Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 73

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so, our side, sorry, you want to download? I think they found you sleepy, yeah. Our side said that the first emptiness you ever see directly will be the emptiness of?

Good, Emma. And, or Jennifer, or whatever it is, right? And you're not going to say, me, even.

It's going to be them, or Jennifer, or, okay? Like that, alright? So, rather than, rather than, the emptiness of Michael's parts, Michael's arm, etc.

Okay? Right? Rather than, got it?

Just nod, and now it's later in the talk. Okay, then somebody comes along and says, Are you telling me that in order to achieve nirvana, you don't have to perceive that things have no nature of their own? Things being a code word in Madhyamika for the parts of a person, including their world, right?

Are you telling me, you just have to see the emptiness of Rob to get to nirvana? Is that what you're saying? Okay?

Did we say that? No, we just said the first emptiness you see is going to be Rob, of Rob. But we didn't say you didn't have to see the emptiness of other stuff to get to nirvana.

But he's jumping to that conclusion in the first place, and probably other conclusions, okay? Then they go off into a long thing, that it's neither true that the person, to be Michael is to be Michael's parts, neither is it true to be Michael is not to be Michael's parts, okay? Is to be Michael to be Michael's hand?

Is to be Michael not to be Michael's hand? Right, neither one, okay? Because if you don't have a hand, I mean, most of the human parts, okay.

Which is to say, it's not the case that Michael is self-standing. And we said that's the Mahamudra version of no driver, okay? Michael is not the driver of his parts, okay?

First you figure that out. And then a disciple for whom that presentation is the good one, because each disciple needs a different presentation. They meditate, they keep all their practice nicely, and then they reach the goal of that meditation, which is they see emptiness directly, okay?

And that's true because they can have a yogic direct perception. You can see emptiness directly, almost outside of the physical and mental senses. It's a separate kind of perception, okay?

If that person in question who just reached the direct perception of emptiness because they were thinking about the driver thing, the driver of the parts, okay? If that's the first time they've seen emptiness, now they're on the path of seeing, okay? If they've already seen emptiness directly and they're just kind of doing more of the same thing, it's called the path of habituation.

Because they are getting used to what they saw, okay? So if you ever have someone question the translation of the path of habituation, you have the sources here. They get habituated to what they saw, so it's the path of habituation, okay?

Then he says, these two paths, the path of seeing and the path of habituation, eliminate respectively wrong intellectual ideas about emptiness and then the very basic mental afflictions that one is born with and that even bugs have, okay? So, that's where we are. And now we're going to start a new part.

Is this part translated? Oh, sorry. I thought you were following me.

Okay. Actually, I think we're still going through the tenth translation. Not quite here yet?

Okay. We're still going through the tenth. Oh, you're still on tenth.

We're still on tenth. Okay. Let's see.

I think you're arrested on that one. Oh, sorry. Okay.

Ah, still on tenth. All right. Let's read it together.

One, two, three. One, two, three, four. Okay.

Now we're going to put that here. And this, moreover, is how the uninterrupted part of the path of seeing, good, works to eliminate the mental affliction. The pay is here, okay?

Which means everything before that is the, there has to be a therefore after that, you see? So, this is, moreover, how the uninterrupted path of seeing works to eliminate. He didn't say mental afflictions, did he?

And you have to be really careful, because there might be something that's not a mental affliction. You see what I mean? So, you'd want to say, works to eliminate negativities or something like that.

This one, yeah, that being the case, one, mun sim de che, how do you want to try, what did you put for mun sim de che? Huh? Mun sim means direct, like, direct reception, is it?

Yeah? I re-translated this and you don't have it. What I put when I re-translated it.

That's okay. You said directly produces, right? Yeah.

Mmm, you could just say brings about. It's a little bit tricky word, okay? It's different from mu sim de che pa.

Get it? Mun sim de che pa is different from mu sim de che pa. Say mu sim de che pa.

Mu sim de che pa. That means to do it directly. And mun sim de che pa means to make it appear.

That's all. It's an idiom, okay? Alright, that being the case, one brings about, Alright, I would say one thus brings about, brings about the result of becoming an early investor.

By eliminating the seeds of the mental afflictions. Both. What's kun hen?

Yeah, it's an abbreviation for kun tak dang len kye. Say kun tak.

[Speaker 2]
Kun tak.

[Speaker 1]
Dang. Dang. Len kye.

So kun tak means learned, right? During the course of your life. Like the fact that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

I mean that idea, the idea about Santa Claus is learned, right? It's not something you were born with. I mean your parents taught you about Santa Claus.

But the idea that you can get a cookie by not sharing cookies. By being faster than the other people in the class. Or sitting closer to the person who's baking today.

That's kye kye. That's, everybody has that. It's inborn in the mind, okay?

So eliminate both the seeds of, both the seeds of mun sim. Both learned and inborn, right? But the big interesting thing here, is the last two words, the last two syllables, which is?

Serna. What does serna mean? Somebody claims.

Somebody makes this claim. That means that all the paragraphs, back to where somebody started to make a complaint, have been a quotation. All the paragraphs up to now, have been one huge complaint about us.

Okay? Alright? Got it?

So now we gotta go back and put that in quotation marks. We have to make it a statement. Indented, to make it more clearly.

Because it goes on so long. It goes on for maybe two pages. That if we don't make it obviously, someone talking, we're gonna be in trouble.

Okay? So let's go back. It goes all the way back up to, right, this paragraph right here.

Let us investigate some questions that might come up. When we say, what? What did we say before that started his complaint?

