Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 78

[Speaker 1]
So we got two kinds of practicing. One was grosser and one was more subtle. In the first one, we perceived that I wasn't giving a talk, that my car is expressing it to me and I can't control my mouth.

You get that. And the second one is where, how do you say, it's like getting rid of your negative emotions about yourself because you realize you can't control yourself. So the second is more difficult than the first.

There are fewer cases of the second than the first. The emptiness of themselves that belongs to a person who realizes they can't control what they say is more rare than the emptiness that belongs to the person before they figure it out. Do you see any?

Cathy? Path of seeing the greater way where we perceive the form of the breath is an example of the gross form of choosing the path. And the subtle path of choosing the path is the latter.

Oh, that makes sense. This doesn't make sense. In here, there's a piece that's missing.

I saw it get deleted last class. Oh, really? He didn't say anything.

How does it start?

[Speaker 2]
Kachiki.

[Speaker 1]
Is it G-I-S, Kachiki?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Keep going.

[Speaker 2]
Nopal Ranshin.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, that's it.

[Speaker 2]
Let's start with your feet.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, on yours?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, let's read it together. One, two, three. Kachiki.

Nopal Ranshin. Mehta. Topala.

Mata. Ni. Aso.

Chudu. Topala. Tende.

Chola. Nyamunde. Top.

Nil. Ba. Aso dem.

Top. Who's saying it?

[Speaker 2]
Aso dem. Dem dem.

[Speaker 1]
Dem saying it. Which one is the sarcastic one? The one that goes up or the one that goes down?

The one that goes up. Yeah. The one that goes up is what?

It is so, and the one that goes down is, are you saying that... We're the sarcastic one. You can't be sarcastic to us?

I'm not writing the book. I don't think so. I'm not writing the book.

It's our book. Well, this happens to be going down, because he's responding to what we just said. We said that someone who hasn't seen emptiness directly could have some kind of yogic perception like that.

They could see maybe a rough form of the truth or something like that. A rough form of the truth. Then he says...

Now, suppose someone comes and says to God... Are you saying... Are you opposing, right?

That's more sarcastic, right? Okay. That a person can...

So, the four I AM Truths have four aspects each, right? And the I AM Truth of suffering has an aspect which is called the impermanence. We talked of things must change.

And we were proposing that there were two levels of the I AM Truth. A more subtle level and a more obvious level. And we were kind of saying that someone who had not seen emptiness yet directly could perceive the less subtle form.

Right? Okay? So, now he's saying...

Basically he's saying, are you saying someone can perceive the four I AM Truths? Without seeing emptiness directly. Are you saying that?

Is that what you're saying? Okay. And therefore get to Nirvana.

Can a person get to Nirvana without seeing emptiness? Can they just skip to the four truths? Alright?

Thank God. Yeah. One, two, three.

NYE SHEPE LAM LA TENGE CHO BA NYAM GYE THO NYUR BE Because it is possible. Liberation. Nirvana.

We must leave the path which is thought. Okay? By the way, he said, THO NUR BA THA Say it, THO THO NUR BA THA NUR BA THA Are you telling me, okay?

Let's do it one more time. THO THO NUR BA THA NUR BA THA And then, we say what? What is it better to say than THA?

CHI CHUR CHI CHUR CHI CHUR Yeah. Say CHI CHUR CHI CHUR CHI CHUR means, who I am? Why do you say that?

What are you talking about? Are you proposing? Why do you say that?

Okay, got it? THO NUR BA THA Are you proposing to entertain? CHI CHUR Why do you say that?

Why do you say that? Okay? Why do you say that?

Because they don't write that in the text. Because it's always there. It's always the answer.

Okay? Alright? Unless otherwise specified.

Okay? And then he says, Well, because you can achieve nirvana just by using the path which is thought and studying the Abhidhamma. What's the implication?

What's he saying? You can achieve nirvana by studying Abhidhamma. No, let's put it this way.

How is achieving nirvana by studying Abhidhamma different from achieving nirvana by studying the Middle Way? It's not focused on everything else. No, they have an idea of Dharma.

They didn't call it that today. They have an idea of no self nature. But it's not the same as the Madhyamika, right?

They have a much lower presentation. You can say like, you're not in control of your body because of the Abhidhamma. Okay?

You're not in control of your body. Is it possible to achieve nirvana based on that? Just understanding that.

You see? Without understanding that things are coming from higher, higher people. You see?

Without understanding the Madhyamika version of emptiness. Okay? Can you achieve nirvana on the first flame of Amida Buddha?

No. With just the first flame of Amida Buddha? That's the question, right?

It is. And he's saying, it is possible. Right.

Who's saying it? We are. Kacik.

Kacik said, Kacik said, we said, we said, why do you say that? He said, well, everybody knows you can achieve nirvana just studying Abhidhamma. Just follow the Abhidhamma thing.

You don't control your body. And you can achieve nirvana. Okay?

What did we say? He said, follow the nature. Yeah.

Who said that? Yeah. I disagree.

Okay? What? Who said I disagree?

We did. To what? That you can achieve nirvana by following the Abhidhamma idea about what emptiness is.

Okay? First flame of Amida Buddha. Okay?

We disagree. Follow it. Then, now, there's a dare something.

There's a dare something. Is he going up or down? Up.

Why? Yeah, now he's like, is it so? Okay?

They can too. Can too what? You can too reach nirvana if you realize that you're not in control of your body and mind.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
You can too. That's how.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? You can too. It is true, right?

It is true. It is so. Because, the freedom described in these presentations is the freedom is that freedom.

That freedom. Yeah, okay. Can you show the Tathagata?

No. If it were that freedom it would be Tathagata at the end. Instead of Deitapa.

Okay? So, can you show the Tathagata? Dei.

Path. Okay? That freedom which is taught in those books.

Dei. Tathagata in Vedanta. It's freedom.

Okay? Is the nirvana taught in the Abhidhamma nirvana? It's a lower form.

It's nirvana. It's not a... Is it the freedom...

[Speaker 2]
Is it the...

[Speaker 1]
Is it the permanent freedom of our central consciousness? It's not the nirvana that I want to say now. No.

