Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 83

[Speaker 1]
So this is where we left the argument last week. The other guy was saying, look, there's this person who doesn't have projecting karma in their mind anymore. What's projecting karma?

Yeah, it throws you into your next life. And you have to remember that next life is a bad thing, right? Like, you're doing okay in this life, because you made it to Diamond Mountain like that.

But if you happen to die tonight, what are the odds you're going to end up again? I mean, there's five billion people on this planet, right? And there's only, like, I don't know, how many in this room?

You know, like, what are the odds you can get back here, and that we'll still be around to teach you by the time you grow up, you know? So it's bad to have another life. We want to finish it in this life, right?

To finish it means turn into light instead of being blood and flesh and bones, right? Because this cannot succeed. This flesh and blood has to fall apart.

It will fall apart. It's just a question of when. Yeah, no, they're having good karma also.

But if you count, like, the beings alive on this planet, they say in the scriptures that at the bottom of the ocean, there's trillions upon trillions of beings. So to get back, let's say, okay, to get back to any spiritual tradition, it's going to be very hard, right? At all.

And that's just counting life on this planet. I mean, life not on this planet is mostly worse than fish. So anyway, like that.

Anyway, hard to get back here, you don't want to go through another life. So, but you're full of projecting karma. Your body is full of, your mind is full of karmas that could project.

You know, slight irritation that you didn't get enough of the purple flower on the cake last night is enough to throw you into another life, really. And that seed is in my mind, it's staying there. She had the spoon, she got to the purple first.

You know, and it's like that karma is in my mind. I can't deal with all those karmas. There's too many to deal with.

I'm not even aware of them. There's billions that I don't know about. So I have to stop the trigger.

I have to stop the trigger that karma has to be armed to go off. And if it's not armed, it won't go off. So in Buddhism, we don't aim for the karma because there are too many.

We aim for the trigger. The trigger, the other guy says, look, there's a guy who doesn't have projecting karma because they don't have the trigger anymore. Would you accept that statement?

I'll say it again. So and so doesn't have anymore projecting karma because they don't have the trigger for it. Yeah, it's a delicate question.

It's a delicate question. If you don't have the trigger, does that mean you don't have the karma? I figured maybe you'd have to divide projecting karma into two types.

Right. And if it never gets triggered, it's just a projecting karma as a seed. But it's not a projecting karma.

It's not working as a seed. He said, until it projects you, it's not really projecting karma. So you could say, maybe you could say, the guy has no projecting karma because he doesn't have the trigger.

Okay. What's the trigger according to Shenmue? What was the trigger according to the other guy?

At the moment, but a special kind of desire. Yeah, sepa. Huh?

Say it again? No, no, no, that's a different thing. Yeah, I'm in control of my thought.

I'm in control. Then he's thinking that thought at the last moment. Then what happens?

Karma gets triggered because what? That's the ultimate moment of understanding you don't have control. I am losing my body.

And I don't have control. I am losing my body. Nobody goes around saying, upset during the day.

Oh, I don't have a body. Geez, I had a body all these years and now I don't have a body. Nobody here is upset like that.

Why? Because you don't have a body. Right?

It hasn't happened to you yet. But when it happens, I mean, come on. Somebody steals your, the purple flower off the cake.

You know? Somebody steals a book. Somebody steals your boyfriend.

What if they steal your body? I mean, will you get upset? It's a little bigger than the purple flower.

You know? It's a little more cherished than the purple flower. For a little longer.

Right? You've combed his hair carefully. Trying to cover things.

And, you know, and it doesn't, year after year, day after day, you're so attached to it by now. You know? So when somebody is taking it from you, I don't have control.

Then that triggers the karma. He said. So if you can overcome the idea that you have control, then you don't have the karma.

Right? That's what he said. And we say, not enough.

Yeah, it's a good way that you said it. It's not enough. You've got to get the flavor here.

You've got to get the difference between understanding you don't have control and understanding what? It's coming from your karma. Got it?

These are two steps. And sometimes we tend to mix them up. I don't have control.

I got a letter from a friend. Just understand you don't have control over things. Then you won't get upset.

And that's true. And it helps. But then you have to explain why you're not in control.

Right? Which is what? It's coming from things you did in the past.

These are projections from your past karma. You just took the control argument to the higher kind of impact. Got it?

Got it? So the control argument is not bad. But you just have to give the reason why it's true.

You can get less upset realizing you don't have control. But you've got to know why you don't have control to really never get upset again. Got the difference?

