is it coming from me?

And the lower middle way school has to say, there's something there and I'm interpreting it. There is something really there. There's a bottle there and my mind is interpreting it.

And between the two, there's a thing. If you have both sides are okay, there's a thing. And they add, by the way, that I must not be drunk or stoned or crazy.

My mind must be at sema. My mind must be a reasonable pramana. First chapter Yoga Sutra, ,,Pratyaksha numan gama," Okay?

It must be a... It must be a reasonable perception. Like I'm not crazy or drunk or on LSD.

I'm in a normal state of mind. I'm interpreting that object as a bottle. Therefore, there's a bottle.

There's a cylindrical thing appearing to me with squishy stuff in the middle. I interpret it as a water bottle. And due to the collaboration of the two, there's a water bottle there.

Okay? Got it? Is that the highest worldview?

No. What would the highest worldview say? It's a hundred percent coming from you.

Okay? The data is also coming from you. It's not that you're interpreting data.

You made the data, and then you interpreted it. Okay? The atoms which you are interpreting also are coming from you.

Got it? Just everybody nod. Right now, nod.

Okay, good. Okay. I can see people's...

It feels like the 18th time she told us to switch our feet or something. I forget. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah. That was terrible. That's why we don't keep her here the whole week.

We send her back. Okay. Okay, I'm going to put asterisks here.

There's this one. And there's this one. We're not even to the text yet, which is why it's taking so long.

These three are considered the three degrees of emptiness in the lower middle way school. Okay? They don't count the lowest one, number four.

They don't count the gross version of no person there as being one of the three kinds of emptiness. They say there's three degrees of emptiness. Okay?

Got it? They say there's three degrees of emptiness, but really there's four. And they would accept that, but they're not so worried about that.

Okay? In this discussion that we're having today, that's not so important. I just want you to know there's four, and those are four of the six Mahamudra worldviews that you got 15 years ago.

[Speaker 2]
Okay? Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Why did they restrict it to three? Because there are three tracks of Buddhist practice. You can be on one of three levels.

You can go through the stages of Buddhist practice on three different tracks or three different levels. So they're sticking to those three emptinesses because they say those three tracks are defined by which emptiness you're seeing at the time. If you're seeing the subtle version of no person there, you're on the lowest track.

If you're seeing the gross version of no thing there, you're on the medium track. If you're seeing the emptiness which is the subtle version of no thing there, you're on the third track, the highest track. What are those three tracks called?

Well, the highest one is easy. Okay? Track number three which is the bodhisattva track.

What's track number two called? Self-made Buddha track. Okay?

And track number one, sorry, is called listener track. In Sanskrit, Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha and Bodhisattva. Okay?

So, according to the lower middle way school whose big book is Abhisamakara, the Ornament of Realization, written by Asanga, taking dictation from Maitreya 17 centuries ago. Okay? According to them, there's three degrees of emptiness and there are three tracks.

And which track you're on depends on which kind of emptiness you're working on. Okay? And which of the track one or track two or track three is dumbest one?

Just say a number from one to three. You got a 33% chance. Yeah, track number one is supposedly dumb.

Dumb means more brilliant than anybody on this planet. Okay? But relatively speaking, they are working with a form of emptiness which is least sophisticated.

What is that? I have no control over my yelling husband. They're working with that kind of lack of reality which is called emptiness or shunyata.

Okay? You don't... To call it emptiness is kind of difficult, I think.

You could call it something's not there. Okay? Who's not there?

Your husband, who's yelling at you, who isn't your father. There's no such thing. He was never there.

He will never be there. If you could get that through your thick skull, you wouldn't be upset anymore at the New York Times. But I am.

Okay. All right. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Then track number two is self-made Buddha.

They think, you know, emptiness means that the bottle and me don't come from separate karmic seed. And the bottle is made of little pieces that have sides to them. Got it?

And that's why it feels thick. The reason it feels thick is because it's a figment of your imagination which is thick. Okay?

But they don't get that because they're thick. Okay. Then the highest goal is Bodhisattva track.

And they believe that the highest form of emptiness is that there's a collaboration going on. I see a cylindrical object which is clear and my mind interprets it as a bottle. And between the two we have a real bottle of water and we can drink it.

And if either one were missing, we couldn't have a bottle of water. If it wasn't appearing as a cylinder, and if I wasn't taking it as a cylinder, there wouldn't be a bottle of water. In Buddhist practice, that theory is expressed as what kind of like lojong practice.

No. It's a lower practice, but it's helpful. It's comforting.

What? Khen ngen lam du chung wa. Khen ngen lam du chung wa.

You can make a useful practice out of any disaster. You can take any problem and turn it to an opportunity. Why is it a lower practice?

Wouldn't it be more pleasant just to see it as an opportunity in the first place and not have to struggle with it? Wouldn't it be better if the New York Times had written a nice article? You see what I mean?

This is a lower practice. They wrote a sucky article and I have to work on it. You see what I mean?

But wouldn't it be higher if I just collected different seeds and they wrote a... What do you call it? A very complimentary article.

You see what I mean? Okay? So it's a lower school that you have to work on it to twist it around to some kind of opportunity.

Wouldn't it be better... I mean, the donut there, I don't have to struggle to turn it around to a different opportunity. I just bite into it.

Okay? Like I don't have to sit there and struggle and say, oh, I wish it was not a different donut or something. I can just bite into it.

Wouldn't it be better if everything was like that? There's no kind of crap that I have to try to transform. It's just beautiful in the first place.

So we consider that a lower school. Now we're going to apply it to the actual text. Ready?

We didn't start the text yet. Yeah. Sorry.

Yeah. It better be relevant. Oh, yeah.

What Anatole is saying is that... And be aware of this. Be very aware of this.

We would say, add... doesn't really exist to each of these. Okay?

How's that? A yelling boss that I have current control over doesn't really exist. A scandal which is going to last forever doesn't really exist.

A problem which is not coming from something I did last week doesn't really exist. A problem which doesn't come half from its side and half from my side doesn't really exist. You have to add the word doesn't really exist.

That's, I think, what you're saying.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry. You're right. I'm sorry.

You're right. There's a pen there which is coming 100% from its own side and not... Okay.

How's that? Okay. You're correct.

That's correct. Yeah. Nice.

Okay. Now we come back to our original question. And this is important for your happiness, which is the purpose of coming to a class.

