Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 72

[Speaker 1]
OK, we were on a discussion of whether, what's the first kind of emptiness you will ever see? Will it be the emptiness of you, or the emptiness of your parts? And I have a strong suggestion for people when you meditate, don't think of, the answer, the classical answer is the first emptiness you ever see will be you, of you.

But never say you, say Kat, or say Christine, or say Julie, or say, you know, say your name. And when you think of it, use your own name. I will see the emptiness of Michael.

That will be the first emptiness I ever see, OK? That's what they've been talking about. That's what they've been on.

And then they had a quotation. And we figured out, this was a quotation from the shorter presentation on the steps of the path by Je Tsongkhapa. And we found out, we looked it up.

And I think we'll look it up again, because we still need to work on it a bit. And she comes up, and so they were making the point, Je Tsongkhapa was making the point that, does the microphone have its own emptiness? Which is what?

Yeah, whenever you introduce emptiness, you say something negative. You say, it's not, what? Coming from its own side, for example, OK?

So it's not that the microphone is here because it was made in a factory. The microphone is here because I have the karma to have it here. Maybe I have the karma to hear it turned up slightly.

He's throwing away. OK, good. Then there's an emptiness to the computer, you see?

Or let's say, there's an emptiness to the belt, to my monk's belt, OK? I have a monk's belt on. So there's an emptiness to that, right?

And that's the fact that the belt doesn't come from me. I'm sorry, it doesn't come from its own side. It comes from my karma, right?

It seems to come from its own side. Seems like it was sewn or whatever, like that, OK? So each one of them, the microphone and the belt, are equally lacking what?

Self-ignition. Yeah, self-ignition, or coming from their own side. They both equally lack coming from their own side.

And there's no difference. It's not like the microphone has a deeper not coming from its own side than the belt does, got it? They both don't come from their own side, OK?

Got it? So as far as subtlety, he says, there's no difference, right? The belt and the microphone, they both don't come from their own side, OK?

Does that make them the same?

[Speaker 2]
No, in that sense.

[Speaker 1]
Amy said, in a sense, OK? He said, in a sense, right? Like in a certain way.

Insofar as they don't come from their own side, they're the same. They're equal. But is there a way in which they're not equal?

Yes. Which is? They're not the same thing.

Yeah, they're not the same thing. One is the emptiness of the microphone, and one is the emptiness of my belt. If you destroy the microphone, what happens to its emptiness?

Yeah, it goes out of existence. Yeah, you can't say destroy, OK? And if you destroy the belt, then its emptiness goes out of existence.

But if you destroy the belt, what happens to the microphone's emptiness? It's still there, OK? No, if the microphone is still there, then its emptiness is still existing.

That proves that they are not the same thing, you see? Because they apply to different bases, or they are hanging off of different things. The microphone has its emptiness hanging off of it as a quality of it.

And then the belt has its own emptiness hanging off of it as a quality of it, OK? So they are different emptinesses from that point of view. But they share a quality of not being what they seem, not coming from their own side, right?

OK? Last question. Is one easier to see than the others?

The emptiness of the belt and the emptiness of the microphone. But in some cases, the object is easier, right? Like, you can see the microphone with Muntan Sama, Pratyaksha.

But you can't see the belt. You're just trusting me. It's either Lunggit Sama, right?

It's either scriptural authority. You're either taking an authority or logic. But you can't see the belt.

So in a sense, if you were going after, if you were trying to get to that great goal of seeing emptiness directly, you would want to start with one that was in front of you, right? Something that was in front of you. It would be a little bit easier, right?

So that's what he's talking about here. Generally, there's no difference between Michael's emptiness and Michael's arm's emptiness. But Michael's emptiness is easier to see.

OK? Got it? All right?

That's his point. That's what he's saying here. Then he uses an example.

And this is where we left off last time. And we were checking the spelling, because we thought maybe that something was fishy. By the way, the database, again, I tell you a thousand times, I won't let you forget it.

It's like the most precious thing in the world. The fact that you can look into 10,000 texts in a few seconds and check something is going to change. You see, we're changing the world, and we're changing the way people view things.

On a general term, like in yoga, in business, you know, like that, relationships. But by the way, we're also cleaning up Buddhism. I mean, the Buddhism itself is becoming more accurate, because of John's work.

Buddhism itself is becoming more accurate. People don't notice that. They're not even aware of it.

But all the work that's been coming out of their work, which couldn't happen without their work, is correcting problems that have existed for five or six centuries, and sometimes 1,000 years. And people don't, they're not even aware of that. Like all the readings you get, many, many mistakes have been corrected.

Usually each generation, scriptures get more corrupt, and knowledge gets lost. But in this generation, because of their work, it's improving, and knowledge is being restored and fixed. So you should, I don't know, we should try to think of ways to help them.

Somebody talked to somebody in New York one day about it, and they talked to somebody, and then they came up recently, and can I say? Yeah, they got a $100,000 donation out of it. Just because someone in this class mentioned it to somebody else in a yoga class.

And think of that. Think if you can help like that. It's desperate.