Well, it's not. No, it's not. Because you can't attain that kind of nirvana without seeing emptiness.

And they... They don't describe emptiness. Without seeing directly ah...

Sankhya number six you can't attain nirvana. So, is the nirvana described by those people who only believe in nirvana number one a nirvana? No.

You have to say no. It's not. Okay?

Got it? Okay. So, what would we say to that Jew?

If he said, ah... that's the freedom because the freedom described by the lower schools is a freedom. Because the nirvana you...

you reach by seeing that you're not controlling yourself is a nirvana. Then what do we say? Tathagata.

Tathagata. It's not. Wrong.

You just say wrong. It's understood that nirvana is wrong. Then he says...

Yeah, good.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, you got it.

[Speaker 1]
So, read the whole thing. One. Two.

Three. Okay. Okay.

And so, because the judgment... Enemy destroyed in these presentations is... It's enemy destroyed.

Nirvana. Nirvana. Dene shebe gacchanga gacchanga yamaha.

Yeah. Okay. Which I said.

Are you telling me that the enemy destroyed described in the Abhidharma is an enemy destroyed? Meaning, are you telling me that the person described in the Abhidharma as having a document of all the mental afflictions has gone on a rampage? Then you have to say, well, you're not Amika, okay?

You're not Amika. You have to say, not true. No, they don't.

They are. So, Abhidharma doesn't talk about arhat. Teacher.

Good. Okay. They do talk about arhat.

But the arhat that Abhidharma talks about is nirvana. Good. Okay.

It's not. Got it? Because it can't be nirvana because they didn't do it with the fragment number six.

Okay. Got it? All right.

And the rest are not Amika. Got it? But he thinks so.

He's setting us up by the way. He's not a fool. You know?

He's not a fool. He said, they achieve it because the nirvana described in the Abhidharma is nirvana. And we say, no, it's not.

And then he gives this innocent look. You know? He's like, oh, gee.

But, isn't the nirvana taught by Abhidharma nirvana? And we say, no. But, isn't the arhat taught by Abhidharma nirvana?

And we say, no. And then he says, it is so because the path to freedom I described is very innocent. Okay?

Is the freedom described in the Abhidharma freedom? We say, no. Oh, so the person described is having reached that freedom isn't the person having reached freedom?

That's correct. Oh, so I guess these Abhidharma the thing they present as the path of freedom isn't the path of freedom. Well, you've got another choice.

You can say, my cat. Say hello, my cat. Say hello, my cat.

My cat means what? Well, what does that mean here? What it means is, it's true that the path to freedom described in the Abhidharma is a path to freedom.

But that doesn't mean that the people who use what the Abhidharma says is the path to freedom could reach freedom. Well, let's put it this way. Say, Tartu?

Tartu. Teguchi? Teguchi.

Tartu? Teguchi is what? In the end, all paths are one.

In the end, all paths are one. Will you reach Nirvana if you study Abhidharma?

[Speaker 2]
In the end.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, because then you'll realize it's not sufficient and you'll move on to some challenging time and you'll move on to Ayodhya and then you'll move on to Mahayana and then you'll move on to higher Nirvana. It is a path to freedom. Okay?

It is a path to freedom. Got it? So he tried to catch us.

He said, Oh, gee, I guess learning Nirvana is not ironic. No, that's correct. Oh, gee, I guess Nirvana is not ironic.

No, that's correct. And he tries to get us. He's like that red light thing, green light thing.

He's like, Oh, I guess the path to freedom is the path to freedom. Teguchi. Teguchi.

I didn't say that. I never said that. You said that.

Okay, got it? Don't fall for him. All right.

So, How do you say it? Macha? It's not necessarily so.

I'm going to get this thing to end then, but I have a new word which is really funny. What was the name of the thing that's up under mailing? I have to go under mailing?

Totally retarded. I see a right and a left. I have that under, under the mailings thing.

This one? Yeah. So if somebody knows, That's how it works.

That'll do it. That's good. Okay, I'll do that for now.

Now?

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Oh, that really sucks.

[Speaker 1]
No, that's too much of a pain in the butt. This isn't exactly where I want it, but I want it on her stomach. Yeah, you have to do the system.

I'm trying to make a mark on it, but I don't make a mark. Okay. And then that's not necessarily the case.

It's out of there. In there. Okay?

Okay. Let's read this one, one, two, three. Where's my truth on you?

Yeah, if you say come to what? What is the reason? The path of freedom explained in those schools is the path of freedom.

Because the path of freedom explained in those schools is the path of freedom. Would you say wrong to that? No.

You can't say wrong to that. Would he say wrong to that? No.

No. So, we come back to martundra means, if someone were to say it's wrong. Or we could just make it general.

You can't say wrong to him. You can't say wrong to him. When he says what?

The presentation in those books of the path of freedom is. A. A.

A. Okay? All right?

[Speaker 2]
Got it?

[Speaker 1]
You can't say no. Okay? So, martundra.

And if you say, and if you say, not correct, to that last reason, we'd say to you, it is so, the path between, why? Because the attitude of renunciation described in these presentations is The path of freedom described in the Abhidharmakosha are the Abhidharmakosha presentations. By the way, that's even a little tricky, because he said the two presentations, right?

What's the second one? What is the presentation of the Abhidharmakosha by Master Vasukund? What's the second one?

The commentary? It's Mukundu, it's the Abhidharmakosha by a Sangha, himself. It's a Mahayana presentation of Abhidharma.

It's a higher school presentation of Abhidharma. So you have to be very careful here. He's mixed two presentations of Abhidharma, one which is a Mahayana presentation.

Okay? It's a little tricky. We have to be careful here.

So, is the path of freedom presented in those two presentations of the Abhidharmakosha a path of freedom?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Why? Because what they describe as renunciation is, is real renunciation. Got it?

That has all these implications. See, I like these books because they don't have a list. They don't tell you, look, if there's a failure of renunciation, it's a real path to freedom.

They don't tell you that. They say, the presentation of the Abhidharma of a path to freedom is a path to freedom because it presents renunciation. Oh, wow.

So any book that presents renunciation can't be. It's a path to freedom. Okay.