Okay. Like Jenny said this morning, you know, if these classes don't make you a more well-adjusted person, then they're not working. And if the yoga doesn't make you a nicer person, it's not working.

The point of this class is to make you a happier person. Okay? You didn't understand anything if tomorrow you're not happier than you are today by listening to these ideas.

Okay? And according to highest Buddhist practice, these are the only ideas that can truly make you happy. Okay?

Forever. And not just for a couple hours. Okay.

Ready? Is the last one emptiness? Not according to the highest school.

Okay? It's not.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
They would say that the cylinder is also coming from you. Okay? This last one here, the idea is that half of it's coming from the bottle side and half of it's coming from my side.

But in the high, high, high school, they say, the whole stick is coming from you. The whole shtick? The whole mishiga?

Mishigina? Whatever. Mishigina is a nunic, right?

It's a form of a nunic. Yeah, it's a subclass of nunic. What?

Okay. So, don't forget that we are talking from the point of view of the lower middle way school and all four versions of emptiness here are wrong. Who taught them?

Lord Buddha. Okay. Why does Lord Buddha teach something which is wrong?

Why does your teacher appear to do something which is wrong? Okay. Why?

They're trying to teach you something. They're trying to help you. They're trying to give you comfort.

It's comforting to say, look, it's not going to last forever.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Is it going to solve the problem? No. Is it comforting?

Yes. Will it help you get up to the next one? Yeah, it will.

Okay? You got to start somewhere. Okay?

It depends on the student's capacity. If they can't, like that guy last night was asking me a question. I gave him the real answer and he's like, he didn't appear to hear it.

And then I went down a level and he's like, and then I went down a level and it hit. You see what I mean? So, you got to keep going down, you know?

And then tell it, they hear it. Jesus said what? If you have ears, listen.

And then when you become a teacher, you will become very sensitive to the point that you can sit there and give somebody a correct answer and they just, they don't hear it. And then you go down a level and then they're like, and then, okay, I'll go down another level. And then they're like, oh yeah, okay, it won't last forever.

Then you're like, yes, that's my answer. Until they get one, you have to keep, quickly, he didn't even notice. I went, then he's like, oh yes, and I said, good.

You know, okay? So, all three of these are wrong. Okay, got it?

Let's consider the first two of them. Oh, by the way, in this school, in the lower half of the middle way school, the svatantrika school, are all three wrong? No, they say all three are fairly valid.

The third, the last one here, the last one that you see here, is the most correct one. Okay, that's emptiness. According to them.

I'm going to ask you a question, you ready? Wake up there. Wake up there.

I'm going to throw water on somebody. Rinpoche loved Dirty Harry. He's like, make my day.

He used to quote it constantly, make my day. Let me throw water on you. In this school, can you reach nirvana on the two lower tracks?

Yeah, okay. The end, the last part of the lower two tracks, the fifth of the five paths on the lower two tracks, no more learning, milo blam, dracomba, arhat, is nirvana. You reach nirvana, okay?

How do they define nirvana? You never again capable of being upset or angry. That's nirvana, okay?

So here comes my big question. In this school, can you reach nirvana without seeing emptiness, the highest form of emptiness? Yes.

Okay? People on the lower two tracks can reach nirvana without understanding emptiness fully. Got it?

That's where we are in the text. Now we can start the text. Now we can start the text.

This is why this stupid thing takes so long. You okay? Comfortable?

You okay with that? Now we can start the text. Maybe we should take a break.

Let's do it this way. I prefer to do it this way because it's hard to catch you up again after a break. If you feel like you want to take a pee-pee, if you'd like to go get a bottle of water, just get up and go, okay?

In a normal Buddhist class of this lineage, you're not allowed to. In the monastery, you can get up, although you'll probably get whipped. And you have to do three prostrations and run to the bathroom and then run back.

Okay? But you can just walk. So we're going to keep the class going.

Your butt's going to be tired. Your mind's going to be tired. But I think it'd be worse if we stopped because to catch you up again will be hard.

It's a flow of ideas. If you feel like you want to go to the bathroom, if you feel... You should stay hydrated, especially those of you who don't come from a desert.

You must keep drinking. Your mind will work better. So they say, even without seeing their highest version of emptiness, you can still reach nirvana.

You don't have to see emptiness directly. By the way, in their school, only the third of these is called, only this one, this one, in this school, is called emptiness. They don't refer to the other two as emptiness.

They refer to it as no self. That's not the same for them. Okay, so here we go.

We're going to go back to the text. Where did the text go? I don't know where the text went.

Yeah, here it is, I think. Now, we're going back to the text. We're doing a very cool thing.

I don't believe there's any other class in the world where anyone can do this. We are translating it on the fly. As we go through the class, we are translating it together.

That may be why it's so slow. But we're doing the English on the fly. Which frankly, I don't think anybody in the world can do.

So here we go. We got to this paragraph last time. It says, Even with people who are already of the greater way type, which of the three tracks is that?

Bodhisattva track, highest track. There are cases of people where it would be wrong to introduce them to the worldview of the middle way before introducing them to the worldview of the mind-only school. Got it?

Hmm. He's a little bit mixing the three tracks and the four schools. Okay?

He's mixing them. If I asked you, which of the three tracks is closest to the mind-only school, which one do you think it would be? Listener, self-made Buddha, or Bodhisattva?

Don't forget, Bodhisattva is what the lower half of the middle way school takes as the correct emptiness, because that's the school of that text. Which of the three tracks most closely reflects the mind-only school? The second one, okay?

The thing about the bottle and me coming from the same seed, okay? That reflects the mind-only school, okay? Especially, get this, the fact that it's made of pieces which don't have sides, or which have sides, okay?

Alright, got it? When you say mind-only, they don't think, actually, that the bottle is coming from my mind and I'm living in a fantasy world inside of my head. Every foreigner hears the word mind-only and they get all excited and they think, I'm living in my head, citta-matra in India, right?

Oh, I'm living in my head, you know? And they love it, they're all like, they're entranced by this thing. After sex scandals and money scandals is mind-only.

It's so interesting to people, you know? Everything's coming from me. I'm living in my own skull, you know?

That's not what mind-only means, okay? You should know, okay? What does mind-only mean?

This bottle is coming from the same karmic seed as me, okay? And it appears to be made of stuff that has sides to it, but it's not. Okay, got it?

That's all. That's what mind-only means, alright? So that the second level, the second track, which is called the self-made Buddha track, is the closest to the mind-only skull.

Got it? It's the closest. Why?