I mean, they're broke all the time. When I was in charge of it, I left him with an $80,000 debt. And it's, I think it's the worst now, I'm not sure, OK.

No, I mean, the expenses are more now. Expenses are much more. I keep giving him more projects and no money.

OK. And it costs money, and we give it away for free. So it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

OK, anyway. Now we got this quotation, which was a little tricky, because it said, for example, if you wanted to put, there are two great kinds of emptiness, right? There are the emptiness of people, and there's the emptiness of things, OK?

And sometimes that things means the people's parts, OK? So like, the emptiness of Michael is the emptiness of the person. And the emptiness of Michael's arm is the emptiness of things.

And where does that put the chair? Huh? The chair.

Yeah, in this, yeah, with the chair over there.

[Speaker 2]
With your parts? Yeah, or it's the whole thing?

[Speaker 1]
But does it fall into the emptiness of Michael or the emptiness of Michael's parts? Emptiness of Michael's parts. Yeah, emptiness of Michael's parts.

So remember that, in this context, we're talking about the emptiness of Michael. It's easier to see it in the emptiness of Michael's parts, which is called the emptiness of things, which also includes Michael's world, because that's just another thing. That's just another part of Michael.

All that I see, all that I can think of, all that I can think of the Buddha thinking of, which is everything, is things. And they're all part of me, OK? In my world.

Yeah?

[Speaker 2]
So in yogic terms, is this easier to get the winds blowing into the left side of the channel?

[Speaker 1]
That's a good question. Yeah, in yogic terms, maybe you could say that. Easier to get the winds maybe out of the channel, where it sees people as self-existent, than it is to get it out of the channel that sees things as self-existent.

There's a huge debate in scripture which is which. But we'll find out someday. OK, so anyway, if I want to see the emptiness of Michael, that's easier to see than the emptiness of Michael's parts.

But I have to think about Michael's parts to see the emptiness of Michael, right? OK? Because you can't see Michael without seeing Michael's parts.

You see Michael by looking at parts. Someone comes in, you see some kind of shine from the top of the body. And you say, oh, Geshe Michael's here.

And that's a part. You don't see the feet, or the toes, or they're inside the socks, right? But you see some indicators of the object, and then you build the object from the pieces, right?

So what he says here is, chuggi dagme min naso gyi deng du ngey ka shing. If you wanted to see the emptiness of Michael's parts, it would be difficult to see it relative to the eyes, the ears, et cetera, right? But, su so gyi deng du ngey la.

But if you just looked at the whole pieces, the bigger pieces, his body or mind. So don't say, if you want to see Geshe Michael's emptiness, don't work with Geshe Michael's eyes or nose. Work with either his body or his mind.

That's simpler. Those are simpler parts. Those are bigger parts, right?

Those are part of him, but they're bigger. If you say mind and body, then it's not so hard. If you say all his fingernails, all his toes, you know, like that, it gets complicated.

So stick with something big. Su so gyi deng du ngey la. It would be easier to see, if you looked as focused on his body, than if you focused on the parts of his body, the parts of the parts, okay?

How do you see the emptiness of the parts? How do you get to the emptiness of the parts? Look at the parts of the parts, okay?

How do you get to the emptiness of the whole? Look at the parts. So what he's saying here is, if you wanted to see the nature of the parts, it'd be easier to concentrate on the part than the parts of the part.

In this case, the part becomes the whole, got it? So even if you were dealing with Geshe Michael's parts, deal with one part as a whole. Then if you, his body, and then work on that.

And then if you wanted to get into wide absorption, then work on his arms and legs and like that, his nose and his ears, got it? That's what it says. That's how our author from, I don't know, when was it, what are his days?

Do you guys remember? Khetub Thambadargye, what are his days? Thambadargye.

Thambadargye. That's how fast you can use those. 1493 and 1568, okay?

So, I don't know, 450 years ago, right? He wrote this thing. And it's a very convincing argument about if you want to see Geshe Michael's emptiness, work on Geshe Michael and not on his body and mind.

Got it? If you want to see Geshe Michael's body's emptiness, then go to the parts of the body, the eyes, the ears, et cetera, right? But don't focus on the eyes and the ears.

That won't be the emptiness you see. First, it'll be the emptiness of the whole. Got it?

So he says, even with, forget Geshe Michael. Even about Geshe Michael's parts, body and mind, you'd want to focus on the body and not on the ears and eyes and nose. Not on the parts, but on the whole.

Got it? So for 440 years, this has been the way it's been studied in ceremony. And what?

It's just mistaken. The quotation is wrong. Okay?

This is wrong quotation. They changed a very crucial word here. The author misheard it in a debate ground or something.

Okay? And it has been passed on since then with no correction. Okay?

And then, because of John's work, we can look at it in a different way. Now, maybe it's wrong. Maybe there's a mistake in the carving, but it's highly unlikely.

He has something here. He says, sujñen soki tengdu. Right here, watch.

B-R-N-Y-S. Okay? That's what the text really says.

That's what Je Tsongkhapa's text really says, in the black. Okay? So what does that mean?

What changes? Say suk. Suk.