I can not get upset for a reshik for a while if I understand I'm not in control. Theoretically I can never get upset again if I understand that I'm not in control because I'm projecting. I put the water on the bathroom floor.

Got it? Okay? Alright.

That's the argument here and it's so beautiful. You never even hear a proper explanation of emptiness anywhere. Here they're dividing like six kinds of emptiness to explain to you why only one is real.

Right? It's beautiful. Like all the arguments, all the reasons Buddhist teachers will give you in your whole life to explain why you shouldn't get upset are covered in the first five, right?

But you need the top one to explain those five. Got it? Alright.

It's so beautiful to find a book that gives it to you. So we say, look, are you saying he's not going to take, are you saying he doesn't have projecting karma? What would he say?

Yeah, do it. You know how good, you're good the other day. No, you were good the other day.

So, are you saying he doesn't have projecting karma anymore? Sure. Why not?

He doesn't have the trigger. What is the trigger according to this? Thinking you're in control.

Thinking you're in control. And then we say, makya. Okay?

That's what this paragraph is. We said makya. It means, I admit he understands he's not in control.

But that's not enough to get rid of the trigger. Okay, got it? That's where we're at.

Here's the next sentence which we didn't do. One, two, three. Okay.

Two notes of pronunciation, okay? Say, Okay, you always got to do it that way. Say, Heavy penasal here.

Why? Open vowel. Okay?

If there was a suffix, it wouldn't be so strong. Here's another one that's pretty strong traditionally. But that's hard because it's already in.

I want to show you something else. So say, Okay? Okay?

So kyang means, even though he doesn't have, blah, blah, blah. We pause at the even though or we pause at the end of the thing, right? Even though he doesn't have, blah, blah, blah.

He still has, blah, blah, blah. Okay? So get the kyang.

After a kyang pause. All right? Sepa me means what, Ari?

Sepa me. Yeah, he has no sepa. No, he has no desire.

He has no craving. Meaning, that's the trigger, right? That's the code word for the trigger.

Sepa means, it doesn't mean to want your body, right? It means to what? In this case, to think I have control of it.

So be careful when we say desire. It's not wrong to like your body. It's wrong to what?

Think you're in control of it. So it's the kind of desire that means to be in control of it, right? So even, okay.

Even though, what did we call it last time? Craving. Okay?

So we said, look, it's true that your guy doesn't believe he's in control anymore, but he still has the trigger. Why? He still has this other kind of craving.

Okay? He doesn't have craving that believes he's in control of his body, but he still has the other kind of craving, which is what? Yeah, holding to his body as true.

Holding to himself as true. But what does that really mean? Yeah, he doesn't believe that his body is coming from his own actions.

Got it? Because if you believe that, you can't get upset very well. If you believe you caused the problem, you don't go like, we said the other night, right?

You don't stand in the bathroom and shout in the mirror, you know, you left water on the floor. I slipped again, you know? You only say that if your roommate put the water on the floor.

You never say it if you put the water on the floor, right? So, no, really, you don't. You never yell at yourself like that, right?

So, if he's dying, and if he believes that he's dying because of cancer or AIDS or someone shot him, then he can get angry, right? But if he understands that he's dying because of what? He did not care for other people enough in his life.

He let the war in Iraq go on, you know? He's sat at Diamond Mountain. He's comfortable.

There's no bomb coming down on his house. He let it go on. He didn't go demonstrate.

He didn't write any congressman. He didn't really stick his neck out to save those people, right? So, he's getting old and dying because he didn't collect enough karma to stop it.

You see what I mean? He didn't do anything, right? Relating to life, to respecting life and protecting life.

He didn't do anything, right? Okay. So, he grabs on to his death as being someone else's fault or some tragedy caused by the world, right?

And that's what? What happens then? It's a trigger.

That wakens up all the penjekile, all the projected karma in his life, in his mind. All those purple flower irritation thoughts are like, boom, activated. And then if he remembers the cake at the restaurant in Safford in his last moment, he's born as a what?

Yidak. He's born as a craving spirit, you know? It activates the cake.

It activates the one dumb little purple flower thing that I just did by accident because I didn't have the fork fast enough and she got to it first. And it's not fair after all these years of teaching Buddhism and stuff that I get cheated at the last moment by a purple flower karma and I have to be a Yidak, you know, a craving spirit. But it happens.

It happens, you see. This is the weird thing, you know. You can have 10,000 good karmas and one purple flower karma and then, you know, you just remember that for some reason at the last minute, you know.

And, you know, boom. It's not fair, but that's the way it works. So it's better to what?