Because it says, I don't come from a separate karmic seed as the bottle, which is made of atoms. Okay? They don't accept the idea of atoms.

See? They believe that's emptiness. The lack of a bottle, which comes from a separate karmic seed from me and which has made of atoms, is emptiness.

Wrong on two points. If it was not coming from the same seed, it would be wrong. If it were made of atoms that had sides, it would be wrong.

That makes it mind-only. Okay, got it? Okay, here we go.

So you've got a student who's capable of understanding, possibly eventually able of understanding the middle way view. Okay? Would it ever be useful to lie to them and say that emptiness is the mind-only version of emptiness?

Would it ever be useful? Of course. Okay?

You keep going down until you hit the student's level. Okay? You can't walk into a bar and say to some guy, you know that beer is coming from you?

You know? You know what I mean? You've got to start with, look, the beer is not going to last forever.

Okay? You've got to start where they're at. Is that ultimate reality?

No. Is it true? Yes.

Is it helpful? Yes. Yeah, then they won't get upset when the beer runs out.

Okay? So you start at the person's own level. What he's saying here is, even if a person is greater way personality, it may be necessary to start with the mind-only version of emptiness before moving up to the lower middle way school, before moving up to the higher middle way school, before moving up to the tantric applications of emptiness.

What are those? People around you are not angels and not not angels. The people you're sitting next to right now, the two people on either side or the one on one side, I don't know, are neither angels nor not angels.

And that's emptiness in tantra. That's the emptiness of tantra. In tantra, that's emptiness.

Okay? Is the guy sitting next to you or the lady sitting next to you a divine being? Yes or no?

Can't say. You know? It depends on you.

Depends on where you're at. Make enough good karma, they will be. Don't have enough good karma, they won't be.

Independent of your karma, which one are they? You got to go. Okay?

No such thing. That's the tantric application of emptiness. Okay.

Now we can start on the text. No, we can't. In fact, notice here he uses the word...

Look at the cursor. He uses the word what? It would be wrong, it would be a disservice to try to hit them with an emptiness that was over their head.

Okay? And in fact, you break a vow. There's a Buddhist vow against trying to pressure somebody into a worldview that they're not ready for.

See what I mean? When the reporter asks about the diamond, you can start with the mystical experience of the diamond. And if they don't even hear it, don't like grab them by the collar and say, no, you didn't hear me.

They're not ready. So then drop down to the, oh, I wanted to clean up a bad business. I wanted to make all the diamond dealers honest.

Like that. Then they're like, oh, that's nice. Okay, got it?

It's wrong to try to force an idea on someone when they're not ready. And in debate, in logic, this is, get this, okay? This is one of the big differences between Aristotelian logic and the Buddhist version of Aristotelian logic.

Is it correct to say the sky... Here's a syllogism for you, okay? Consider the sky.

It has a color because it is blue. Is that correct? Is that a correct logical statement?

Consider the sky. It has a color... On a normal cloudless day, blah, blah, blah.

In the daytime, okay? Did we cover it? On Earth.

In these days. Okay? Consider the sky.

It has a color because it's blue. Is that a correct logical statement? You know, minor premise, major premise, conclusion.

Does it have? Yes. In Buddhism, they say no.

In Buddhism, in Buddhist formal logic as opposed to Aristotelian formal logic. And they may have come from the same place historically. It's interesting.

Because Alexander came to India and blah, blah. Just after the Buddha was there, 200 years after the Buddha was there. Okay?

And his teacher was Aristotle. Okay? So anyway, in Buddhism, we say not logical.

And they say, why? And they say, because it wouldn't be a logical statement to make to a blind person. Okay?

You must state, who is the syllogism being presented to? Then I can tell you if it fits logic, if it's logical or not. So in Buddhism, you must consider the condition of the person to whom you are giving the argument.

Otherwise, your argument is false. Got it? It's very interesting.

It's not just inappropriate. It's false. That's heavy.

That's very interesting. Why am I talking about this? To try to convince somebody of a Buddhist idea who's not there yet is, your statements are false.

They're not just inappropriate or badly timed. In Buddhist logic, they're considered false. You are making a false statement.

If the guy, the reporter asks about why did you enter the diamond business, and you say, I had some mystical experience, and it goes over his head, you have spoken wrongly. And it's your fault. Okay?

It's very interesting. Okay? It's very interesting.

Why are we talking about that here? When you're giving a DCI program in Guadalajara, and 1,000 people come, and then Geshe Michael takes a break, and he says, okay, talk to the DCI teachers during the break, and ask them about your problems. And they come up, and they say, my husband is mean to me.

You know? Tiffany's translating for you. You must correctly judge the question and the capacity of the person who is asking the question, because if you answer them with too heavy an emptiness thing, and it goes over their head, you have spoken falsely.

You are speaking a lie. It's very interesting. Okay?

You go over their head, you have spoken a lie. It's very heavy. Okay?

You must question them further to determine their level. You know? Do you ever yell at your kids, and they say, well, why is that relevant?

And you say, do you think that yelling at your kids could have something to do with your husband yelling at you? No. Impossible.

Then drop down. You are required in Buddhist debate to drop down to the next level. Okay, well, don't worry.

You know? No husband lasts forever. I'm not kidding.

This is Buddhist debating. This is Buddhist reasoning. It's very cool.

It's really cool. We should study it someday. Okay.

So there are cases where it would be wrong to start to convince her that her husband is yelling at her because she yelled at her kids last week. It would be wrong to say that. And you have to drop down to, don't worry, it'll be over at some point.

Okay? I mean, I could tell you the story about the lady. The lady, she always looked exhausted and tired and miserable.

Then her husband died. She came to Diamond Mountain. She looked like a million dollars.

I'm like, what happened to you? She said, oh, my husband died. Okay, anyway.

Nyen thuk gi rik chen la yang. So now we're ready to start the text. Okay?

It's been an hour and a half. We have about another half hour. Hang in there.

I strongly encourage you to stand up, walk around, go get a bottle of water. They're outside. You leave a dollar or something.

Just take them. And pee pee if you need to. But I'm going to keep going because I don't want to lose the train of thought.

Nyen thuk gi rik chen la yang. We can steal the wording of the previous paragraph. Okay?

And when we are... And when we are talking about individuals who are of the Nyen thuk listener type. There are situations where we don't try to guide them through the idea that a person is...

I'm sorry. We're talking about individuals where they can't grasp or they... I'm sorry.