This word is suk. And next word is ngen. Say sujñen.

Sujñen. Sujñen. Sujñen.

Suk means body. Geshe Michael's body. But sujñen means a reflection in the mirror.

A reflection in the mirror. Okay? Nothing to do with it.

All right? Now the whole sentence changes. For example, the Lhakasala Nation thinks it's relatively more easy to assign relative to a reflection in a mirror or the mind.

And then this sentence has to change. The point is, what's that mean? It's easier to see the...

Don't think about... If you want to get to the emptiness of Geshe Michael, don't think about his eyes and ears and nose. Think about what?

Yeah, who said that? Yeah, that's nice. How he's like a reflection in a mirror.

Okay? Nothing to do with parts. Not talking about parts.

All right? Not talking about parts and holes anymore. Just talking about examples that they use.

Now how do you... If you're translating this book... And by the way, that's like an echo.

It's like when you use the example of an echo. I think an echo is easier almost. And it's Lama Kristi's story from the...

What is it from? The King of Concentration Sutra, Ting Nying Zing Gyalpo. Samadhi Raja Sutra.

And it talks about a guy who goes on vacation to a quiet lake near a mountain. And then he starts to sing. And then he thought he was by himself, but then he hears some other person singing back to him, but very badly.

And then he stops. And then the other guy stops. And then he waits a while, and then he starts singing again.

And then the other guy starts making fun of him again. And then finally he gets upset, and he packs up and he goes back home, and he loses his two weeks vacation. And then what?

No, and then he realizes it was an echo. And that the guy singing so badly was himself. So, that's what they're saying here.

It's easier to use a metaphor. It's easier to use a story, like about an echo, and like about a lake, like a trip to a lake. Then it's easier, right?

What's the moral of the story? I mean, every unpleasant thing you ever heard was an echo. It's an echo from you.

Then that makes emptiness a lot less, what do you call it? Obscure. That makes it a little more personal.

If you say everything, every, excuse the word, asshole you ever met, was a reflection of you. A direct reflection of you. Every unkind person you ever met, every irritating person, even your partner, when they're irritating.

That's just you. You can divorce them, you can leave them, but then you'll run into the next person, because the reflection will still go on, right? So, a metaphor can be more, I don't know, it's easier to grasp emptiness from the metaphor of an echo than it is to like concentrate, oh, you know lamas get up and they say, you are not your mind, you are not your legs, you are not your ears, and then people go home, and they just forget it, because this doesn't mean anything to them.

But if you get up and say you're an echo, your whole life, I mean, when I said, the people never heard that story, and then I got into this echo thing, and then I said every irritating person in your life is a reflection of yourself. Then there were a few people who were going like, they were like thinking of the most irritating people in their lives. And then they were like, oh no, oh no.

And then they start this mental, what do you call it? The gears start moving, you know like, I don't know, I mean a few of them maybe, but there's ones that, there's ones that I can't see it, you know, it's not possible, you know, they're just too irritating. They can't be coming from me, you know, and then it starts you thinking, right?

The echo is more effective than someone getting up and saying, you are not your parts. You see what I mean? And that's what, that's what the quotation really says.

So what do we do now? The quotation doesn't fit his argument anymore. I think you got to write some kind of footnote, right?

And that gets touchy, you know, that gets touchy with high lamas. What did Chidjar Rinpoche do when he was presented with Pabongka Rinpoche's Vajrayogini commentary and he saw a lot of mistakes there? He didn't change anything.

He put a little mark under each word he thought was wrong, you know? He didn't change anything, right? You know what I mean?

Yeah, well, we can do this in a different way, see? Yeah, that's a good translator rule, right? Well, let's do it this way.

I suggest this way. For example, relative to one's form. Like, you see what I mean?

And then, I thought you couldn't get cell phone reception here. That's what I meant. The original of the above quotation.

Oh, boy. ACIP. It's 5393.

Let's go, Bill. 5393. Folio.

176A. I'd like to say available to us, right? Like, maybe there was a miscarriage or something.

Maybe somebody would find it. Reads, Sukmin. Or, oops.

Not Suk. Which would change. Okay?

And then the second sentence doesn't make much sense. But let's not. Let's go on.

Yeah? Okay. Alright.

But let's go on. Let's not beat him up. They didn't have computers or anything.

This is gonna get into a nice debate. Okay, let's read it together. You guys ready?

One, two, three. SHEN YANG GANG SAK DANG PHUNG PO LA RANG SHIN MED PA NGE KA LE KHE PA YOD PA THAO This is a debate thing, you know. You go THAO, you go up if you believe it.

You go down if you're criticizing somebody. Okay. It is moreover true that there is a distinction of one being relatively easier to perceive between the lack of a self-natured image of a person and two beings.

Look. Alright? He's saying it is easier to see emptiness with regard to Michael than with regard to Michael's arms and legs.

Okay? Body and mind. Right?

Is this something Jean-Luc would say? Would they say it is true that it's easier to see it relative to Michael than it is to Michael's parts? Would they say that?

Yes. In English, how would you say it? It is so, it is so true.