Which, what does that mean for you as a teacher? Best teacher renunciation. Yeah, I mean, to lead one of your students to freedom, to help them get rid of their mental implications forever, you must start off from describing life's pain.

And then what you teach is a path to freedom. That's the implication for a teacher. Got it?

I mean, you're supposed to go home and say, oh my god, I should be, you know, telling them, aren't you tired that you're breaking up with the same boys year after year? Don't you want to move on beyond that? I mean, don't you want to figure out, if you're going to do a Hinayana presentation and you say, oh, boys are bad, just give it up.

And if you're going to do a Mahayana presentation and you say, well, I can teach you how to live before you work. Renunciation is good. Yeah.

Aren't you tired of breaking up with people year after year? Wouldn't you like to, like, be able to stay with somebody and be happy with them, like, forever? You know what I'm saying?

Yeah. So, okay. Here's how.

But you start from renunciation. You start from, didn't you notice that you broke up with your boyfriend year after year? You know what I mean?

Like that. You start from that. Didn't you notice that things don't work?

Didn't you notice that everyone in your family is dying? You know, and getting old, and, you know, didn't you notice? But the Hinayana presentation is to keep them compressed.

And then the Mahayana is like, hey, you don't have to live like that. You don't have to be like that. Things don't have to be like that.

You can have a boy and you can be happy too. You know, like that. Got it?

It's a Mahayana presentation. It's a tantric presentation. But wouldn't you like a boy who's gone?

Wouldn't you like a boy who's gone? Wouldn't that be fun? Wouldn't that be fun?

I don't know. I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
I can't really picture it. I don't know what to say.

[Speaker 1]
Well, you can come. You can come. Okay.

Okay, 1, 2, 3, yeah. After that, yeah, he said, I don't believe you. Who's he?

It's not the original concept. It's not the original concept. Now we got a third person.

This is the person who wanted to say no when he said that path of freedom is a path of freedom. That was somebody else sitting there. They wanted to say no to him.

We were too smart to say no. He wanted to say no to him. So he's actually saying no.

He said, don't say no to him. And he's a liar. And he said, well, because those books talk about emancipation.

It is a path of freedom. And he's like, no it's not. Now now the debate's a different debate between two other people, right?

This is the guy who wanted to say no to him. Got it? Okay, here we go.

And we said, look, it is a path of freedom. Don't say that to him. He says, why?

I said, it is a path of freedom. And he goes, why? Because they teach about emancipation.

Okay? And he says, well, I don't get it. I don't think so.

Now, why did I say that? Because you need to know who the robber now. Are you the robber now?

You need to know. Okay? You need to know.

Okay, we're trying to say it quietly because we don't want to make a fool of ourselves in front of the guy that we're really fighting with.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so.

[Speaker 1]
What is this song? If it presents you with emancipation correctly, it's a path of freedom. Okay, got it?

This song becomes a sotarki domo. Because a thousand individual people imbued with an attitude of emancipation as described in those presentations are in fact imbued Okay? So he says, oh, just because they present emancipation doesn't mean they're a path of freedom.

And we say, oh yeah, they are. Because if you take the moksha vows with an attitude of emancipation, then we get into freedom. We get into a path of freedom.

Got it? We two in the what? Sosor Tara.

We two in Tara. Now he says they're not a path of freedom. What can we come back to?

Oh, I guess they're not prati moksha vows then. And he says, why do you say that? Well, prati means individual.

For those who keep their morality, they get to go to? Freedom, moksha. So he's stuck, you see.

If he says no at this point, he's in trouble, right? Even just the name prati moksha, you can't say they're not a path of freedom. Their name is a path of freedom.

Got it? But I'll give you another, this is something Nyingbo can figure out. The sky is the limit.

I mean normal circumstance. Not on this project. Teacher.

And he said, why? He said, no it's not. Why do you say that?

And I say, because it's going to. Yeah. There's like 9 or 10 reasons why dhamma do.

There should be 9 or 10 reasons why dhamma do. And one of the classic reasons why a reason can be wrong is simply the assertion repeated. It's not a valid reason.

If I say the sky is green because it's green, that's not a valid argument. It's invalid. By it's very nature it's invalid.

Just to repeat the assertion as your reason is ridiculous. I'm right because. You know, then you get the feeling.

You can never repeat the assertion in logic. In the study of dhamma. If you said to a kid today, the sky is green because it's green.

He'd just say, come on. Did you study first grade logic? Did you study dharma?

So then you say, oh the thing is about the freedom. Because it's about the freedom. The thing is about.

Because someone who takes vows because they're fed up with life are taking vows because they're fed up with life. And the guy is right. So, did they get your account?

Have they made such a logical error? Yeah, not really. Because what's his reason?

In fact. His reason is a fact. His reason is a statement that those vows are vows.

Can you use that as a reason? The sky is green because the sky is the sky. The sky is being, sorry.

Well, it's a kyanogaccha. The sky is the sky. But that doesn't prove it's green.

But to say the sky is the sky is not a bad move. I mean, is that a kick-out thing to say? No, that's why you have to say kyanogaccha.

Because the sky is the sky. He's not repeating the assertion as his reason. He's giving a reason which is a statement that something is itself.

Now, that happens to be a bad reason. But that's another thing. Maybe.

What's the implication here for a teacher? Go to the bank or else. If you take vows because you're fed up with life and not because other people are doing it and not because you like to wear a red suit and disrespect the people.

I mean, if you take it for the right reason then it's a path of freedom. It's always a path of freedom. So there are lots of implications there.

He didn't say sotakidoma sotakidoma in the literature. He didn't say because prajna-moksha vows are prajna-moksha vows. He said a prajna-moksha vow taken by a person who's steeped in this being fed up with losing boyfriend after boyfriend is a real prajna-moksha vow.

Got it? He's trying to teach us something right away. If you take a prajna-moksha vow because you're fed up with the boyfriend process then it's a real prajna-moksha vow.

Got it? There. Now, what did the guy over here say to me just now?

In between there. What did he just say? He didn't say that.

Because if you take a prajna-moksha vow by a religion, it's a real prajna-moksha vow. And then he says, no, no, no it's not. Or the prajna-moksha vow described in Dalai Lama is a real prajna-moksha vow.