What did we say? No. He said, are you telling me that you can achieve Nirvana without seeing the emptiness of Rob's hand, arm, etc.

What did we say? What? Yeah, we said it's relatively easier to see emptiness with Ben than it is to see with Ben's parts.

Okay? Alright? Got it?

So, and that triggered his attack, which, you know, had no foundation. But that's the way attacks are. Okay.

So I'm gonna indent it. Yeah? The only clue is when you hit serna.

Yeah, here he said, kacignare. Right here. Yeah, you have to wait for the serna.

Yeah, now it felt like his argument ended at tau already, but it wasn't the case. His argument went on for like a page. It happens sometimes, yeah.

So I'm just gonna go through and indent everything to make it clear that he's still talking. You see? All this stuff.

I think I didn't. Oh, you're right. Okay, now I'm gonna review with you one more time what I said at the beginning of the class.

He comes and says, are you telling me you can't achieve nirvana without seeing Jigme's parts? I'm sorry, that you can achieve nirvana without seeing Jigme's parts. Are you telling me that?

Then he goes on. He says, after all, people learn about emptiness, how? This paragraph, what's it say?

How? They investigate their relationship with their parts. Am I the driver of my parts?

Right? They don't go and investigate the emptiness of Julia. They go looking at Julia's parts and see if Julia's the driver of those parts or not.

And that's how they see emptiness. And he's really slick, because he wraps it in all this true stuff. Do you have to study first?

Yes. Do you have to contemplate first? Yes.

Is thinking about Julia's parts useful and whether she's the driver of those parts? Whether or not she's in charge of her arm. Is Julia in charge of her arm?

If she is, maybe there's a Julia, right? But if there comes a time when Julia can't raise her arm, or if there comes a time when something gets cut and Julia didn't want it, then is she still the driver of her arm? Does she still have control over her arm?

Who's running her arm? Who's running her thoughts? Who's the boss of her thoughts?

If we were the boss of our thoughts, we'd never have non-happy thoughts, right? And so, it's by understanding the emptiness of your parts that is the emptiness. Got it?

He's describing this whole long process. The driver of the parts, that's an emptiness meditation. Right or wrong?

Did Arya Nagarjuna have chapters called The Whole and the Parts? I guess it was in Bhagavad Gita somewhere, I think so, right? There's probably some chapter called The Examination of the Parts of the Whole or something, right?

So, what is that? Is it Arya Nagarjuna's non-Arya? Or he didn't see emptiness?

He says looking at Julia's parts is useful. And whether we're driving those parts or not. And in fact, if this person keeps meditating on that, they're gonna see emptiness directly.

And if that's the first time they've seen it, they'll be on the path of seeing. And if they continue, they'll be on the path of obliteration. And if they keep that up, they'll get rid of their learned mental afflictions and their inborn mental afflictions.

And if they keep that up, they'll get to Arhat. Which you said, you didn't have to see the emptiness of the parts to get to Arhat. Yeah, we never said that.

But he's still honored. But it was a very beautiful presentation, right? He said, look, be reasonable.

First you have to think about your mind. You have to think about your body and all your parts. And then you have to contemplate.

Then you have to hear about it in class. And then you have to meditate properly. Then you'll see emptiness directly.

Then you keep that up. You get rid of all your mental afflictions slowly. First you get rid of the learned ones.

Then you get rid of the natural ones. And then finally you achieve Arhat. So what are you talking about?

That you can't achieve Nirvana. That you can achieve Nirvana without seeing the emptiness of the parts. What are you saying?

Everybody knows this is the process. And Ted, that's the meaning of the first sentence. That's how it all works.

He's trying to say that. That's how it all works. That's the whole process.

That's how you get rid of your mental afflictions. You have to see the emptiness of cats. Parts.

You have to see that she's not the driver of her parts. Okay? Got it?

It's a nice argument. What are we going to say? It's our turn now.

Okay? It's our turn. Alright?

Now we get to see. Is this Yeltsin? Dwar.

Dwar. Okay. Okay.

Okay. One, two, three. Okay.

So I'm splitting the sentence so it doesn't get out of hand. Okay? What's gyilmey te?

Yeah, there's no such thing Okay? It's even in modern colloquial Tibetan. And you should learn it.

Like if you're going to be around Tibetans. Okay? Say gyilmey.

Gyilmey. Gyilmey. Gyilmey.

Gyilmey. Gyilmey. Gyilmey.

Gyilmey. Gyilmey. Gyilmey.

Gyilmey. Gyilmey. Gyilmey.

You know, you say, Are you sure we're going to have the car ready on that day? Say gyilmey te. Yeah.

And when somebody in India says that, you're a big chunk.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
How do they say it in Hindi? I don't know. Kalao.

Kalao. Kalao means come tomorrow.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
But it's like, when they say no problem, you're like, oh no. Okay. So gyilmey te.

But there's no such problem. Now I'm going to... Because I had to split the sentence, if the sentence gets out of hand, you have to split it up.

You have to break it up. And then you have to add little things to make it flow. So, we will say...

Suppose someone does... Dhamma-bhava, establish, right? Establish.

Does use... Does go through the steps of learning and contemplation to establish that... Kamsa means what?

It means two things. Kamsa means person. It also means a smoking pipe.

Same spelling. So here, private person. Kamsa.

Rangyatupa, self-standing. Rangyatupa. I'll give you an example.

We did a lot of work, refugee work, right? 30 years of refugee work. And then you tell them, you get in the habit, you go in the room and you say, we want you to be Rangyatupa.