They won't be able to grasp that a person has no nature of being themselves unless you first guide them through the idea that a person is devoid of any substantial existence. An existence in which they exist independently. Oops.

Independently. The idea that Michael is not Michael is which one of the three degrees of emptiness in the lower half of the middle way school. It's kind of the highest one.

Okay? It's the Bodhisattva track version. Okay?

If a person were of the listener class, listener track, would it be appropriate to drag them up there without giving them some other ammunition first? It would not be appropriate. What should you teach them first?

Start them at the bottom. What's the bottom of the three? I have control.

Okay? The idea that I have control is what is rejected at the lowest of the three. Is there a version which is lower than that?

Yes. I'm gonna last forever. Okay?

Is that counted among the three flavors of emptiness in the lower half of the middle way school? No. Is it recognized as a flavor of emptiness in that school?

Yes. Do they talk about it a lot? No.

Okay? It is a fourth. It's a pre-one, right?

But they don't talk about it much. Okay, got it? Anyway, this whole few paragraphs is talking about the idea that when you teach these high ideas to others, and my dream is that you teach it in such a way that they never realize you're a Buddhist.

I don't care. Okay? What picture they keep in their house, I could care less.

Keep a picture of Madonna. I mean the later one. Or keep a picture of Buddha or keep a picture of Moses.

I could care less. You know? Let people fight over those things.

It doesn't matter. Okay? If you want something, provide it to someone else first.

If there's something in your life that you don't want, stop doing it to other people. Okay? That's the key to happiness.

I don't care about the rest. If they're not ready to hear that, drop down. Okay?

Geshe-la, I'm having a problem. Some lady came up to me last night, an older student. My partner has cancer, what should I do?

What should I tell him? You know? And there's only one thing to tell him.

You must serve others fast and deeply and sincerely and change the karma. You must purify those seeds, right? She's not ready to hear that.

I'm like, tell him to, you know, not worry so much, you know. The chemotherapy effects will pass. He'll feel better in a couple of weeks.

Okay? Is it emptiness? No.

In this school, is it a lower form of emptiness? Yes. Is it comforting?

Yes. Will it really help him? Not much.

Okay? Is it appropriate to hit her on the head with the highest form of emptiness and not take her up slowly through the different kinds of emptiness? It's not appropriate.

Okay? You have to start with, oh, don't worry, the chemo will go away after a while. Okay?

Alright, got it? When you're teaching DCI, I want you to think that way. We're going to keep going and I'm going to be like Jenny Brill.

I'm just going to hit you, okay? I'm not being sorry for making you dizzy. Okay?

Because I don't get to have fun almost ever. I have to go around the world and teach. Okay, hey, you want money?

Give away some money. Do you know how boring it is to teach that over and over again? Okay.

LUM PAR RTOG PA'I GYEN DER THEG MEN LA CHUG GI DAG ME DRAG PAR RTOG PA'I YOD PAR BSHAD PA'I DANG ME PAR BSHAD PA'I KHAB GNYIS CHUNG BA'I RGYUD TSEN Let's read it together, okay? That's why I made the stage like this. I'm going to go over here and you read it with me, okay?

Tibetan has a lot of silent prefix letters. Like, how do you pronounce K-N-O-W? You don't say K-N-O.

Why is the K there? It used to be a J and the O used to be an A and it was Z-N-Y-A-N-A because it comes from Sanskrit and it comes from the word for wisdom, like Prajnaparamita, okay? In Russian it's Z-N-Y-A-Y-U.

They kept the J and changed it to Z because the old J was D-Z, but you don't care. Okay. So, sometimes ignore the prefix letter, okay?

Here we go. One, two, three. NGON PAR RTOG PA'I RGYEN DIR THEG MEN LA CHUD KYI DAG ME KHRA MO RTOG PA YOD PAR BSHAD PA'I DANG ME PAR SHAD PA'I KHAB GNYI JUNG WEG YUD SEN YOD TEH Okay?

By the way, this is gonna be a debate, right? YOD TEH YOD TEH means... Then you go...

CHIA! Okay? So this is the first half of a debate, okay?

YOD TEH Then you're gonna go... No, no, no, no, CHIA! Okay?

We'll come to that. Then you have to slap, okay? And look mean.

Okay. NGON PAR RTOG PA'I RGYEN DIR Here in the... What's NGON PAR RTOG PA'I RGYEN?

Okay? Okay? ABHISAMAYA ALANKARA What's Alankara mean?

Alam in Sanskrit means to be ready. Kara means to get. Alankara means to get ready.

And in the ancient Sanskrit text, the word Alankara is explained as a woman getting ready to go to a ball and putting on her ornaments. So it became the word for ornament. It means the getting ready thing.

Okay? It's cool. But you don't care about that either.

Okay. Here in the Jewel Ornament Realizations, Jewel Ornament Realizations, we see two different occasions. One on which it is said, it is explained that those of the lower way do realize the subtle form of the lack of a self to things.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
And a second on which it is explained that they... What? In some places in the text, it says that people on the lower tracks do perceive emptiness.

And at other occasions on the same text, it's said that they don't see emptiness. Okay? That's the point.

That they don't. Gyutsen yu. Ningbo?

Gyutsen yu. Yeah, there's a reason why they do that. In the same text, they say, those people do see emptiness, and then they say, those people don't see emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
And there's a reason for that. And there's a reason for this. Subtle form of the lack of a self to things.

Here we go to the little thing we just wrote together. Where was that? Ah, yeah.

Right there. Okay? Subtle form of the lack of a self to things.

Right? Okay? The highest of the four that we talked about.

Okay? Subtle version. The pen is not coming 100% from its own side.

Half it's coming from me, and half it's coming from its side. Okay? That's the emptiness we're talking about.

All right? And the text says right here, in this text, sometimes they say those guys get it, and sometimes they say they don't get it. Why?

In the same text, why would they say sometimes they get it, and then later they say they don't get it? Why would they say both? Because, the point is, first of all, that in this context, in the context of this text, in the context of this work, dzin dzin tenpa pa, presenting a knowledge of the path in three different versions, is, has the goal of...

I'm going to give you a Tibetan verb, and I want you to help me translate it. Okay? I enjoy this part of the class, because sometimes I get a really good translation that I wouldn't think of.

Say, jesu dzinpa. Jesu dzinpa. Jesu dzinpa can mean when you ask a lama to take you into their care.

Okay? Dzinpa means to hold. So it can mean, please jesu dzinpa me.