He said no. And we say they are so. I think it's they, right?

Vows. They are so because the because the pure monk with four vows described in these presentations is indeed what? A pure monk.

That's OK. It's just one type of prajna-moksha. It's just one type of prajna-moksha.

The vows, renunciation described in there is renunciation. No, it's not. The answer is because if you have that renunciation and take vows, you are taking vows of renunciation.

That's not the unique thing. Yeah, it does, because if you are a good monk as described in the Abhidharma, you are a good monk. Is that true?

If you are a good monk as described in the Abhidharma, are you a good monk? Yeah, that's where the monk's vows come from. All the monk's vows come from the Abhidharma.

That part of the Abhidharma is perfect. In Mahajanika, in Tantra, in everything, it's perfect. That's a monk.

That's a real monk. So hopefully he'll give up now. Let's keep going.

1, 2, 3 Dehamayena Numbahine Tomi Khamo Kemparta Yeah, Abhidharma. Abhidharma. Let's just suppose all this is a question about the case.

Are you telling me ask him that describe the seven and then he's going to say why. And we say because the freedom described means If the freedom described in the Abhidharma is freedom, then the Abhidharma must be describing some person. I'll say it again.

If the freedom described in the Abhidharma is real freedom, then the Abhidharma must be talking about some entity, the real entity. Got it? I'll say it one more time.

If the freedom described in the Abhidharma is real freedom, then the Abhidharma must be describing inaccurately, correctly, emptiness itself, real emptiness. Is that true? It's true that if the Nirvana presented in the Abhidharma is a real Nirvana, then the emptiness that they talk about must be the most subtle, it must be world view number six.

Because only world view number six can get you to Nirvana. Only the direct perception of the six world view can get you to Nirvana. Got it?

Got it? Alright. If you come back to me and say, okay, all you said was cool, I know it's alright, but I still believe that the Nirvana described in the Abhidharma is a real Nirvana.

If you come back to me and say, well, then the Abhidharma must be talking about ways of seeing emptiness directly. The sixth level of emptiness directly. Within their own system.

Within their own system. Yeah, but then the freedom they're talking about is not real freedom. Because it's not Nirvana.

It's not. It's the discontinuation of your body and your mind. That's Abhidharma and Nirvana.

That's Abhidharma and Nirvana. Say it permanently? Ginchenpa.

The discontinuation of this game of physical and mental person. Okay, anyway. I stuck out.

It wasn't very fair. I guess I'm the teacher. Okay.

Oh, by the way. Well, I'm going to go over here. Here we go.

This is where he kills him, okay? Are we going to help Abhidharma? Yeah.

One, two, three. Dhṛtāpeśe tārpe gopāṁ tope gāṁsā. Dhṛtāpeśe tārpe gopāṁ tope gāṁsā.

It is so. It is so because the person who achieves, obtains the state of freedom described in these presentations is indeed a person. is indeed a person.

And this is a, this is magnetism. This is magnetism. I'll show you why.

Are you telling me like, that Nirvana described the unbalanced Nirvana? Is that what you're saying? I don't know.

She means it. Are you telling me that Nirvana described the unbalanced Nirvana? You are.

So I guess the person who achieves that Nirvana is a person who achieves that Nirvana. And if you say yes, you're in big trouble. Why?

Because in the Abhidharma, Nirvana is fabric and chamber. Nirvana is fabric and chamber. It's your body and your mind just talk.

That's Nirvana. And that's where Westerners got this idea of Nirvana back in the 60s or 70s because they, the first Buddhism that came here was from Burma or Thailand, right? And that's the goal.

You just stop. You just blink out. There's no body.

There's no mind. And the big problem with that idea is So is there an island? I mean, Hinayana texts are full of islands.

All they do is talk about islands. So, where is there an island? That's their big That's the big fault of their system.

So we just innocently say, Oh, their Nirvana is real Nirvana? And the guy says, yeah. Oh, so the guy who achieves that Nirvana is like a real guy who achieves that Nirvana?

And then they have to, like, shut up. Why? Because the guy's gone.

[Speaker 2]
He's gone.

[Speaker 1]
Hopefully he'll stop now. Let's see. Let's see if he gives it up.

[Speaker 2]
It's like in these presentations. Sorry? These presentations.

Is it one presentation?

[Speaker 1]
It's two, right? Now, that's a little tricky. So what story do you want?

In their cessation? In their system? No, in their Nirvana.

[Speaker 2]
In their Nirvana system?

[Speaker 1]
Just one story.

[Speaker 2]
Nirvana is real. No, no, no, no, no, no.

[Speaker 1]
No, they become a being who can help all beings. That's Buddhism. That's body Nirvana.

That's not Nirvana. Body Nirvana is inner Nirvana and inner Nirvana. That's a different thing.

[Speaker 2]
That's enlightenment.

[Speaker 1]
OK. Then he says, No, let's read it again. One, two, three.

That means that we've already accepted everything. OK? Meaning what?

A person who achieves Nirvana as described in their books is a person who has achieved Nirvana. You must already accept that. Why?

You said that Nirvana is real Nirvana. How can you say that Nirvana is real Nirvana and then say the person who achieves that Nirvana is not a person who achieves that Nirvana? I mean, come on.

You already accepted that. Got it? You already accepted that.

You can't say Dhamma Dhruv. If you can't say Dhamma Dhruv, then what does he have to say? Or he may say, the person who achieves Nirvana is the person who achieves Nirvana.

He has to say it right. He has to say, that's right. That's right.

It's all done. And if you agree to the to the to this to this proposal, to the statement, right? Then we would say No, they don't.

What, present what? Right here. Are you telling us that the two presentations of higher knowledge describe the self-awareness?

He has to say it. He couldn't say no now but I gave him the reason to do it. So he has to say it.

Right. They are. That's the original statement.

That's the original proposal. And if you agree to the original statement, original proposal, because the oops the Ranga Ranga includes sections like the one that's talks about in a way that Does the Amitabha represent the six chamber of Mahamudra? No.

But he says it does. And then we say I don't quite remember but was there this book where somebody said it ain't the way they do it in a little way was there a book like that somewhere? He'll say Yeah, I think I read that.