You know, like that. We go up with our voice. Same.

Okay? It is moreover, it is so moreover true. You see what I mean?

That's the Tao. Alright? Easier to see your emptiness directly for the first time, it's easier to see Gyelse's emptiness than to see Gyelse's body and mind's emptiness.

Alright? Why? He's going to prove it.

One, two, three. One, two, three. What's Nangde?

Nangde. What's Nangpa? Yeah, Buddhist.

Insider. Say Nangpa. Insider.

What's the opposite? Chiropa. Say Chiropa.

Yeah, an outsider. Okay? So, this is true because, because those who profess the systems, those who profess Buddhist systems, right?

perceive. This is true because, when those who profess Buddhist systems perceive, no. What he's saying is that, the first sentence is a little obscure, okay, as you may have noticed, but, even Buddhists, when they perceive the lack of self-nature to a person, must each do that within their own personal, what do you call that?

Situation. You see? In their own circumstances.

Within their own circumstances. Maybe I should say circumstances. Personal circumstances.

Meaning, me, with all the baggage and all the history of Michael over the length of my life, when I go to see emptiness, because of all that baggage, because all my mental afflictions are based upon my misunderstanding of Michael, I have to, I'm better equipped if I go after emptiness with regard to Michael's history, Michael's personal context, in the context of Michael, right? It'll be easier for me to see, it's closer to me and I've lived with it my whole life, okay? And, moreover, what?

What's the second part say, relative to the microphone? What's the second part say about, relative to what we said about the microphone?

[Speaker 2]
Let's say, one is more difficult to see than the other.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, generally speaking, Michael is easier for Michael to perceive than Michael's parts. Okay? The microphone is easier to see than the belt.

So if you're going to go after an emptiness, which should you go after? The emptiness that belongs to the thing which is obvious to you, or the emptiness of the thing which is hidden from your sight. Which emptiness would you want to go after first?

The one which is obvious to you. Okay? That's all.

Between the parts and the person, the person is easier to... It's just an easier object. You live with yourself all day.

You know, you might want to work with your... Ben is a bigger thing in your life than your fingernails, than your ears, than your eyes, you know? Like your eyes and your ears and your fingernails are big.

They're big, but... I mean, if someone tries to chop one of them off, you'll react. But, but Ben, you know, Ben, you know, the minute somebody says Ben and they're about to say something good, you're like, you know, you're like that, like automatically, you can't help it.

Everyone, everyone in the world, you know, your name is like a mantra to you. Your name is like the sweetest thing in the world to you. And you will defend it at any cost.

You know, somebody says your name and then makes a face, you're already angry. You know? Your name is sacred to you.

You know? Your name is sacred to you. And, and that's, that's the one, go after that one.

That's in front of your mind all the time. It's, it's in front of your awareness all the time. You know?

Your name, you connect yourself so much with your name. You, right? Go after that one.

It's so much in front of you, you don't even notice it sometimes. You know, you can't distance yourself from it. But, but your name is so important to you.

That's why it's, death is so... We went to the nursing homes yesterday. It's a really, really good exercise.

You know? They were, there was a lady, there was a lady, last place, you didn't notice maybe. There were two ladies in a, in a room.

They were both dead out. I mean, they're just counting. They said, two days or three days they're gonna die.

One or two days they're gonna die. They can't open their eyes anymore. You put your hand on their, their head and their hand moves like that, just a touch.

You know? They can't open their eyes anymore. And they had photographs of the women on the doors, because they all have Alzheimer's.

And they need to know where to bring them back to, because they can't ask them their names. And, the one lady's photo was already off the door. You know?

The one lady's photo was already gone. And nobody noticed or cared, because you lose your name. You know?

No one will remember your name. They won't remember, remember who is... She can't get up, so she's not gonna wander around, take the photo off, you know?

And that's the end. So, that's why people are so afraid to die, right? To lose your name.

Okay. Did you have a question? I was just wondering, you said the parts are hidden from you.

I don't understand that. Oh, no. More difficult to perceive than, than...

Much more difficult to perceive? No. I mean, maybe our anger, maybe our pride, maybe our jealousy is hidden from us in a way.

But, if I say, where's Jeff? You're like... You know, if I say, where's Jeff's third finger?

Then you're like... You know, so, is it much more difficult to perceive? No.

It's not like the difference between the belt and the microphone.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
I'm just saying, work with the thing which is in front of your mind all the time. It's so in front of your mind that you can't even treat it as separate from you. You treat it as me.

Work on that. If you crack the emptiness of Jeff, the rest just shatter. You see?

Because Jeff is everything. You see? You crack that one.

You want to go after one that will shatter all the rest, go after Jeff's emptiness. Because if you crack that one, they say, frill, frill, reality will be torn apart. You know?

Nothing can stand up to that. Once you get rid of your idea that Ben is self-existent, the rest are easy. The rest just collapse.

Like that. Alright. So, think about it.

Think about, what is Jeff? You know? Think about it all the time and then you'll see emptiness faster and that's why we're having this class.

And that's why he wrote the book. Did you have a question?