You know? Yeah, I love you. I found my heart lama.

Now please jesu dzinpa me. It means like, take care of me for the rest of my lives. Okay?

It's called jesu dzinpa. In philosophy, it means to accommodate the needs of different levels of students. Okay?

It means, take me into consideration or... Teach me a couple levels of that, because I don't get the one. I can't do a handstand by myself.

Teach me a headstand. Or teach me a shoulderstand. Okay?

Jesu dzinpa me. With a shoulderstand, because I can't do a handstand. Alright?

Got it? We're trying to accommodate people of different levels. Different religions has the goal of accommodating the needs of disciples of three different classes.

Hmm... Okay, I'm going to hit you with a technical thing, which is really mean with twenty minutes left to go. And you're exhausted, and it's like Wednesday...

Monday afternoon is like the worst day and the worst time of the week that you could be doing this. It's kind of cruel. We study the ornament of realizations for twelve years in the monastery.

It's seventy-five pages in the Tibetan. You're averaging six and a half pages a year. Alright?

For the first twelve years of your study. And it's intense. The commentary is eight volumes long.

Okay? The commentary in our monastery, the text book by K. Rupten Badargye in our monastery, Parchen Thacha, is eight volumes long.

Hmm... If you ask someone, what's the subject matter of those twelve years? What are you studying for those twelve years?

The answer is, the three types of knowledge. The three types of knowledge. Okay?

What are the three types of knowledge? Say, shishay, lamshay, namkhyen. Shishay, lamshay, namkhyen.

Okay? Roughly, very roughly. Shishay means, the perception of emptiness by a person on the lower tracks.

It means foundation knowledge. Shishay. The perception of emptiness by people on the lower two tracks.

It's called shishay. Okay? Lamshay means, a knowledge of the path.

And roughly, it's the perception of emptiness by someone on the... which track? Bodhisattva track.

When a bodhisattva sees emptiness directly, that's called lamshay. Roughly. And when somebody on the lower tracks sees emptiness directly, it's called shishay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
If you follow lamshay to its natural result, you will reach omniscience, which is the third of the three knowledges, which are the subject of those twelve years of study. That's all. Shishay, lamshay, namkhyen sum.

Knowledge of emptiness in the mind of a lower practitioner. Knowledge of emptiness in the mind of a bodhisattva who's not yet a Buddha. And then the knowledge of emptiness in the mind of a Buddha.

Those three knowledges are the subject matter of the entire twelve years of study. Lamshay comes in three forms. The second one comes in three forms of its own.

Okay? Okay? What do you call it?

Shilamshepi lamshay, lamshay shepi lamshay, namkhyen shepi lamshay. A bodhisattva's emptiness of the understandings of emptiness in a lower practitioner's mind. I'll say it again.

A bodhisattva's understanding of the understanding of emptiness by a person who hasn't reached bodhisattva yet. Got it? Then there's the bodhisattva's understanding of the understanding of emptiness by someone who has reached the bodhisattva track.

And then there's the bodhisattva's understanding... Like that, okay? Okay, roughly.

I think I made a boo-boo in there somewhere. Let me think about it. I brought a commentary out there.

Let me take some public comment. What should we study? Shilamshepi...

This is a commentary. I'm sorry. Let's change that.

The three in that case are the knowledge of the... A bodhisattva's understanding of the way someone on the first... on the lowest of the three tracks sees emptiness.

One. Two. A bodhisattva's understanding of how someone on the second track perceives emptiness.

Three. A bodhisattva's understanding of how someone on the third track perceives emptiness. Okay?

Are the three versions of the knowledge of the path. Why am I talking about that? Why is that important?

What does it have to do with what we've been talking about? I just explained to you understandings in the mind of a bodhisattva that allow them to understand how people of the lower tracks think. Okay?

How can I teach this person emptiness? How can they understand emptiness? So, the idea is that a bodhisattva has to have in their toolbox an appreciation of the lower versions of emptiness so they can help people who didn't get there yet.

Okay? You have to have it in your toolkit. You have to judge a person's capacity.

And in fact, in our system, you break a vow if you don't try to judge their capacity. If you judge it wrong, you don't break a vow. If you fail to try to judge it, you break a vow.

Okay? If you get in a conversation with your mother who just read the New York Times and wants to know about the cult you're in and you... No, and you say, Well, mom, you know, that article is really coming from you.

You know? That's not gonna fly. Okay?

You have misjudged her capacity to understand emptiness. Is it true? Is it the ultimate understanding of that article?

Yes, it is. Is it appropriate to tell her that? Probably not.

Okay? You'll probably have to jump down to, Oh, it'll pass, mom. You know, they put out a newspaper every day.

I mean, in a hundred days, it'll be a hundred newspapers old. Okay? Like that.

Got it? You have to jack it down for people of differing capacities. All right?

Go down to what's comfortable with them. And to appreciate the different possibilities is called lamche. And it's the second of the great subjects of the whole Prajnaparamita.

Okay? Got it? It's cool.

It's really beautiful. To understand that people may have different levels of capacity is itself a great wisdom. Okay?

Even if you don't understand the highest one yourself. To be capable of telling someone, Look, you're not in control. Don't be so upset.

Or, look, it's going to pass. Don't be so upset. Or, look, you could reinterpret it.

Don't be so upset. Or, look, who put you here to read that article? You did.

Okay? Those are all helpful. Are they emptiness?

No. Are they comforting? Yes.

Okay. And you should have all in your toolbox. You could have the capacity in your toolbox.

Okay, here we go. Okay. We finished two sentences in two hours.

Okay. Let's consider the listeners and self-made... By the way, we got like ten minutes to go, so hang in there.

I'll meet you at Paradise Cafe. We'll have a hot chocolate. Just assume you...

Let's consider the listeners and self-made Buddhas whom you may need to accommodate. Okay? They come in two types.

Those who are from the outset someone who is a worthy vessel to teach tong yi, emptiness. What do you guess the second type is? And those who it would be...

Oh, those who are not... I'm sorry. And secondly, someone who is not a worthy vessel in this way, wrathy vessel.

Okay? People on the lower tracks, on the lower two tracks. Some of them you can hit on the head with emptiness right away.

Some of them you can't, and it would be inappropriate to try right away. Okay? Those who are not a worthy vessel are...

Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, no. That particular presentation of the path is by far the most common because those who are not worthy are che mongwa.

Ningbo? Che mongwa. Che is an adverb from chenpo.