And then you say, well wasn't that a Ranga? I think it was an auto commentary. Yeah, it was a Ranga.

Who was it that wrote that Ranga? And he's like I think it was I think it was Basavangar. He goes, yeah, it was Basavangar.

He said, God, if it's an auto commentary then it must be a commentary on what's that book called? Avidhara Kosha. I said, yeah, yeah.

It's a commentary on Yeah, so the person who wrote the Avidhara Kosha said he didn't include the little way part, right? Got it? Okay?

Alright? And we don't go through all that exercise. We don't go through all that.

We just say, Oh, gee, I didn't know auto commentary and then hopefully he gives it up. Got it? 1, 2, 3 I think the Joker was like that in the Batman movie, wasn't he?

He was the smartest person in the movie by far. And he kept doing stuff like that, right? He said, Oh, you're not violent, right?

And you're a good man, right? And you didn't like murder an innocent person, right? He went, He was cool.

Anyway. 1, 2, 3 Luang Pah Nei Shei Peh Tha Thong Pah Nei Seren Ram Let's go there. What's it?

You tell me what it is. Luang Pah is true Luang Pah. Luang Pah means Abhi.

And it always means true Luang Pah. Abhi Dharma. Nei Shei Peh Explained in the Abhidharma systems.

Dharma. For the story, put the ball, please. You're on that object, right?

So, for the story and what I'm saying. Reaching Nirvana. Reaching Nirvana.

Okay. Same thing. Nei.

No, no. If you say they don't exist.

[Speaker 2]
If you say they don't exist.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they don't exist. Nei. If I say, what do you say?

There's no such thing. I don't know. I don't know.

Let's do it one more time. The Dharma here. Oh my God, what are you talking about?

What do you mean there's no Arhats? You know, I just made a proposal. Arhats don't exist.

And you say, Dharma is good, but what are you talking about? And then I say, Luang Pah Nei Shei Peh Dharma Nei Bedi Che. Because there don't exist any Arhats described in the Amida Buddha.

[Speaker 2]
Huh?

[Speaker 1]
Do there or do there not exist photo stars described in the Amida Buddha? She's getting there. She's getting there.

There's a difference between describing them and them being what we would call photo stars.

[Speaker 2]
Or, no. You could describe, because they describe Nirvana, but it's not what Middle Way says Nirvana.

[Speaker 1]
I'll write two sentences for you. True or false? True.

[Speaker 2]
It's not true. False. He doesn't say me here.

How do we know he's still talking about both texts?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, there's still more texts. I didn't say that two. I didn't say that two.

There's more than one. There's nine on here. But that's not the point.

It's the point. Are there photo stars described in the Amida Buddha? Yes.

Yes. No, no. Yes.

Somebody clarified it. What do you mean you didn't say no? Did you say no?

[Speaker 2]
What's the debate here?

[Speaker 1]
Why is this a tricky statement? Because there's so much left over. Those guys go out of existence and the guys they're describing don't exist, so there are no photo stars.

Because they don't exist. Even the guys they would describe they didn't see anywhere but now they're gone. So the word photo star doesn't exist in the higher knowledge?

It does.

[Speaker 2]
Of course it does.

[Speaker 1]
That's a long story to quote. It exists in the higher knowledge. So are there arhats described in the Amida Buddha?

No. No. The guy whose body line stopped was not an arhat.

He was described as not an arhat. That's right. He was described.

So does the red, purple elephant described in my class exist?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
He's described in my class. Is this? No.

I described it. Your description exists. There you go.

The described arhat doesn't exist. The arhat described doesn't exist. But it's not a very difficult description.

The description exists but what is described doesn't exist. I think I'll make it like this English because this English is bad. This English doesn't clarify.

And that's what we want. The description exists but what's described does not exist. Who's saying this?

Who's saying now suppose you say? I'll give you two choices. If it's the original opponent, if it's the second opponent, it's us.

It's us. It's us. There do exist arhats described in the Amida Buddha.

Come on. Don't be naive. This guy had a revelation.

We call it epiphany. This guy said, oh my god you're right. There's no arhats described in the Amida Buddha.

And you're like, wait, slow down. Slow down. You didn't say it right.

Don't go around telling everybody that there's no arhats described in the Amida Buddha. That's not the point. Right?

Okay. And yet they do exist. Because there is a description in those texts of the four pairs.

Because this is Amida Buddha. You have to study it for 12 years or something. We did it for 12 years or something.

we can think about stream-enterer. And then the first one is stream-enterer. The second one is once-returner.

The third one is non-returner. Okay, got it? And those are the four levels leading to arhats in the Amida Buddha.

Stream-enterer is marked by what? The seen emptiness directive. Returner.

Like the seen emptiness directive but they still have to return to the desire realm because they still have certain desires to force them to return to the desire realm. In Vajradhika we say whose desires create a desire realm for them. And then a non-returner.

You got to a point where they'll never again take a rebirth in the desire realm. And in the Arhat. He doesn't have to take a forced rebirth ever.

So there's four, right? Then they divide Shuddheni. Say Shuddheni.

Shuddheni. They draw a distinction between someone who is entering stream-entering and a person who is residing at stream-entering. They draw a distinction between a person who is entering stream-entering and a person who is residing at stream-entering.

The person who is entering stream-entering the mental afflictions that you get at the path of seeing, for example, doubt. They aren't quite gone in their mind yet. They are in the process of leaving them.

The battle is going on. They just saw emptiness directly. The battle is engaged with the doubt.

In the first millisecond of the direct perception of emptiness, right? It's not that you see emptiness and in that millisecond you have no more doubt. It's that you see emptiness directly and in the next millisecond there's a fight going on between your understanding and your mental affliction.

And then the mental affliction loses. So they would call stage one stream-enter and the stage two stream-enter. Stage one stream-enter is in the first millisecond.

They did see emptiness directly. The antidote has entered their mind. The antidote hasn't had time to destroy the mental affliction yet.

And then when the antidote destroys the mental affliction they're like sobbing stream-enter. Their stream-enter doesn't have those mental afflictions anymore. So it must be like that, right?

There must be some moments of time when the new state of mind is fighting the old state of mind. I described to you where Dalai's really come from, right? And during the course of my description your mind starts to change.