Which means what? We don't want you to become dependent on foreign funds, on foreign aid. We want to teach you some skill.

We want you to develop some kind of industry. We want you to become Rangyatupa. So that's what Rangyatupa means.

Like, we want you to be self-sustaining or self-standing, okay? Rangyatupa. That's substantial.

That's substantial. And it has like six or seven different meanings in philosophy, in Buddhist philosophy, okay? And we're not going to go into that, because that would take a couple minutes.

We'll just say substantial. So, to establish that the person is empty, is devoid of being self-standing, of being substantial in the sense of self-standing. Suppose someone does go through the steps of learning and contemplation to establish that the person is devoid of being substantial in the sense of being self-standing, and that they do so without relying on any understanding that things have no nature of their own.

Got it? Okay? So he says, suppose someone goes to class and they hear somebody say, Ian is not self-standing.

Okay? He's not self-standing. Right?

And they think about that, meaning is there a driver, right? Does Ian control his body and mind? Right?

And they do that without examining whether the chair has a nature of its own. Got it? They didn't examine whether the chair had a nature of its own.

They came to some idea that Ian is not self-standing, because they examined whether or not he's a driver of his mind and body. Got it? Could there be such a person?

No. Sorry. Could there be such a person who had reached this kind of understanding?

Ian is not in control of his body and mind, but who didn't think about the emptiness of the chair. Yeah, I mean, it's possible, right? They came to some idea about Ian without worrying about the chair.

Got it? Okay. That's possible.

Okay? Before we read it together, I think it's misspelled. Okay?

I think it's misspelled. And I think we found the correct spelling already. So what would I do?

Just keep going. If I wished to perpetuate five centuries of an era, I would. But, you know, this is a translator's principle.

Right? Where is Albert Einstein? You have to take a stand.

You have to take a stand. You have to say, no errors are getting past me. You know?

It's been five centuries. Everyone just let it go. No, really.

They've been reprinting this book for five centuries. And I'm not going to just be lazy. If something looks strange to me, I'm going to stand there like a rock in the river like, what is it?

Unexpected events, setbacks occur daily. Right? And you just say, I'm a rock in the river and it's going to flow around me because I'm not moving.

You know? You're like that. You have to be or you can't be a great teacher.

You can't be. Right? Or anything.

Right? Because every enterprise in human life has setbacks. So then you say, okay, there's an error here.

It's not getting past me. You know? I'm going to hold firm.

I'm going to check. You know? I'm going to check and clean it up.

Like that. And as a translator from Diamond Mountain, you've got to be one of these rocks or anything from Diamond Mountain. You know?

You just got to take a scan and say, you know, I'm doing it. You know? I'm just doing it.

Okay? So no matter what comes, they can flow around me. You know?

So, here we go. We're going to look for gom che kyi he ma. I would go to the top of the file and look for it again.

If it was me. Okay. Gom che kyi.

Right? The question is, was it genitive or was it instrumental? Right?

So here we go. Where is it here? What is it here?

It's genitive. Okay? Let's find the next one.

What is it here? It's instrumental. It's wrong.

Okay? For five centuries, it's wrong. So you just stand up and say, I'm going to fix it.

You know? Right? Gom che kyi he ma.

It's a small example. It doesn't make any sense with the instrumental. Okay?

It's a small example, but it applies to everything you do in life. You know, you just take a scan and you fix it. Okay?

And there's a little tension sometimes. Okay. Here we go.

How did we translate it? I don't remember. Let's go see.

Without losing what? Any of the necessary components of meditation. Often times this refers to the posture.

But it can also refer to the five, what is it? How many problems, how many antidotes? Five problems, eight antidotes.

You know, if they keep their, all the, what do you call it? All the components of meditation. Meaning, if they have all the fixes there, all the antidotes ready.

If they have their posture correct. If they're in the right kind of place, conducive place. You know, if they keep everything you need for a good meditation.

So here we go. So we're just going to cop that. How did we start?

It was like a suppose, right? See? And suppose too, that they continue meditating on this, without losing any of the necessary components of this meditation.

Then there's an idiom here that translators will have to learn. You'll never find it in any dictionary, I don't think. Unless you hypertext our ASAP materials someday.

Yudh Chok. Say Yudh Chok. Chok means to stick something in somewhere.

Like cookie color chok. See? Cookie color chok.

I think it's Thai, but I don't know. It means to stuff a cookie in your mouth. Chok means to stuff.

Okay? But Yudh Chok is an idiom that means suppose we allow the possibility. Yudh Chok means it's like suppose we stuck in and suppose we stuck in and it happened.

Okay? Suppose... Yeah.

How do we say that? And suppose even that it were possible that they then perceived. This is a monsoon too.

Okay? Ted? As opposed to monsoon to Chepa.

Then here it means directly. It confuses lots of translators. Monsoon to has two vastly different meanings.

Monsoon to can mean directly perceive. And it can... Monsoon to Chepa means to bring something into actual existence.

There's an English word. To actualize. Yeah.

That's perfect. To actualize. But here it's directly.

That they were impossible then that they perceived directly that thing. We could say the truth of what they were meditating upon. He just dissed the other guy.

How? Why? Big diss tapping right here.

Big diss happened. Okay. So somebody...

It's okay. Ian was meditating on how there's no one in control. There's no driver of the body and the mind.

Okay. Yeah. Suppose so.

Suppose he understood that. And then suppose he went home and he... And he turned and he like meditated on it all the time.

You know? And then... Okay.