Greatly mongbo. More. They are vastly more numerous.

Okay? Who? People who aren't ready for the highest form of emptiness are in the huge majority.

Okay? When you go home to try to deal with the article being read, the vast majority are not going to be appropriate vessels to say, it's coming from you, mom. Okay?

Got it? All right. All right.

Here we go. That particular presentation of the path is by far the most common because those who are not worthy in this way are... How do you want to say che mongwa?

Che mongwa. Are vastly more numerous. Okay?

Okay? But that's a mayingak. To say that 99% of the people who read the article, it would be inappropriate, your family members, it would be inappropriate to say, look, it's coming from you.

But that's a mayingak. Mayingak is what? Mayingak means a form of logic which implies there are some exceptions.

What would the exception be? Yeah, if your mother is like really hip and they're smart, they're really smart, then you can go home and hit them on the head with that. You can say, you know it's coming from you, right?

Okay? This whole thing is coming from you. And there's a few mothers who are ready for that.

And it would be appropriate to try if you thought they were smart enough. Okay? Or if they would punish you more.

Okay. Geng gi gongpa. We got six more minutes.

Hang in there. I'm not quitting until I get all my time. I get to do one class per three months average that I really enjoy.

Okay. Geng gi gongpa thay tuk, ten gyur dur, dur wey kab su. And let's consider, by the way, the cases where the ultimate intent of the gyen.

What's gyen? Alankara. The ornament, okay?

Or the jewel. I'm going to call it the jewel. Okay.

I'll fix it later. The jewel is interpreted as being that of the ten gyur, consequence group. Okay, get this.

Maitreya spoke five great books. And I'm not going to try to give them the names because I can't remember them all usually. Anyway, two of them are the Abhisamankara, the jewel of the, whatever, realization.

And the Uttaratantra, the higher line. Okay. Those are two famous books that Maitreya spoke.

The next Buddha spoke in this world seventeen centuries ago. One of them presents the ideas of the lower half of the middle way and that's what we've been talking about today. The other one, which we're going to get to later, maybe tonight, which is cool, presents the Buddha's ideas in terms of the mind-only school.

Okay. Why are they coming up in the middle of a higher middle way book? Because these are people who said, you can reach nirvana without seeing emptiness.

So we have to fight with them. We must wrestle with them. Okay.

That's why they're coming up in this book. Okay. Now, some of the five books of Maitreya are interpreted as being books of the lower middle way school.

Some of the five books of Maitreya are interpreted as belonging to the mind-only school. Okay. But is Maitreya mind-only school or is Maitreya lower middle way school?

He's neither. He's a Buddha. Okay.

He's a Buddha. Oh, Geshe Michael, he's not a Buddha yet. He's the coming Buddha.

That's another debate. Okay, we'll talk about it someday. That was my pre-Geshe debate.

Anyway, is it possible to say that those five books can be interpreted from the point of view of the higher middle way school? Of course. The guy who wrote them was higher middle way school.

He was a Buddha. Okay. So, he was sneaky.

He wrote five books that lower people, look, could interpret as lower middle way or mind-only. Got it? And he also wrote them in such a way that they could be interpreted as higher middle way.

Okay. So, our author here is saying, now let's consider that book, the ornament of, the Jewel Ornament Realizations, from the point of view of the higher middle way school. Okay.

We're all higher middle way. Maitreya is higher middle way. Asanga is higher middle way.

Forget that people could misread the book. If you take it from the viewpoint of the higher school, Tartu-Gyudik-Johe-Kapsu, I'm going to stick this up here. Aiyah!

What are you doing? You're stupid. Ctrl-Z, you're correct.

Nothing is happening. Let's try it again. And again.

And again. Okay. Now, Ctrl-X, you are supposed to be going here.

Go. Yes. We got one more minute.

Hang in there. Really? Eyeline.

Do you mind? Okay, please get up and stretch if you feel the need. I don't care.

And I don't think you should sit there for two hours straight without stretching. So, if you feel like you want to go walk around and have some water, you can stay in the room and walk around over there. I don't care.

If it was me, I would have gone pee-pee two times already. Let's consider, by the way, the cases where the ultimate intent is determined by being there. They also I lost a lot of people there.

They also present they also give differing they also give different interpretations. If a higher middle-way scholar, thinker, grabs the ornament of realizations, okay, that book, and tries to interpret it according to the Buddha's highest thought, right? They will still come up with two different interpretations.

One which says that lower track people who reach nirvana do perceive emptiness in its highest form. And there are occasions, other occasions in the book where they say that they don't. Okay, got it?

Not only that, but in cases where the ultimate the ultimate intent of the jewel is interpreted as being that of Rangyut, not highest Majjhimika. What's left? Lower Majjhimika, okay?

We can call it the independent... I call it group because there are two groups within one school. Middle-way school has the consequence group and the independent group, okay?

Independent group. Not only that, but in cases where the ultimate intent of the jewel is interpreted as being that of independent group, two interpretations are also recognized. What's that saying?

If you belong to the highest school of Middle-way and you pick up Maitreya's book and you read it, you can interpret it as saying you need to see the highest form of emptiness to reach nirvana and also as saying that you don't. Okay? And even if you belong to the lower Middle-way school and you pick up the same book, you can, you can, according to your school, also find both interpretations inside.

Got it? That you do have to see emptiness to reach nirvana and that you don't have to see emptiness to reach nirvana. Now he's going to give us particular lines in the text itself which support that statement.

One of these lines is going to support the idea that you don't have to see emptiness to reach nirvana and one of the lines is going to support the viewpoint that you do have. Did I say don't or do? I don't know.

Anyway, okay. Alright, here we go. Denpe chöki, chöraki.

Chö means yo par ten. When the text says blah, it is saying that they do see emptiness when they reach nirvana. Okay.

This is a famous line from the original text. Denpe chöki, chöraki. We've already had a discussion of it.

So to match how I translated it back there, I should go to the beginning of this translation and I should search for that and take out how I translated it before.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So I got to go to the top of the document. Then I got to search for denpe chöki, chöraki. Denpe chöki, chö.

There we go. Due to details of what is supported. So I chop that out, copy it, and go find the next one, which is the one we're on, and slip it in there.

Then I keep, this is very important for translators, you keep a consistency of how you translated the same lines throughout the book. Where do you know the word chedak from? Chichedak.

Okay. Chichedak. Very, very, very important word for you.