The right idea is in conflict with the wrong idea. You see, the battle is engaged. And then at some point by the end of the by the time we really get our refreshments, it's time.

Okay? By the time they really come then the battle is gone in their mind. You see?

Then you already understood where Dalai's came from. But there's always some kind of fighting time. There has to be some inner struggle time even when you're not aware of it, right?

There is a half hour or a lifetime or in the case of an Arnyga there is a few milliseconds of when the two incompatible states of mind are fighting it out and offering a break. So they distinguish in the Abhidharma between the person who is still in the middle of the fight and the person whose fight is done. They're both screen actors.

But one is like not quite there yet, right? They're called shooting me. So that makes eight.

Each of those four has two states. So that makes eight. So you can either talk about the eight individuals or the four pairs.

And that's a big Abhidharma deal. That's a big one. Only in Bhojjima would you finally get the story of that.

When did the battle end between your understanding and your own thoughts? When did the battle start? At what point did you go from shoot to me?

Only in the Madhyamaka did I worry about that. When did you switch over from one of the four? Just blurt it out.

Sorry?

[Speaker 2]
Could you describe the nature of that doubt? That you're in?

[Speaker 1]
Well, that doubt is a part of the path. No, it's a doubt. It's destroyed by the path of sin.

Never again believe that this is the way it's done. Doubt about the path. I mean, in that moment you perceive that Buddhism...

You know, we go to Morocco. We meet some Islamic people. We go to chief-speaking Christian churches.

We spoke in a synagogue in Tel Aviv. And all that. And outside this room will continue to be ecumenical, right?

But I have seized that the presentation in the Buddhist text is 100% true. And they have no doubt about it anymore. You can talk to them for 10 years.

You can mock them up. You can beat them. They can go through horrible mental afflictions, anger that they didn't get rid of.

Jealousy that they didn't get rid of. But that basic perception that this path is correct. Totally correct.

It will never change. So that's the nature of that doubt. Now, what was I going to say?

Is it also fair to say that you no longer doubt that appearances are a loser? You can say that. But I think they did the same thing.

Okay, one more thing. So if the Amitabha has these four pairs of guards and which adds up to how many?

[Speaker 2]
80.

[Speaker 1]
I guess the seventh and eighth ones I guess 86. Right. I guess 86.

Or seven. What are you talking about? You know, there's the fourth one.

What's that fourth one? It's the Arhat one. You can't be going into Arhat and battling your last mental afflictions and then being in Arhat when you just beat all your mental afflictions.

Those two guys don't exist, right? Why do you say that? Because they were never described in the Amitabha.

Of course they're described in the Amitabha. There's a big part of the Amitabha. But you just said they don't exist.

Yes, there wasn't any Arhats describing the Amitabha. Got it? Got it?

That's why we brought it up. Got it? Are there any Arhats describing the Amitabha?

Are there? I said Arhats. There are Arhats describing the Amitabha.

I didn't say are Arhats describing. I said are their Arhats describing the Amitabha? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Yes, yes, yes. Okay. There is a caveat.

Because the texts are kind of unclear. Just like this. Okay.

Tell me about this Arhat. Tell me about this guy. How did he get there?

He's a listener. He's a listener, right? He's not a what?

Time for this talk. Okay. And did he get over some wrong idea that he used to have?

Did he see some kind of emptiness in the way? Some flavor of Mahamudra did he perceive? Which one?

He perceived that the person is not self-sustaining and substantial. There's no control there. My bad.

Okay. Did they perceive that directly? So they got over the idea that the person was self-sustaining.

Did they get over the idea that the person was self-sustaining? Yes. How did they do that?

They got rid of their habit of seeing people as self-sustaining. When they got over that habit, how did they get over that habit? They saw directly that the person is not self-sustaining.

How did they do that? Did they do that by seeing that things have no nature of their own? No.

That's the point, okay? We'll say it again. Do you have arhats in the army down there?

Yeah, we do. Do they stop us? No.

Well, like, how do they reach them in their mind? Well, they see emptiness. Well, what's their emptiness like?

They see there wasn't, there isn't any person who's in control that they thought was in control. Right? Right?

So when they see that, what happens to them? Well, they lose their habit of seeing things as people as being in control. They lose that habit forever.

And that makes them an arhat? Right. Do they get there in any manner by seeing that things don't have any nature of their own?

No. They don't have to do that. They just see that the person's not self-steady.

Got it? Okay? Doesn't that mean the same thing as far as the person's concerned?

That the person has no nature of their own? Because they're not self-steady? Is there only five times the amount of mudra in the world?

Well, exactly. Okay. By the way, there's a really, there's a big Buddha down here.

Right here, right? It's the Reishi. He doesn't even care about the Reishi.

For his time being. We don't even give him, we don't even give him credit for never having that thought yet. Just for the time being he has it.

Right. Because, because it is because that each song is the kind of enemy destroyer or scourge in the world. Because if you're the kind of enemy destroyer or scourge in the world you tell me you could never be an enemy.

Who said that? We're talking to somebody, right? We're saying this.

But who are we talking to? Who are we talking to? What did he say?

What was that big hassle we had about enemies? What did we just have a big hassle about? Right.

Whether there are Buddhist stories describing Buddhism. He said no. He said no.

Right? And now we're saying Wait a minute. Now it's sort of like this.

Are there Buddhist stories describing those books? Yes. Well, are you saying there are non-Buddhist stories?

That's right. And now we're saying it to him. I don't know what's going on.

Okay. Why don't you do the translation in one second for the enemy? I'm sorry?

In one part of the sentence there's only me and the other person. Oh, no point. If you like have a tantric view point of the Lama, you say, Oh, they're trying to give it to us for two different points of view.

If you don't, you say, Oh, he forgot. He was supposed to say one word. Okay.

They're both correct. They're not incorrect. That's how it is.

Sorry? Thanks. Is it F7 or K?

What? To give to the protector. Function F7.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, boy. F7, right? Keep talking.

You didn't? I've got a half of one. I have another half.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. The first four paths, generally speaking, are low or middle? Very low.

Why? Still learning. Still learning what?

[Speaker 2]
Everything.