[Speaker 2]
Are you talking a distinction between the main Jeff and the thing which is made up of pockets?

[Speaker 1]
No, I'm not. I was rejected out of the pocket. Yeah.

Yeah. The construct Jeff. But he doesn't know that yet.

Jeff's too big. The emptiness of it. The emptiness of it.

But not that. Oh, isn't it harder? It's harder to see its true nature, but it's not harder to relate to its feeling.

Right? When I say Ben, you're automatically there. It's like Mahamudra where the strength of Mahamudra meditation is that the object of meditation is always right in front of your mind.

It's your own mind. It's your own thoughts. So, yeah.

To understand the true nature is difficult. But to get in touch with Ben, Ben's there. Say something nice about Ben.

Say something bad about Ben. It's right there. Really.

It's close.

[Speaker 2]
It's close. I understand that though. I understand about my finger.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I understand where my finger is and why it hurts if you touch it. But I'm... He asked me like, where is Ben and why do you have these feelings about him?

And I'm not sure what to say exactly.

[Speaker 1]
But it's not as hard. What he's saying is that... He's not saying that.

Let's go back to the sentence, if you want to. It means there is a distinction. Relatively.

How easy it is to perceive Ben or Ben's parts. That's all. And then in the Abhidharma, when they teach...

What does it say? They say, really intelligent disciples, you can lead them with the five heaps. And they work on that for a while and they get it.

Then, some people don't, can't do that. So you teach them the twelve ayatanas, doors of sense. And then, people can't get that, they teach them the eighteen categories.

Like that. But you go at the self through the part. Like that.

Okay. He doesn't say, which is easier and which is harder. Yeah.

In fact, he reverses it. But that's another story. Okay.

Okay. Do we have a translation, please? Yes, we do.

Yeah? Okay. But let's read it first.

One, two, three. Let's go back to twelve. One, two, three.

If you believe in yourself, you go up. If it's sarcastic, you go down. Who's talking?

What's kachignare? The other guy. The other guy is attacking us.

So where's he gonna go? Say, Lobapa. All right.

Okay. This is a useful word to know. Say, No, I'll do something else.

Say, Dokpa means what? Realization. Or wrong idea.

[Speaker 2]
Depending on how it's spelled.

[Speaker 1]
Depending on how it's spelled. What's tokpa? Tokpa.

Yeah, like, who said that? Nice. Yeah.

Obstruction. Like the sangha's name is Togme. Cannot be obstructed.

What's tokpa? So far we had tokpa, and we had tokpa. And now we have tokpa.

Tokpa. Tokpa means what? A fear, or a suspicion, or a paranoia, or a, a doubt.

Like that. Okay. Then dokpa.

Dokpa means a dirt clog.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Now listen, mdokpa. What's that one? Stopping.

Because unstoppable is mdokpa. Say mdokpa. Mdokpa.

Mdokpa. So here we go. Tokpa.

Perceive. Tokpa. Tokpa.

Obstruct. Tokpa. Tokpa.

Fear. Tokpa. Tokpa.

Dirt clog. Mdokpa. Mdokpa.

Turn back. Stop. Got it?

Tokpa. Tokpa. Tokpa.

Tokpa. Tokpa. Tokpa.

Tokpa. Mdokpa. Okay.

Five you've got to distinguish. You have to be able to separate them. Okay?

Here is tokpa chupa. Say tokpa chupa.

[Speaker 2]
Tokpa chupa.

[Speaker 1]
Tokpa chupa means, how do you want to say that? Tokpa means somebody is having like a question in their mind. And we're going to...

chupa. What's chupa? This one is not spelled that way.

This one is not spelled that way. Yeah. Uh...

He said examine, I like that. We're going to investigate somebody's what doubts or questions okay let us let us investigate some questions that might come up tela in this regard okay somebody says somebody comes and says yeah are you telling me like that's how we do it in English okay the guberta it's a badness at the end guberta but in English we start at the what are you telling me you know are you are you telling me you're telling me tell us that in order to achieve young day Nirvana that liberation in which you are freed the vision in which you are freed from what you me good you don't have to talk realize perceive I think perceive that mobile engine yeah good that things why would he accuse us of them why would he accuse us of them yeah yeah yeah so look it's easier to see it with your emptiness if you concentrate on Michael and not on Michael's parts right so then the guy thinks right it's easier to see emptiness question Michael then on things and then and then so the so are there's always these people hanging around the back on the descriptions are waiting to criticize something that the debater said right so then they come up and say oh well I guess you don't have to see emptiness of things right in order to get to Nirvana right did we say that no we said it's easier to see emptiness we've been kind of talking about the first time right we're relative to Michael then it is to perceive it relative to Michael's arms or the chair that Mike the room that Michael's in right we didn't say it wasn't necessary to see the emptiness of things right we just said it was easier to see the emptiness of the person and he's out at an extra thing what to get to Nirvana right he added he threw that in extra that's his that he's like really being naughty you know he said he not only said oh you don't have to see emptiness of things this oh so I guess to get in a while you don't to see how these are things right okay all right here we go oh my god okay let's try it let's see what I have mouse problems. I have mouse problems in the house and on my computer.