And then suppose someday because of that meditation he saw the truth of what he was trying to meditate on. He didn't say emptiness. He never said emptiness.

Our side never said, well then suppose it's emptiness. Right? Why?

Because it ain't emptiness. It's not emptiness. To see that you are not in control of your body and mind is a step towards emptiness.

It's not emptiness. Got it? Okay.

So the other guy's argument is being blown away. Got it? Did he meditate on his parts?

Yes. Did he meditate on that it's not the driver of his parts? Yes.

Did he work on it a lot? Yeah. And did he see the object of death directly?

Yes. So what? He didn't say emptiness.

Okay, got it? Got it? Okay?

All right? It's a little tricky here. It's very subtle, because the other guy was sensitive enough to say, chen du jang hui til jang.

The other guy was sensitive enough in his argument to say, chen du jang hui til jang. What did he say? Yeah.

A disciple for whom that would be an appropriate meditation. He thought by throwing that in he'd get away with it. Okay?

He said the person couldn't handle a deeper meditation. The person couldn't skip to the real emptiness. So we had him on the driver thing.

We had him on a lower mahabhuta thing. He's trying to pass it by us that way. He's trying to get it by us that way, right?

But even if you design a lower meditation for somebody who can't handle a full emptiness meditation, and if they succeeded that meditation, have they seen emptiness? No. No, okay?

So he can't get away with it. He can't throw in chen du jang hui til jang and think he's gonna get away with it. Got it?

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
He doesn't say the yogic direct perception here. Does yogic direct perception of the previous one necessarily mean that it's emptiness?

[Speaker 1]
That's a good question. I don't think you'll find it in scripture. I don't think you'll find the answer in scripture.

But I would say that the word myao jang mun sum is so often connected with the direct perception of emptiness that it probably would not be allowed to say in prasangika that you used it to see that the driver is not there. Okay? Although maybe you do.

See? Because it has slided into a connotation of the direct perception of emptiness. Okay?

That's all.

[Speaker 2]
But would a lower school hold that?

[Speaker 1]
Of course they would hold that. The yogic direct perception of emptiness. Yeah.

They would. Yeah, in fact, the South Trantika, the second school, is the one that sets forth this kind of perception. And we accept it as applying to direct perception of emptiness.

Normally. That's the only context in which it comes up. Whether it could happen in other contexts, I don't know.

You'd have to search the whole database for myao jang mun sum. And then for that, you'd have to have a few weeks of after time. Okay.

And here, we polish him off. Okay? Well, let's do it here.

One, two, three. nar ma tok pa sar tu tok pa phong lam pham tok sim gong pa yin ten du che pa gong la ma yin pe What's the important word here? What's the important syllable here?

Ma. Ma. Say ma.

Ma yin. Okay? Ma yin is like, it ain't.

Okay? It ain't. It ain't what?

Let's go up and take our old wording. Okay? We'll just take our old wording so that the argument sounds, it flows.

You see? You see? If this is something that this person has not perceived previously, and they perceive it now for the first time, that's still not what?

That's not the path perceived. And if they continue now to refituring themselves to this thing which they've already perceived, neither is that the path of refituration good. Okay?

This is really, really important. So, who taught the emptiness meditation that you should think about whether you're in control of your mind and body? Who taught it first time?

Lord Buddha, right? And it's not true that you can see emptiness that way, right? If you succeed at the meditation that he recommended, have you seen emptiness?

No. And that's so profound in Buddhism. That's so profound.

To say that the founder of the religion can give presentations which are incorrect, because what? It was helpful for a certain disciple. It was helpful for somebody at the time.

Okay? That's so profound for a religion to admit it, right? And to make it part of their religion, right?

And then you have to expand it to life itself, right? So, someone says something wrong, right? A person or someone does something wrong, what can't we assume?

We can't assume that they're not a Buddha. We can't assume that. Someone does something unexpected to you.

Someone says something about you which is not true at all. And then, you can't assume anything. If you're a Buddhist, right?

If you understand scripture, if you understand what Lord Buddha himself taught wrong, openly wrong, right? Baldly wrong, you know, like shamelessly wrong. Then you're stuck in a weird world, you know?

As a Buddhist, then you can't assume that anything someone says or does which is wrong is not without enlightened intention, right? You can't. So you can't get too worried about stuff, you know?

You just have to go, you know? Okay, got it? It's a whole thing.

Once you're a Buddhist, you have to flow with things that you know are even mistaken because you don't know the intention of the... There may be a bigger thing coming a week later that you don't know about. And it's all set up.

And then you just have to accept that, right? Possibility. Yeah?

[Speaker 2]
I don't know if you want to talk to this, but how does this jive with the advice that you must correct people with it? Because you're saying just flow with it, just go with it. Is that what you're saying?

So how does that... How can you just say wrong and unhelpful versus wrong and helpful? Yeah.

Correct you.

[Speaker 1]
You have to... What Lama Trisonga said was, well, but suppose you know that something is wrong, how should you speak up? I think you have to use your wisdom, right?

Would it be helpful not to speak up? I had a dream about the Dalai Lama once, many, many years ago. And we were in a press conference together.

And he was up in the front, of course, I was off to the side. And some reporter asked him, so this emptiness thing, it means everything is just black, right? And nothing matters, you know?

And then I'm like, I'm like, oh, his Holiness, let me answer, I'll blow him away, you know? You know, you're from Tibet, I'm American, I speak English, you know, I'll just blow him away, you know? I'll just get him, you know?

And he turned to me and he said, sometimes it's more important to be diplomatic than to be right. And I woke up, you know? So, I think you have to judge the situation.