[Speaker 1]
How do you get rid of your repetitions, right? Forever, right? Still learning.

It's finished. You don't have to study that anymore. He claims, the person making this argument claims that the folklore described we just talked about is still a Lopa and not a Nilopa.

The listener we just described was a Lopa and not a Nilopa. What does that mean? The listener we just described is still learning and not beyond learning.

You don't have to be a Buddha to be a Nilopa. You can be a lower Arhat and be a Nilopa, right? Yeah.

You can have reached the fifth path on a lower chart and not be a Nilopa. And be a Nilopa. Okay.

And be beyond learning. So they have nothing else to learn. Sorry?

Sorry? They don't have anything else to learn but they still have stuff to get rid of. So you don't need to learn anything to get rid of this stuff.

[Speaker 2]
So you can be a Nilopa instead.

[Speaker 1]
What was that? I didn't do it yet. I didn't do it yet.

Because I don't know where he started. And it's going to clarify itself. So you're a little back in the game.

Let's do this one. One, two, three. Namah Chikku Namah Chak What's Namah Chikku?

Okay. Talk about waffling. Waffling.

From one point of view, that's not what it's about. What? That's what you're saying.

And if you're a listener who is still learning to describe these presentations you can't be a Koi Star. Is that true? I'll say it again.

Is there anybody out there who is a listener who is still learning? Sorry. Could you be a listener who is still learning and still be a Koi Star describing these presentations?

No. You're an approacher. Is that how it's described?

Michael, can you be a listener who is still learning and still be a Koi Star? I'm not sure whose system this argument is. It is your system.

Can you be a listener who is still learning and still be a Koi Star? Clearly not. We just talked about it.

We just talked about it. Michael, you're too honest and then you have no more evidence to learn how to counter that. Can you be a listener who is still learning and still be a Koi Star?

Can you be a Koi Star and still be learning? And still need to learn? And still not be on the hip hop scene?

Yeah, okay. I mean, not what you do. I mean, you know, from one point of view.

Got it? From one point of view. I mean, you're talking about him moving on to the third track or something.

And from that point of view, you could say he's still learning while he's on the path of learning more. No, I guess it's to wrap my arms around that particular point of view for so long. Those of you who are learning Tibetan, why did I give you one and two?

Yes, Kamsik. If you're learning Tibetan, you'd better know Kamsik. Say Kamsik.

Kamsik. I should have the last peanut butter in Wachimajira because it's good and because I won't get any more after class. Once I'm under the monarchist's control.

That's a split reason. It's called a split reason. And then you can disagree on either part.

Do you think it's good?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
First reason, okay. Will I get... Is it true I won't get any more once I'm under his control?

It is true. We can test it. But that's the power of the Kamsik.

Kamsik is a split reason. And each reason has equal weight. If either of the semi...

What do you call it? If either of the sub-reasons is wrong, is the statement true or false? I'll give you an example.

I should eat the last one because they taste bad to me and I won't get any more after class. Then you sit down here. Your reason is false because your combined reason is false because one element is false.

That's true of all logic even when you're fighting with someone in your house. Which is rarely used logic. I'm just going to read this one to you.

I'm just going to read it to you and then we'll stop, okay? So just hang in there one more sec. What does it mean?

There are systems that describe a person who didn't get it that things don't have any nature of their own. Do things have a nature? Does a cookie taste good?

Is tasting good the cookie's nature? No. Is it a nature of the cookie?

Is the cookie its own nature? No. Does it have a nature of tasting good?

No. It doesn't have a nature of tasting good. It doesn't have its own nature of tasting good.

That's the point. So, suppose you didn't get that. Suppose there's somebody who didn't get that.

Does it have a nature of tasting good? Yes. Is that nature belong to it?

No. Because it's coming from me. It is imputed.

It is put on the cookie by me. Because I did something to make someone else happy. In the past.

That's all. Otherwise the cookie could never taste good to me. But the cookie doesn't taste good by itself.

Some people have a peanut butter, or whatever. They would choke on it. They would die on it.

So, suppose there's a guy who hasn't seen that the cookie doesn't have any nature of its own. Right? You gotta say, of its own.

Suppose somebody didn't get that. But they did see those 16 things about things. They are changing.

They are suffering. Like that. They did see those 16 details of the Four Origins.

They did see those. Not directly. They did grasp some 16 things.

If you hear someone give a good teaching on the 16 things, you can say, OK, I understand that. They did grasp that. Yeah.

Directly. Yeah. Say that they did see them directly.

Say that it was impossible for a person to see those 16 directly without understanding that things don't have any nature of their own. OK? And suppose that then they could choke.

Which means what? Choke. Freedom.

Liberation. Suppose that then they could reach Nirvana. OK?

Let's repeat what we're talking about. They didn't understand that the kukri doesn't have its own nature. They didn't get that.

But they did see directly the 16 aspects. And based on that, they achieved Nirvana. There are systems which believe that.

There are systems which believe in such a thing. We just went through a system like that. Right?

They always say, oh yeah, the guy who understood impermanence perfectly understood the 16. Why? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It goes over and back and on. About impermanence, even though he didn't have Nirvana in him. So, there are systems like that.

Like Yamana. Even in those systems, tong, bang, neng, tok, pei, yin, shi, zhu, dong, lu, en, bang. Even they believe even in those systems, the real path to freedom, non-dual, sorry, dual love, what?

The real path to freedom is the wisdom which perceives emptiness. The lack of a self. They say that.

And they say, agnanam, those other perceptions, those other realizations, those other breakthroughs that you get in meditation, those other breakthroughs, deri, tok, pei, yin, shi, deri, gyu, min, je. Min je. You know min je, it's a big tangent word.

Min je lam bu. Kiran? Yeah, it's right this way.

So they say that the other realizations that you have would only min je you. They would, they would just take you further. They would ripen your mind.

Gyu, min je. Gyu means metal container. Min je means they would ripen your metal container.

For killing the real thing. Okay? What's he saying?

There are schools which say someone could see the sixteen aspects of the outer truth directly, without seeing emptiness directly, or the inside of nature of their own directly, and that that person could achieve their goal. There are schools that say that. But even in those schools, they would say the understanding of the sixteen is only helping you, and not what really took you over the top.