I feel pretty good about it. okay let's check this we're gonna do it in parts and maybe later we have to go back and fix the parts okay so let's let's read it together one two three mo bo rang shen me pa tok pa la ma te par kang sak rang kya tu pe zey yuk bung bo dang ngo chik dang tha de kang rung kyi tong wa to sang kyi den la pab ne I'm just gonna add I'm gonna do this one okay first we den la pab ten what was that? it's an idiom den la say den la pab that means to establish first we establish with ter sam yeah studying contemplation what are the three steps to see emptiness in this context?

say ter sam gong people say oh you know you could go out and if you have a big dinner with lots of stuff and then go dancing all night then and if somebody you hit your head on the floor or something and then suddenly you see emptiness you know like there's stories like that and then you know Lord Buddha said I don't it doesn't work that way you need ter sam gong say ter sam gong ter means three thousand hours of study on emptiness three thousand hours in a classroom study on emptiness okay ter study first listening literally listening right ter then sam go home and think about it contemplation think about it and then gong and then meditate on it so first first we establish with study and contemplation the fact that it's empty that they are neither what does it mean? well are they one with the parts of them or are they separate from the parts of them?

are they the same as their parts or are they separate from their parts? say cheek, this is really difficult then say more cheek, this is really difficult I don't understand I don't understand is shuttle is Toyota car? is Toyota car?

no I mean if you say is a Toyota a car then yeah if you say is a Toyota a car? I mean Toyota car is a car no is a Toyota car a car? yeah so then in Tibetan logic you say Toyota car, karta logic it's not one, it's not the same thing it's just that it's such that if you remove to be one is to be the other, that's how I used to translate it let's try that the fact that person is empty yeah it is neither true that to be the person is to be their heaps you see that's different from the same as their heaps or one with their heaps you see it's very subtle and most people get it wrong it is neither true that to be the person is to be their heaps nor is it true that to be the person is to be something other than their heaps you got to chew on that, maybe I give you something else to chew on is this? you have stuff?

ok, you sent this we're really trying to do, what do you call it? vegan, ok? vegan all right, first we start, she's starting again that is it is not the case that the person is what's ze yu mean?

ze means stuff, but what does ze yu mean? ze yu you got to learn, ok? say ze ze means stuff, ok?

remember Rinpoche's old joke in 7-Eleven ze ching? do bu ta de ze ching? do bu ta de do bu ta de, yeah, same stuff in different packages everything in 7-Eleven, same stuff in different packages ze means same stuff, flour, corn syrup, water you know, that's all wheat flour, corn syrup and water it's ze, the ze is the same so ze means stuff, substance but what does ze yu mean?

substantial, ok? having ze that is, it is not the case that the person is substantial in the sense of rang kya thupa say rang kya thupa do you know rang kya thupa? it's the first this is the first of the Mahamudra, the seven Mahamudra beings this is the first of the six the seven, how do you count it?

what's the first of the six Mahamudra views? yeah self-standing, right Vignali? first one?

rang kya thupa, ze yu ke tong oh no, that was unchanging, I think second one, second one thank you sorry, it's the second one, ok? which was what? how did we teach it at the time?

there's no driver, right? there's no one in charge of the heaps right? there's no one in charge it's not that you own your parts why is that the case?

in book Jimba they had that, it was nice why is it the case that you don't own your thoughts? that you're not the driver of your thoughts no one would ever be unhappy no one would ever be unhappy no one would ever have a negative thought if you were if your parts were part of you if you were in charge of your parts, you'd never be unhappy you'd also never get sick or old, right? if you had any control over your body and mind, right?

so it's not the case that the person is substantial in the sense of being self-standing and we can establish this without matupar without having to it means to depend on, ok? that what? yeah global?

yeah, that thing I think I should try the other thing though this is the only time I get to eat what I want because she can't say anything because I'm the boss in the class yeah whose school is that? no, I think you said detail list, yeah or, sorry, you said South Tarantica? I think it's South Tarantica yeah hmm?

this is really really tough let's read it together, you ready? one, two, three bhagavad-gita 5.1.1 what's a chedi jaya duja? sorry?

someone in need of being tamed huh? that's ok, but that's duja, but what's chedi jaya? right this is very important idea if you're going to be a teacher say chedi jaya duja chedi jaya duja chedi means for their sake java means it was designed duja means disciple, so what does that mean?

designed for the sake of disciple, what does that mean? it means you have to select the teaching which fits the chedi jaya duja in the room or you go after different populations of disciples, right? so what's the proper book for chedi jaya duja who's a tsongba tsongba what's a tsongba?

tsong means to sell, what's a tsongba? it's a businessman so, which book do you use for chedi jaya duja who's a tsongba? what about if the chedi jaya duja is a nyamjorpa?

or a true korwa? yeah, they're yoga, they're asana practitioners so you use the Tibetan Buddha Yoga what if they are, what's the other one? what if you had a relationship book and the chedi jaya duja was a kimba?