You have to judge the situation.

[Speaker 2]
Can we really say this is wrong? Can we say it's less so?

[Speaker 1]
Well, I think that's also an important point to make. I phrased my question to you very carefully, you know, because I almost said, would this help you to see emptiness? And I retracted it, and I went a different way, right?

Because then you'd have to say, of course it helps to see emptiness. Will you see... I think what I said wrong was, if I was in a debate ground, I would have already been crushed, right?

I said, is this going to make you see emptiness? And you say, yeah, but it's not the only thing. You'd have to keep going.

But it's a step, you know? So you have to be careful how you phrase it. You're correct.

Okay, here we go. Mmm... That was it, right?

Up to chitte? Oh, right, okay. The pieces are right.

The pieces are there. It's just that these are... This is the most difficult thing I need to ever translate, I think.

Except for maybe Blue Animals or something like that. History books from 800 AD or something. Those are a little difficult.

But this is probably the hardest otherwise. So all the pieces are there. It's just the argument, right?

Mmm... Let's read it together. One, two, three.

DE NYID KYI NO MO KUN ZHANG KYI SA DUNG PONG NYID NYID PAE DIR DE DANG DUNG DRU DRA PA CHE DE CHI DE Okay. Mmm... Neither is it the case that either of these would have the power to...

GUA DRA PONG Yeah, to eliminate the seven... Yeah, the seeds of the mental functions. Whether they be KUN DA LEARN OR SHEN GYI Yeah, good point.

Okay. Okay? Mmm...

Meaning... What... What...

What is either of these?

[Speaker 2]
The path of perpetuation and realization? Seeing the driver for the first time or... Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Seeing that Ian's not the driver of his parts for the first time or continuing to see that thing directly. Okay? Neither of those...

He already said those are not... Not the path of seeing and not the path of perpetuation. And we said neither is it the case that these two direct perceptions.

What? Of what? That Ian's not the driver of his body and mind.

Right? Or getting used to that idea that directly. Neither is it the case that they would get rid of the seeds for the mental function.

Okay? Which is to say that they're not... They're not the path of seeing and they're not the...

path of perpetuation. Because that's what the path of seeing and the path of perpetuation do. Okay?

He's really dissing it though. First of all, they're not the path of perpetuation. They're not the path of seeing and they're not the path of perpetuation.

And second of all, they couldn't get rid of the seeds for your mental functions anyway. Okay? Because you haven't seen...

Emptiness. Emptiness. Okay, good.

Yeah, but... Therefore... Okay.

Therefore... We must... We must...

Take... We must... Drop out.

We must... Interpret... This...

Deer... Deer... Here.

Here where? In this case or in this instance? This whole...

Who would take that whole shtick as figurative? Who would take that whole shtick as just... As Buddha just making up something to help a lower person.

[Speaker 2]
Higher school?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Peter, here in the Prasangika, in our school. But he never says that. He says, Therefore, we must interpret this here.

He just says here, meaning in the Prasangika, okay? As being, interpret this idea here, as being presented figuratively. Yeah, Trang-bin, right?

Not what? The law. Which is to say, Lord Buddha didn't really mean it when he taught that as evidence.

Got it? Those of you who are new, I mean, this is the Mahamudra, right? These are the lower views of Mahamudra.

Is it helpful to realize that you are not the driver of your body mind? Yes, it's very helpful. Is that emptiness?

No, okay? If someone did come up and say it was emptiness, like somebody like Gautama, would we have to say he was a fool or he was wrong? No, you could say he just was speaking figuratively.

He wanted to lead people further. Got it? Okay?

Which is a really, really important skill. I think as you teach longer and longer, you will have to call upon this skill more. You'll learn.

You know, you go to a yoga center and you'll teach the real thing, you know? And everybody will fall asleep or leave at the break, you know? Then you go home and you're like, hmm.

You know, maybe next time I'll adjust it a bit, you know? You kind of get into the oneness and everything, you know? Tell some stories.

And more people stay, you know? Or you might want to give a whole Christian talk or something, you know? Like that.

Okay. All right. And that's what enlightened beings do.

And it's not somehow dishonest or lust and sincere. You sincerely want to help the people. You can't help them if they leave the first day.

Okay? All right. All right.

I think we need cookies. It's like fourth week blues here. Okay?

I hope you have something really... I don't know. If not, just put some stuff in there.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Take, for example, the Mind-Only School. Let's... Somebody tell me the Mind-Only School's version in the Mahamudra Meditations.

There's two of them, I think. Yeah, but what's the thing about subjects and objects?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, wow.

[Speaker 1]
Wow. So, Mercedes said... Some synapses opened up.

Cool, cool. Very cool. Very cool.

Su-tan. Say Su-tan. Su-tan.

Sung-jin-gi. Sung-jin-gi.

[Speaker 2]
Se-ma. Se-ma.

[Speaker 1]
Ze-sheng-gi. Ze-sheng-gi.

[Speaker 2]
Do-wa.

[Speaker 1]
Do-wa. Wow, made my day. Okay.

Okay. This came just in time. Okay, you can share this.

Meaning, okay. I always like this demonstration. Meaning, what?

With me in the cooking, meaning what?

[Speaker 2]
Su-tan is the form receiver, so there's a lack of them coming from a separate karmic seed.

[Speaker 1]
Good, beautiful, yeah. You better stop. Meaning, I have to sit down there, I like to be up here.

Meaning, me and the cookie have not come from a separate karmic seed. One karmic seed in the past. When I gave away cookies, has created the cookie for me to eat, and me to eat it.