Okay. Chichedak. When the text says, talks about, since it's not a sentence, I'm going to say talks about.

By the way, we already had that discussion. And just to review it for you, it was talking about the thing which is supported and the thing which is supported upon it. Okay.

Those of you who do yoga, especially in Anussara tradition, I think there's a lot of discussion about... Niralambana. Niralambana.

What's that... invocation they always do? How's it go?

Yeah, Niralambana Tejas Te. You want to know what Niralambana really means? In Tibetan it's migme, as in migme tseway terchen chenway zin.

Okay? It's interesting. In a headstand, it means...

Niralambana means what? No support. You see what I mean?

So when Dharmamitra gets up and does a headstand with no arms, it's called Niralambana Shirsasana. Okay? A headstand with no support.

Niralambana means no support. It's the first word in the mantra of... Jatakapa.

Niralambana. Migme tseway terchen chenway zin.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
What Alambana means is an object. This is the Alambana of my perception. Okay?

You must have an Alambana to have a perception. There's no such thing as a subject state of mind without an object. In Buddhism it's not possible, because the subject state of mind is a mirror which reflects the object.

So without an object, you just have an empty mirror. There is no perception. There must always be a thing that is reflected in your consciousness and you perceive the object.

There must be a pen on which the perception rests. And so this is sometimes called the support. And my eye consciousness is called the supported.

Got it? Okay. Okay.

Tenpi chuggi chedaki, that famous line from the Jewel, says, there are differences in the supported. There are details of the supported. Meaning, in the direct perception of emptiness, the perception which is resting upon the emptiness can come in different flavors, but that's a mayinga.

What's it mean? There ain't any different flavors of the object. The Buddha once said, look, there's differences in the perception of emptiness.

But what he meant was, there's slight differences in the state of mind, but not the emptiness. Okay? That supports the idea that there are not degrees of emptiness.

Okay? That quotation by Maitreya supports the idea that there are not degrees of emptiness. Okay?

There's just degrees of understanding of it or perception of it, the mind which rests upon it. The alambana possessor, okay, comes in different levels. Got it?

Now we go to another one. By the way, that implies that everybody who sees emptiness sees the highest form of emptiness. They just have a different appreciation of it.

You define the three tracts by their three different appreciations of emptiness and not because of some fundamental difference in the emptiness which they perceive. Okay? That supports the idea that anyone who reaches nirvana must have seen emptiness in its full form.

And that comes from Maitreya's text. Now he's going to say the opposite. Later on.

Here we go. Dainisemar Mikkonen. Now we get to an interesting thing, okay?

This is a famous line from the Abhisama Alankara. And I'm going to ask you to read it with me. Skip the part in the braces, okay?

Skip that part with me. You ready? One, two, three.

Dainisemar Mikkonen She-so-ki-ka-su-me-pa Tem-be-sheer Do it again. Tem-be-sheer Okay? When they say cheer, it's time to clap, okay?

Then you kind of hit that the Geshe hat off the guy's head by accident. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.

You're not allowed to make physical contact. But if your hand, like, knocks his hat off, it's just by accident. Okay.

What's interesting—by the way, by the time this book was written, the textbook author, Kedrup Denpadargye, from Sereme, writing in the late 1500s, was partly blind. He was old. He was very old.

They didn't have eyeglasses in those days. They said he kept a box of toothpicks in his room. And he propped his eyes open with toothpicks so he could see.

He could dimly see the text. And in our monastery, the 400-year tradition is that that's why some of his stuff is misspelled. Okay?

I think later people carved the book wrong. Okay? But anyway, tsemar tsemar mitgone is a mistake in the text.

Okay? And I pulled out the original down here, okay? This is another commentary by Choney Lama where he corrects it.

Why? Mikpa means alambana. Okay?

Tsemar What's tsemar, Nyambo? Pramana. Pramana.

Okay? Okay. Pratyakshanumanugami Pratyak, say Pratyakshan Pratyakshanuman Agami What text is that?

Yoga Sutra, first verse. There are three kinds of perception. Pratyakshan Direct perception.

Like blue, bottle. Pratyakshanuman Anuma Deductive perception. Is there a bottle in my hand?

Yeah, you didn't hear it hit the floor. No, seriously. And you are drawing a conclusion as correct, okay?

Do you trust me? Sort of. I'm telling you, I'm holding a bottle in my hand behind the lectern.

Agama means authority, scriptural authority or the authority of a trustworthy person. Okay? These are three kinds of pramana.

These are three kinds of perception. Direct Deductive and I swear. Okay?

These are three valid types of perception, okay? So, in this line from the Abhisamankara it's either saying he perceives it with correct perception or it's saying they perceive it making an error in a lesser way. And that's a big difference.

That's the opposite. Okay? Got it?

If you say this line should be read as sema it's saying those arhats on the lower tracks see it correctly. What's it? Emptiness.

If you read it as senmar it's saying they perceive it but they're still hanging on to its self-existence. Okay? Let's go back to what we're trying to prove in this line.

Okay? We were trying to prove that the text can be interpreted both as saying that they do see emptiness and as saying as they don't see emptiness in its highest form. We just got through saying there are slight differences in their state of mind but what they see is all the same.

Okay? Now what should the second quotation prove? That proves that they all see emptiness in its truest form.

The second quotation should prove that they don't. So there should be some kind of bubu mixed up there. Which should we take it as senmar they are still thinking that part of this thing is coming from them or should we take it as sema they're completely accurate.

We should take it as a bubu because this is the section in which we're trying to prove that they don't see emptiness fully. Got it? Okay?

So it's incredibly difficult and it takes a lot of sophistication to correct a text. Okay? If this said senmar it would be kuku.

It must be senmar. Why did he write senmar? Because he learned this quotation in the debate ground from his teacher when he was twelve.

And people were going, this is senmar mikone. He's like, senmar. And he heard senmar senmar.

Got it? Okay. Now we're ready to correct the text which should only be done carefully.

Senmar mikone. Geshe Michael said sen makes sense but let's just erase that. But when it says but parts like the one that says they perceive it still holding two signs it is saying that they let's look at the sentence before.

Tell me what to write. Quick, quick, quick. That they don't see emptiness when they reach nirvana.

Okay? Got it? Now we're comfortable.

The book is now nicely contradicting itself. Okay? The original by Maitreya is now contradicting itself correctly.

Okay? In one place it says they do see emptiness. Everybody who reaches nirvana sees emptiness.