and then how would you dress if the chedi jaya duja was a tsongba? you'd wear a tie and a suit how would you dress if the chedi jaya duja was a nyamba? you'd wear robes, right?

what if the chedi jaya duja was just some people in a restaurant or in a nightclub? no, then you'd dress here, you'd try to dress here, right? and no, that's the whole quality of a Buddha a Buddha a Buddha a Buddha morse and here's the basis of that principle here's the very scriptural basis of that principle say, chedi jaya duja you have to what do you call it?

you have to design your look and your teaching according to the disciple, right? why did they bring up chedi jaya duja here? why did they bring up chedi jaya duja here?

beautiful, beautiful because it's a lower school's emptiness, right? yeah, if you've got a disciple who will buy that, use it what? the driver's thing use the driver's thing they still think their body's coming from its own side and they think the driver's coming from their own side but you just pointed out there's no driver from their own side who's in charge of their body from coming from their own side is it emptiness?

yes, in a way did the Buddha teach you there's emptiness? can the Buddha tell a lie? is it true?

[Speaker 2]
figured it would is it true for that disciple? well, maybe well, Buddha would wish it's true yeah, it's like saying, are they really a business person?

[Speaker 1]
are they really a Hindu? are they really a Christian? you see what I mean?

they are chedi jaya duja-ing they're just adjusting according to the audience so, alright alright and then if the disciple for whom this presentation this particular presentation was designed meditates without losing any of the necessary components components of the meditation thus reaches the tattva? yeah, the final goal thus reaches the final goal and then the disciple for whom this presentation was designed meditates then they attain the direct realization of the object of this meditation ok, what's the object of this meditation? what's the object...

what are they meditating on? huh? what did you say?

yeah they're meditating on there is no driver ok, alright, got it? and if they keep that up they attain the direct realization of the fact that there is no driver ok, alright hmm this is proven by the fact hmm that it is possible to achieve this is really really important say Nel-ndora Nel-ndora Nel-ndora what's Nel-ndora? yoga inherits an adjective yogic this is really really important, ok in the Yoga Sutra Pratyakshanamangama Pratyakshanamangama Yoga Sutra first chapter gives three different kinds of perception and the Buddhists would agree Pratyakshanamangama what's the other one?

Anugama? Anumana logic and then Agama a scriptural authority, someone you trust indirect perception perception which is not direct it can be taught this way also can you see my monks though? no so you have to use indirect perception my robes didn't fall down when I walked in therefore it must be where you go that's logic, got it?

so that's one kind of indirect perception logical there could be some super glue or something pretty much logical second one is I'm your teacher and some of you are your tantric teacher and I tell you I'm wearing a belt so what do you say? no, you're wearing a belt even if I can't see it even if you hang me with it in some nightclub in Tucson you're wearing a belt and then but then there's Neljur Munson then there's Neljur this is a third one that you don't hear about very much this is a special one which is what? you close your eyes and you go into deep meditation and you see my belt really, that's Neljur Munson that's different you didn't see it with your eyes and you didn't see it with logic and you didn't even see it with authority with trusting someone's word you saw it in your meditation you saw it deep in meditation you saw something which normally cannot be seen except with your eyes you saw it deep in meditation that's Neljur Munson what's the most important Neljur Munson of all time? it's the direct perception of emptiness so if you have to categorize direct perception, there could be the sense objects, sense doors eyes, ears, nose then yi me, right?

you can't perceive it do you ever have a direct mental perception that are not yogic? you hear your thoughts you hear your thoughts, when you get angry who's arguing in your mind? who's listening to the guy explaining to you why you should be jealous tonight?

who's listening? that's your direct mental perception but then there's this other one, this is yogic and it's very, very, very powerful you set off one yogic direct perception and then you're gonna be doing weird things like reading people's minds seeing the future knowing if somebody's upset in Brooklyn today it could be very distracting, I think maybe you can't sleep so, this is proven by the fact that it's possible to achieve what?

jungle, a yogic direct perception so, here's what the guy has said so far you don't go think worrying about the chair that's how he started his whole statement, right? what did the other guy say, by the way? you gotta tell me the argument, or I'm just gonna eat a cookie how did this argument start?

he said what did he say? say it sarcastically what did he say? what did he say?

you're telling me I can't achieve nirvana unless I understand the emptiness of the chair they can't see nirvana unless they don't see the emptiness are you telling me it's possible not to understand the emptiness of the chair and still achieve nirvana? and we start out this long answer, this is this long convoluted answer ok, the guy we're talking about he's not worried about the chair he's not thinking about the chair got it? he's not thinking about the chair number two but he did think about how there's no driver he has been thinking about how there's no driver how did he get on that subject?

he went to class they talked about no driver he drove home thought about it and what did? gom no he worked on it in meditation he said with all the necessary proper means he was doing the proper posture he was doing the proper everything he didn't eat too much before he spoke to him in class he was doing everything properly he didn't leave out any of the necessary components and because of that he reached in Tibetan he reached the Tartuk of that meditation he saw directly what? there is no driver has he been worried about the chair?