Got it? So it's not enough to say the cookie came from karma. I put myself here to eat the cookie.

I put the cookie here to eat, and I put myself here to eat the cookie. And that came from one thing in the past. Which is very subtle, it's very beautiful, right?

It's nice. Which also applies to every irritating person you ever met. Not only did you create them, but you put yourself in the room to experience them.

That's why we meditate, that's why we use this meditation. Next question. Is the fact that me and the cookie have not come from a separate karmic seed empty?

You're so hot tonight. Oh, as I thought, I'm sorry. It's probably you thought the same thing.

Yeah, he said according to whom? Who's dear? No, who's dear?

Not just Uma. Tengyur. Tengyur one.

It sounds like Tengyur. Yeah, the Vasantika. They would say, that's not really your fault.

They don't come from the same seed. By the way, this is also misspelled. How do you spell it?

Do you know? It's not Dhruv Ten. It's Dhruv Ten.

You can look it up in the database. Do you need to know how to spell it to find it? Yeah, you just need a few letters.

So let's look up Dhruv Ten. Let's look it up in Vajrayogini literature. Yeah, there it is.

Okay? Which is? R-D-U-L-E.

Okay? So we'll correct that. Got it?

Okay? The mind only school talks about the cookie and the eater as being devoid of any separate substance. That's what they call it, separate substance.

Which in their school means separate kind of seeds. Okay? Got it?

Just nod. I think you got distracted by something. It's me and the cookie come from a separate substance.

No, because substance in the mind only school means a separate karmic seed. Okay? Got it?

And for them that's emptiness. Alright? Here we go.

One, two, three. D-H-E-D-U-N-G-A-W-I-N-G G-O-N-T-H-E-Y-K-E-Y-L-A-T-T-O-M-A-C-H-A-L-O-R G-O-N-T-H-E-Y-L-A-T-T-O-M-A-C-H-A-L-O-R They would say that that that if the disciple for whom this particular idea was taught was to for whom this was taught were to continue to meditate upon it without losing any of the necessary What are you eating a banana for in my class? If I was Lama Krishna, I'd kick you out for not eating a cookie.

Alright.

[Speaker 2]
Lower score.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, lower score. Okay. This is Chana Jaya Doja.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So, in their school, if a person continued to think about the cookie and them coming from the same karmic seed, which would impel you to share the cookies, then eventually if they kept that up, meditating properly, okay? Everyone's agreed that it has to be properly. It can't be like slouching.

And it can't be having mental agitation. And, you know, it can't be like eating too much or something. Okay.

And if they kept that up, then they would conceive emptiness, okay? They would say that such a thing existed, okay? Such a disciple.

I'm just coming to you, okay? Alright? One, two, three.

Now you're all like hyped up. What's ten and what's oak? Yeah, above and below.

You're gonna get in Lama Kristi's class, I don't know if it's today or... Both classes, I think. You're gonna get a ten moon and an oak moon.

What's that? The upper wind and the lower wind. Okay, which is like prana and apana, right?

And then the goal of yoga is to bring them together at the heart. Of Dorje Dampa, right? but deng ne is different, you know?

Deng ne means following from that, on top of that, you see? On top of what? On top of what?

What just happened? No, but what just happened to the mind only guy? He was thinking about the cookie and he kept contemplating it correctly and then he had the direct perception Yeah, and then he built on that.

You could say he built on that. Okay? And they would say that this person builds upon this.

And gains the sachu. All ten levels of a Bodhisattva. And traverses the chimasum.

Chima. The ladder three paths. What are the three ladder paths?

What are the last three of the five paths? You could just say, what? Parakate.

Parasamkate. Bodhisattva. I mean, and that amount of people would know what you're talking about.

Right? Because those are talking about the last three paths, right? He traverses the ladder three paths and follows the deng ne and eliminates both types of obstacles.

What are they? Yeah, the ripple sections and obstacles on the road. This whole presentation of the process would be interpreted here.

Here where? Yeah, as being figurative. Then he's got a tabu there and I'm going to go stick it up way up here.

This is similar for example to what the Mindfulness course says. Okay, so let's talk about this. What's similar to what?

He says, oh, it's just like the mind-only thing. What's similar to the mind-only thing? Yeah, that whole long shtick about the driver.

That whole long shtick about the driver. That's just like the mind-only shtick. Okay, why?

Then he goes on this long trip. Who's he? We.

Ramana, right? He says, you know, it's just like the mind-only school. First they say there's a cookie and then there's a perceiver of the cookie and they say that emptiness means that the perceiver and the cookie don't come from a different conversation, right?

By the way, he throws in another mind-only idea. Did you notice? Partless?

Partless particles. Partless atomic particles. Okay, who has that idea in the world nowadays?

Science? Okay, science. What is the cookie made of?

What is the cookie made of? What holds up the building? The building will fall one day.

The roof will fall one day. Will you be in it? Will you be in the building?

No, and your mind goes to the like, did did Bert like mix the mud right? Did Michael leave a hole in the foundation or something? Your mind goes to particles.

Your mind goes to the integrity of the cement. Right? That's where your mind goes.

Your mind goes to the integrity of the particles that make up the walls. And that's where your mind goes, right? And then if I questioned you, well, what's the smallest piece of those particles you'd have to say?

You know, a quark or what is it now? How far did they get yet?

[Speaker 2]
An atomic particle.

[Speaker 1]
That's the smallest part. And then I'd say, is it the smallest, really? And you'd say, no.