Do you believe that? It's true. Yes, we said that.

You cannot stop being angry at your yelling husband until you fully grasp and are fully aware and keep carefully in mind that he's appearing in your life because you yelled at the kids last week. And you can fix him without talking to him and without conflict and without rebuttal in the newspaper. Okay?

You don't have to write a letter to the New York Times. Okay? You have to be less judgmental.

You can fix it. Okay? Yourself.

Got it? Okay? All right.

Okay, I'm sorry to keep going but, I don't know, Jigme made the schedule, not me, right? Yeah, yeah, we were at... but we were at that restaurant and I was not in the mood.

The first statement above is correct because it is saying that... because it is saying, first of all, that there is no difference in the quality of the emptiness of their mind for the three types of students who see ultimate reality... Ah, I see.

Who are realized beings. Okay. Nonetheless, but that nonetheless, they can be divided into three types by virtue...

according to the realization. That thing which is supported. And therefore, it is provisionally appropriate to posit three types of emptiness and three types of ultimate and therefore, three different classes of practitioner.

Well, okay. The quotation that said that emptiness can be divided into three types... or sorry, practitioners can be divided into three types.

What are the three types? Listener, self-made Buddha and bodhisattva. They can correctly be divided into three types because even though there is no difference in the emptinesses they see, there are subtle differences in the state of mind which sees that emptiness, okay?

Now, extra point that I didn't talk about before. When you see... This was my big Geshe debate, my last hour of my Geshe three-week exam in front of all the Geshes, all the high Geshes.

There was an abbot who came down from Dharamsala just to give me a hard time. He traveled a thousand miles on train just to rip me apart. But he asked the wrong question which was...

Which emptiness do you see first when you see emptiness directly? Do you see the emptiness of Michael or do you see the emptiness of pens and... Which one do you see first when you see emptiness directly?

Sorry? It's of yourself. It's always of yourself.

And more technically, it is the emptiness of your own thoughts at that moment, okay? Which is to say, you are focusing on your own mind and you perceive that it's coming from you and it's not any other way. The first emptiness you will ever see directly is the emptiness of Dennis or the emptiness of Fran or the emptiness of Susie, okay?

You'll come out of that first twenty minutes and you'll say, I'm not who I thought I was. Okay? Got it?

All right. So there's no different... Sorry.

Sorry. So actually, the emptiness that you see on any one of those three tracks is always the emptiness of your own mind. Is that substantially different for different people?

No. It's always the emptiness of themselves. Okay?

So can we say that you divide out three types of practitioners or three tracks based on a difference in the emptiness that they see when they see emptiness directly? No. It's always the same emptiness of themselves.

Okay? Got it? But based on their subtle differences in their states of mind, you can say there's three tracks.

Got it? Okay? That's what the first quotation is saying.

The first quotation was supporting the idea that they all see emptiness completely when they reach nirvana. Okay? Now the second quotation must be not supporting that idea.

Let's hope so. Are you okay? Are you all right?

By the way, if this is the first class you've been to, I see some new faces. This is not normal. Okay?

This is the most difficult class of the year. Come back on Thursday, Tuesday, tomorrow night and we'll have a normal fuzzy class. What do you call it?

Fuzzy love class. We'll be talking about how to pour the water bowls and nobody will get confused. And okay, you just walked into the wrong place at the wrong time.

You're in John Friend's advanced, advanced, advanced class by accident. Okay? And don't freak out.

Okay? Don't not come back. All right?

This is not normal. Okay. Here we go.

Dön, dön, bi, dön. By the way, in the monastery, when we have free time, we're encouraged to go to the postgraduate classes. The freshmen are allowed and encouraged to go sit in the back of the room in a postgraduate class, in an advanced geshe class and understand one word out of ten.

And they consider it a practice of humility and of planting seeds for six years from now or ten years from now. And it's a very cool idea. There's no pride.

You know? And there's no like this kind of American thing that you have to understand everything the first time you go. You know?

It's accepted that you will miss half of it. And it just plants a seed for five years from now or ten years from now. So don't think there's this American thing that the first time you hear something you have to understand it completely.

If it were that way, it wouldn't be so profound. Okay? Be comfortable with understanding 30% or 50% and then planting seeds for next time we have this class.

Jigme, did you have something to say? I'm sorry. Sorry?

The last part I translated, is something wrong? Right here. Into three types according to...

Yeah? Like that? Is that okay now?

Oh, above, right? I'm sorry. How's that?

Sorry? It's 428. According to my clock.

I love being the boss of something. Okay. All right.

Ntendamitunyam. Tocchatokchinaipatam. We're just going to keep going until the last second.

Remember then that the meaning of the expression that which is supported and that which supports it is a reference. Remember then that... Is that like a time to stop?

That the expression that which is supported and that which supports it is a reference to what is perceived, what is realized, and the state of mind which realizes it. Okay? And we'll stop there.

Alambana and alambanavat, the thing which has the alambana, it refers to the object which supports the perception. Okay? If there were no bottle here, the perception of the bottle would have no place to rest upon and it wouldn't exist.

Okay? So, when they're talking about the supporter, the bottle, and the perception which is supported by it, which is my visual consciousness of the bottle, there's a synergy there. You need the bottle to have a perception of the bottle.

The perception of the bottle must rest upon the bottle. I'll give you a cool last thought. Does the bottle in any way rely upon its perception?

It does in the calling of the bottle the foundation of the perception. Okay? You cannot call a cause a cause until the result has come.

An object doesn't get to be called a cause until the result comes. Then you retroactively call it the cause. Okay?

It's very interesting. This cannot be called a foundation until later there comes a perception resting upon it. It doesn't deserve the name foundation until later, after something is resting on it.

Got it? So, in a way, the perception is contributing to it being called a cause or a support. And the support is obviously supporting the perception.

Okay? It's very cool. Madhyamika.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Why are we bringing that up? The text says that the supporter of the three perceptions is always the same. It's emptiness.

But there are slight differences in the perception resting upon it. People who reach nirvana always do so by seeing emptiness directly. You can't stop being angry at your husband, yelling at you, until you see emptiness.

Got it? Okay, you survived the class. It's like Jenny Brill says, let's go into shavasana.

I'm like, in my mind, I'm like, thank God. I think it's mean that you put us on our backs and then make us do more stuff. Like...

Or you turn the lights down and then do another half hour of torture. It's like really mean. Anyway, I'd like to thank Jenny for coming.

I'd like to give her a hand.