so that's our answer so far the guy said, are you telling me the guy can achieve nirvana without understanding the chair? what have we said so far? he can get to the direct perception of careful, careful, careful yeah, good, nobody said emptiness, right?

because what kind of disciple is he? he's only the one for whom the no driver argument would work right now he didn't get up to the other agreements yet a guy who's only got as far as the no driver argument if he meditates on that and he works on that he will see that object directly, what? there is no driver did he see emptiness directly?

did we say he saw emptiness directly in our answer so far? we've been very careful nobody called it emptiness the thing he was meditating on, he'll see it directly so far we're like skirting the obstacle sarpa, sarpa, sarpa sarpa, sarpa, sarpa how are you going to make that an adverb? how are you going to make that an adverb?

that's an adjective that's an adjective L.Y. freshly or anew that's why I want to talk about this word because that would be wrong sardu doesn't mean new or fresh As an adverb, it means for the first time, okay? Very, very difficult, very, very nasty. Sarpa means new.

Add an L-Y to it, it doesn't mean newly, got it? If you're gonna translate, and you'll see why in this sentence, okay? If the person has not perceived this before, previously, and they see it, and they perceive it now, how are you gonna translate Sarpa?

For the first time. Who said that? Nice, okay.

Sometimes people are afraid to say me, because they're afraid it was wrong. Okay, for the first time. Then they are now on the tongam, that they've seen.

If they are continuing now to see something, now to, I'm sorry, if they're continuing now to habituate themselves to something they have already perceived, right? Then what's he gonna say? That they are on the path of habituation.

This is a beautiful sentence, because you get the proper translation of gomlam, which is spelled with an S-G-O-M. Okay, got that? Say gomlam.

Gomlam. Gomlam. Why is it called gomlam?

Because you, no, no, no, 50 cents, half of my second cookie. For anyone who can say this correctly. Brazil, sexy, everything.

Gomlam. Gomlam. Say gomlam.

Gomlam. Okay? We call it gomlam, because you, gomlam.

Got it? We'll do it one more time. We call it gomlam, because you, gomlam.

Okay? We call it path of habituation, because you are getting habituated or used to what you already saw. Okay?

So if the person is perceiving it, what? If the person is perceiving that there is no driver, for the first time, we'd say they're on the path of seeing. If they're just seeing something, continuing to see something they've seen in the past, we'd say that they are on the path of habituation.

Can you? Good, who said hold on? I like it.

Tell them why they should hold on. And I'll eat the cookie.

[Speaker 2]
That seeing only applied to seeing emptiness. So we're saying now that any, it kind of sounds like anytime you have a direct yogic perception, you're on some type of path of seeing, should you see it for the first time.

[Speaker 1]
Right. He didn't see emptiness directly. He just saw what?

He saw there's no driver. But now he's got promoted to tonglam already. Yeah, it's a lot easier, right?

Yeah. We'll do this last sentence, and then we'll stop, because we're almost out of time. Because it's so beautiful, okay?

So here we go. Ecdoti. de nyi kyi remba shindu nyo mong gu ta ta khen kye pong shing These two paths, respectively, remba shindu, right?

Eliminate. Eliminate. Now, this is the big deal.

Say nyo mong. Nyo mong. Gu ta.

Gu ta. Nyo mong.

[Speaker 2]
Nyo mong.

[Speaker 1]
Khen kye.

[Speaker 2]
Khen kye.

[Speaker 1]
What's the difference between gu ta and khen kye here? Yeah, gu ta means developed over the course of your life as a belief during your life. But what's khen kye?

You were born with it. Sahaja. You were born with it, right?

So, these two paths, respectively, eliminate the mental afflictions that one has developed intellectually and those which you were born with or something. That we were, each one was born with. Okay?

All right? Give me an example of a belief that you came to develop over the course of your life that is eliminated by the path of seed.

[Speaker 2]
I can think of bad things and get away with it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's okay. What about with regard to self-existence?

[Speaker 2]
You think like this thing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, well, somebody asks you, are you perceiving things right? And you say, yeah, I am. Okay?

But what would be the khen kye? What's the harder mental afflictions to get rid of? So, somebody says, somebody comes up to ask you, are things real around you?

What would an Arya say? What would a Thonlamba say? What would someone who's just seen emptiness say?

No. But then if you said, are you still seeing things that way? They would say, yeah, and that's khen kye, okay?

That they can't stop right now. That's inborn. Do bugs have that?

Yeah. Bugs have the second one. Alright?

So, tonglam helps you get rid of... Once you achieve tonglam, you can never again believe that what you are seeing is correct. But you still see it.

You can't stop yourself. And then over the course of many years, you kova, you review what happened to you on the day you saw emptiness. And then slowly you can eliminate all your other mental afflictions.

Okay? Got it? And that's why we're studying emptiness.

Because we want to get rid of mental afflictions. Anger, hatred, desire, pride, jealousy. And there's no other way.

There's no other way. Cannot get rid of them any other way. The only way is to see emptiness.

So, it's a beautiful class. It's a lot of fun. Thank you.

Thank you for this class. Okay. You have to do a very slow mangala and then very slow prostration.