And I'd say, why? And you'd say, because you could split it. And I'd say, why?

Because it has a left side and a right side. And I'd say, well, why does it have to have a left side and a right side? Because if it didn't, how could it hold up anything?

If it didn't have any width, how could it hold up anything? How could it support the wall? It must have some width.

Right? So they have to say, oh yeah, there's particles that have no parts. There's things so tiny that you can't divide them.

They have no left side, they have no right side. They have to say that. They have to say that.

At some point you get so fine into the atom that it has no parts anymore. You're down to the smallest, the most sub-atomic-y particle. Not really.

And they keep finding the next one, right? And they will continue. Because there's no such thing.

There is no last one. Because you can always divide it. If you couldn't divide it, it couldn't hold up the wall because it would have no width.

Right? No, really. So what's the option to that?

Yeah, love holds the wall up. Love holds the wall up. A concern for the comfort and safety of others holds the wall up.

That's profound. I mean, the next book should be a refutation of science itself. But I prefer to think of it as a fulfillment of science itself.

You know, science is not so bad. It just needs that one last step. So I wouldn't get into this, what do you call it, confrontational thing with science.

You know, you're okay, you can blow up a city. But there's one more step. You know what I mean?

There's one more step like that. And I think, so, but mind only is a lower school. And they still have to talk about atoms.

They still have to think they're some smallest thing. Got it? But do they accept even an outer form?

I thought they were mind only. I thought mind only said there were no outer objects. Good.

Michael said there's no outer object distinct from the observer. It's not that they think there's no outer objects at all. It's not that even a mind only thinks that things are mind only.

Okay? It's not even that the mind only school, that even they think that things are mind only. Yeah, only mind.

It's just a name that they were given. But it's not that they think that. Alright.

How much time I got? She told me to take my time, because she wasn't ready for a class. So it's good you made a lot of cookies.

Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
One, two, three.

[Speaker 1]
So I still have some time. You let me know. One, two, three.

One, two, three. Now, it is not the case that the mind only school would say that the emptiness represented by the fact that outer, the gross outer objects are composed of partless Bill Gates doesn't like partless atomic particles. Yeah, good for him, right?

The fact that gross outer objects are partless atomic particles and the correct perceptions which hold to these reforms are devoid of any Okay. Could you have a cookie? Are devoid of any separate substance is in fact the lack of something subtle I'll say it in plain English, okay?

If you're a mind only school guy or girl and you said there's a kind of emptiness between the cookie and the eater, right? They are devoid of any separate seed, any separate currency. The fact that me and the cookie don't come from separate seeds, okay?

The fact that me and Michael and the cookie don't come from separate seeds, got it? Is that an emptiness in their school? Yeah, but it's not the most subtle form of emptiness, even in their school.

Even in their school. Okay, got it? To things.

The subtle emptiness of things. All right? Where is going I don't know.

Where we're going I don't know. Besides the temple here. Okay.

One, two, three. Dhamme Dhamme Dhamme Dhamme Dhamme Dhamme Dhamme Dhamme Dhamme Dhamme One, two, three. Whoa.

Okay. And yet there's no problem with saying this. I think we're I have some mistakes here.

But I'm going to try and I'm not going to have to go back and change something. And yet there's no problem where... where what we're in the description...

actually here it's contradicted. And that's because in this system... Oh, and here's mine.

Let's think about the... Let's think about the point in this school... where they establish the subtle lack of self.

Things by what? Chidung kak. That's the kak.

What about the chidung? Chilung chidung. Yeah, external objects.

Okay. Let's think about the point in this school... where they establish the subtle lack of self to things...

by denying the existence of external objects. Okay. All this is just said...

relative to establishing their own viewpoint... once they have disproven that things could exist... in the way that the two...

I'm going to say dunmas. Okay. And we'll talk about dunmas systems...

around the whole thing today. You have to learn a new word. Okay.

Say dunmawa.

[Speaker 2]
Dunmawa.

[Speaker 1]
Dunmawa. Dunmawa. And...

What's dun? Object. Okay.

Let's do this dun. Okay. Objects.

Mawa. You can say IST. Right? Like majimikans or minorists.

Like that. Okay. It's like ISTs.

Like mawas. So, dunmawa will be what? Objectist.

An objectist. Someone who professes objects. Okay.

Well, in the way that the two schools... who profess the existence of objects... wrongly hold them too.

The mind only is trying to disprove that things could exist in the way that these two schools who say that things do exist as objects say they do. Okay. Let's put it more simply.

There's two schools from ancient India that say that things exist in a certain way. They're called objectists. Okay.

Two of the classical schools from ancient India think that things exist as objects. What's that mean? What kind of object?

External. External. Okay.

External. There's two schools from ancient India that think that there are external things. That there's a jar.

They think the jar is external to the micro. Okay. There's two schools.

Who? Yeah, the two lower schools. Bhagavad Gita and South America.

Right. The two lower schools. All right.

The Abhidharma schools and the Bhagavad Gita schools. They say that things exist outside. Okay.

So, does that mean that the other two great schools which are mind only and middle way, does that imply that they think there are no other objects? But why call the first two the outer objectists? Huh?

Yeah, it's the way they think the outer thing is there. What do they think? Oh, let me ask you.

Does Prasangika, does the highest school of all believe there are outer objects? Yeah. So, does that mean it's not being projected from your mind?

No. So, how can it be outer? Is your mind outside?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's nice, okay. You knew people.

That's the trick. Is it an outer object in the high school? Yes.

Is it coming from inside? Yes. Yeah.