Got it? Are there schools which say that you can get to Nirvana by just seeing the sixteen aspects? Yeah.

When they say those guys don't have to see emptiness, they would say that. But would they say that the sixteen by themselves could take you over the top? No.

You still have to see emptiness. In the form of no self-nature. You see?

See what he said? He said tong bak meh. Catch it in the third and last line.

He said tong bak meh. Emptiness in the sense of no self-nature. Which in those schools is not the same right now.

Emptiness. Which is not the same as the thing has no nature itself. Got it?

You can have no self-nature and still have the nature of your own. In their school. Alright?

So you can see directly that there's no self-nature and that's the main thing that gets you to Nirvana. And not the sixteen. What he's saying is that okay, okay, so suppose even in those schools that believe you can see the sixteen you might reach Nirvana.

That's not the main thing that gets you to Nirvana. Got it? Even in their school.

Forget our school. Which would never say that anyway. What's the point?

Where do we start from? Let's wrap up. This is like a meeting.

We're trying to wrap up. What's the point of this last three hours that I'm meeting with the board of directors? What are we going to do now?

Sometimes a meeting just peters out and everyone is like oh, he doesn't really leave. What's the point? Well, where did the debate start from?

Yeah. We said, yeah, couldn't you have a yogic direct perception? Is it possible to have a yogic and not see emptiness directly?

Is there any such thing as a yogic picture that's not the direct perception of emptiness? And what do they say? Yes.

[Speaker 2]
And what do they say it was?

[Speaker 1]
It has to do with impermanence. You grasp the subtle form of impermanence. Okay, last thing I'll say.

I'll give you two sentences or three sentences. Do you want to see the subtle form of impermanence? Yes.

Why? Even though it's not the direct perception of emptiness, it immediately perceives that. People who get this breakthrough reach the end of drama quickly.

People who get this reach the end of drama quickly. And I'll give you the information you need. And then you try it.

Try to see subtle impermanence. You know the texts say oh, it's the instant by instant changing things. Not the point.

It's not the point. It's not the point. I mean, logically you can see that anytime.

Logically you can see that anytime. You know, okay, Sai, I don't see my wrinkles growing in the mirror. But, you know, I saw a picture today of us on our first trip to Ireland.

And we all looked so young, all of us. I can't hardly recognize these people. I mean, you're beautiful now, but you were really beautiful then.

Me too. So, I can see the subtle impermanence. I deal with those people all this time.

I can't see the wrinkles grow directly. But I can logic it out. The wrinkles must have been forming.

It's not like you didn't have wrinkles in 1998 and then in 2008 they popped out. They must have been coming out millimeter by millimeter. They must have been coming out in tiny increments.

I understand that. If subtle impermanence is that, it's no big deal. Anybody can see that.

Here's the real one. If you want to see subtle impermanence. Um...

I need one more. I'm trying not to get really... I won't be able to sleep if I eat one more.

She has a compromise. I didn't use that.

[Speaker 2]
Does it have its emptiness?

[Speaker 1]
What is its emptiness? Well, in an easy way you can say whether it tastes good or not doesn't belong to the cookie. Whether it tastes good or not doesn't belong in the cookie.

It's coming from me. So there's a... There's an emptiness there.

The emptiness of this ginger snap is that it doesn't taste good or bad by itself. If I taste it as good or bad that's coming from me. That's dependent origination by the way.

If I taste it as good or bad it's coming from me. That's dependent origination. Forget all those other books and thousands of pages.

That's the true dependent origination. Whether it tastes good or bad that's dependent origination. What is emptiness?

It could not taste good or bad in any other way. It does not taste good or bad in and of itself. Is that true?

Is it still true? Is it still true? Is it still true of the ginger snap that it doesn't taste good or bad from it's own side?

It's not true anymore. It's not true anymore. Stick in there.

It's not true anymore. Why? The ginger snap to which that truth applied is now gone.

So the truth is gone. That truth is gone. Okay?

It was true. But that truth is gone. Okay?

Now is the cookie gone? In it's original form, if you want to say.

[Speaker 2]
Is the cookie gone?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Was Was it's destruction gradual? Did I take one bite and chew?

Take another bite and chew? Did it go halfway in? Did it go all the way in?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
There was a process to it's destruction. There was a process to it's destruction. I reached.

I came. I called. I urged.

It came closer and closer. I did it and I did it again and I chewed. It was a gradual thing.

From the lifting to the last part of chewing there was a process there. It was breaking. It was going.

It was It was being destroyed. But now here's the thing. If you really want to get subtle and permissive, which is the next step before emptying itself, right?

Did the fact that the taste of it didn't come from itself slide in incremental stages out of existence in this state? No. Yeah.

Okay? He's absolutely right. Ernie's absolutely right.

Now I'm going to try again on the last bite. And then and then that truth went out of existence. But it did not go out of existence.

Okay? It didn't work out of existence. It just came out of existence.

It just came out of existence. It came out of existence. But it didn't gradually get destroyed.

Okay? You have to struggle with the difference between those two. Okay?

You have to struggle with the difference between those two. The cookie was destroyed over time. It's the fact that it didn't taste good from itself did that.

In zero time. If you grasp that truly, you will understand. I'm telling you that.

That's all in the class. That's all you need in the class. Now you go home.

I can't work on it for you. And I can't say anything more about it. But if you if you meditate on that, you will see some of it.

Okay? Got it? Alright.

Here we go. Sat Shi Bu Gyi Chö Tsen Re So Tra Nyi Ra Kyi Nyi Re Cha Gyal Va

[Speaker 2]
Tshi Nyi Sam Mok Chi Sha Za Kong Raj Du

[Speaker 1]
Dhruvate nakadamika chakrasu Bhidham kundalatam niratayami Ngevadi yevam kum Sona myeshe sotsuchi

[Speaker 2]
Sona myeshe lejo me Dhammakamitam arso Jantrung samchok rinpoche Ma khe panam khe khyo chhe Khe panyam panepayam Kone pandu pawar chho In the land of snowy mountains You're the source of all happiness and joy Powerful chakras exist in Gyaso

[Speaker 1]
Please remain until sunset again