So, why can you call it outer? Because the inside sees it as outer. The inside projects it as outer.

It looks outer to us. So, it's outer. And it works as outer, right?

I can break the jar, but that's not going to make me go crazy. You see? I'm not going to like suddenly lose a part of my mind.

Right? So, I'm projecting it as an outer thing. So, in one way, it is my mind making the cup, but it's not part of my mind, because I'm projecting it as outside my mind.

And all things are only as I project them. Got it? It's a little difficult, okay?

What about the mind on this goal? Do they think it's outer? Yeah.

Are they the mind on this goal? No. Yeah, we just said, they're called the mind on this goal, but that doesn't mean they think everything is only mind.

What does it mean to call it mind only?

[Speaker 2]
It doesn't exist.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It doesn't exist separate from the same seed. What are the two mind only viewpoints in the Mahamudra?

One is that me and the cookie haven't come from a separate karmic seed. But what was the other one?

[Speaker 2]
Say again?

[Speaker 1]
Say again? Oh, yeah. How do you say that in Tibetan?

Yeah, it's a ram ram. It is a ram ram, something. It is not called what it's called by itself.

It is not called... The name it is given is not automatic. The name that things have is not automatic.

Meaning what? You know, different people could hear the song differently, right? To call a Neil Young...

To call a cowgirl in the sand a masterpiece, the word masterpiece doesn't apply to the song by itself. Right? Somebody else could give it...

My college roommate used to call it what? A screaming eunuch. So...

You know, probably he perceived the song differently. Okay. In the last sentence, wrongly hold them to, who said them?

That things could exist the way that the two schools, the two lower schools hold them to. They're denying... The mind only is denying that things could exist the way the lower two schools think they could.

That's all. Okay? And we have to come back to this.

Okay, we'll come back to this next time we meet. Alright? Because I'm not happy with it.

There's some parts not clear here. Right? Who's contradicting and what?

Right? We've mentioned that the mind only school believed that emptiness was one.

[Speaker 2]
I'll give you a clue.

[Speaker 1]
That the cookie and me could compromise some kind of seed. Right? But they didn't say cookie, they said an outer object composed of partless atoms.

Yeah. And then, can the mind only talk about an outer cookie composed of partless atoms? Can they even talk about that?

No. What's wrong?

[Speaker 2]
There's no such thing.

[Speaker 1]
Then the Buddha would have never taught the mind only school. Who said that? What a charm.

No, but what's the problem here? The mind only school... I'll tell you, I'm a mind only school, okay?

I'm a mind only school guy. Okay, and I said, this cookie which is outer, composed of partless particles, you know, is not separate from my proceeding. We don't come from separate causes.

Is there any problem there so far? Well, there is, because I'm mind only. And I'm talking about an outer cookie.

So already you should be jumping on me. Already you should be jumping on me. When there is no outer objects, then mind only school says no outer objects.

Yeah, that's why he said, I believe, I have to chat, okay? But I believe that's why he says here, don't think that their description is already contradicting themselves. Don't think that.

That's not the problem here. They're just talking about a partless outer thing in order to hook who? To lower schools.

They got to talk about an outer thing, or else the two lower schools wouldn't understand what they're talking about. Got it? So the Chang'e guy is already being Chang'e.

The mind only guy is twisting his presentation to help the two lower schools when his presentation is already twisted relative to the fourth school. Got it? Okay?

A guy in a school that was twisted, because he couldn't handle more, is twisting his school, because the two schools below him couldn't handle more. Got it? Yeah.

All right? We better stop there while I can still hold my thought. This is the greatest book that I'm aware of to see emptiness for.

Okay? A sign that if you're going to not, unless you're going to go at it with a temperament. In that case, you should probably want to study Bury the Devil or something.

But, the greatest book, I mean, you need this foundation. You need to study that. You can see emptiness with this.

So, if we had to do anything together, it would be to go through this book. And you can smell it. You can smell it.

All right? So, because they're talking about the right questions. And it's very, very beautiful.

You won't get this kind of detail anywhere. At all. Not in the Tengyur of the Congress.

Because those were written for very brilliant disciples who didn't need the detail. Really. So, this is the greatest detail there is on this planet.

This book is the greatest. Not even, Je Tsongkhapa's book is, is still too general. You get more detailed questions here than even there.

So, that's why I'm using this book. Okay? So, we're trying to see emptiness.

Be good. Serve others. Take care of other people.

As much as you can. Do holy virtues to the best of your capacity. And then when we meet again, suddenly it will all be clear.

Okay? Because that's, the computer is made of. No, the projector, the book, the computer, everything, right?

Not particles. Not electrons. Right?

Made of love. So, this whole thing of Karni's thing, going out, taking care of these people, is very powerful for seeing emptiness. So, you, you felt that, I think, last week.

So, in the break, do big virtues. And then, in your mind say, I dedicate it to the Uma Jidan. Say Uma.

Uma. Jidan. Jidan.

Holy words. Say Uma. Uma.

Jidan. Jidan. Um Jidan.

Um Jidan. Alright. I know the first thing I remember about class is the cookies.

But, after that, no comment. Okay. Some dedication, good karma.

Alright? One day. Sachi.

Buddhi. Jungshin. Benzo.

Dram. Vira. Vim.

Shikshi. Jindere. Nirmadi.

Sangye. Shindu. Mitthe.

Uaydi. Rokun. Nanda.

Shinra. Shu. Pasho.

Hiram. Gur. Ran.

Damad. Galakam. Gaya.

[Speaker 2]
Dayami. Okay, thank you.