You can't, like, deal with all those karmas. You can't go confessing every purple flower thing in the class. That was the least bad thing I did yesterday.

You know, there's 10,000 worse things that I'm not telling you. Okay? So what are you going to do?

Stop the trigger. Stop the trigger. What's the trigger?

So get in the habit of understanding that you left the water on the bathroom floor. About everything that irritates you in life. That's all.

Get in the habit now because you need it to come up at the worst moment of your life. You need to call on that understanding at the worst moment of your life. You know, you're like going through a windshield and you're supposed to remember this talk tonight.

It's hard. Okay? Which is why we're still here.

Which is why we came here. Okay. Okay.

I think for new people the most interesting thing is the second word because it's pronounced what? Ma. You ignore the S.

Well, the S makes it higher. But you ignore the R. An R with an N doesn't do anything.

It's just like second word here which is what? Serpa. No R.

You ignore the R. It's just for spelling. Alright.

So Dunma means Dunmawa. This is Chiru Dundumawa. Chiru Dundumawa.

It's an abbreviation. Say Chiru. Chiru.

Dundu.

[Speaker 2]
Dundu.

[Speaker 1]
Mawa. Mawa. Those who profess, mawa, that there exist outside objects.

And it has to be clarified because what? Oh, I'll tell you first. It refers to the first two of the four classical schools of Buddhism.

The Abhidharma schools and the logic schools because they are still low enough that they are saying there do exist outside things. But we have to clarify that because we know that the witch schools also we also say there exist outside things. And that's the classical answer to the question of am I living in my own mind?

You know? If all of you are my projection, am I just like Keanu Reeves in The Matrix? Am I in a little bubble somewhere with a thing plugged into my head?

And you don't really exist and I'm just having this long dream or this long illusion, you know? Like somebody accuses us of that and we say no. We do believe that all these people are coming from my mind.

But they are what? Are they outside or not? They are outside.

Why? Because I'm projecting them as outside. Got it?

Are they real? Not the way you think. Are they real?

Yes. Why? They're projections.

Are they internal or external projections? I'm projecting you as an outside thing so you are an outside thing. No problem.

The world is not... You're not like plugged into something like Keanu Reeves. Okay?

You really are in a group of people. And they can hurt you. And they can make you feel good.

And it works. Got it? Okay.

Anyway, those two lower schools are accused of being... of thinking that things exist outside because they are Bimbo. Yeah.

Stuff. Made of stuff. As opposed to coming from me.

That's their problem. That's their mistake. Okay?

Are things outside? Yes. Why?

Made of chemicals. Chemicals is outside stuff. My brain is not chemicals.

My brain is consciousness. Right? Okay?

So, chemical stuff. So, Dhunmawa, kyu rang gi lug la, even according to your own ridiculous system, kun nyong... kun mong chen, say kun ne, nyong mong, gi chok, and nam jang, chok.

Kun ne, nyong mong gi, chok. Nam jang, chok. All things in the world can be divided into two.

One are kun ne nyong mong pa, afflicted or relating to mental afflictions. Is this lectern a mental affliction? No.

Why? I'll give you a clue. It's dark.

It's not consciousness. It's dark. I mean, it is physical.

This is bamboo. But is it afflicted? Is it part of the afflicted side of the world?

Yeah, because it's created by my mental afflictions. Okay? And then, nam jang chok gi chu is all the other stuff in the world that contributes to enlightenment.

You see what I mean? There's a big debate in the Abhidharma about this. What about an arhat?

Is he nam jang chok gi chu or is he kun ne nyong mong gi chok gi chu? Well, they define a kun ne nyong mong gi chok gi chu as something that could inspire mental affliction in me. Yeah, yeah.

An arhat can piss you off. An arhat can piss you off. Your lama can piss you off.

I mean, forget an arhat. I think they can start ragging on you for having ice cream at the lama's house. So, so are they kun ne nyong mong gi chok gi chu?

Are they an afflicted thing? That's a delicate question. Okay.

We're not going to go there. But suffice to understand that in the lower schools, check this out. In the lower schools, I first saw this in the explanation of the Wheel of Life.

Okay. What's the first link in the Wheel of Life? The guy with the stick.

Ignorance, right? Is that a mental affliction? In the schools, in the Abhidharma and the Sutra schools, it's not a mental affliction.

Not a mental affliction. Huh? Well, does a lower arhat still have mental afflictions?

So, are they going to be born again? Huh? Huh?

Huh? Self-made Buddha or listener-attracted arhat. Well, you see, it gets delicate.

Do they still have, have they overcome the four causes of not knowing all things? In the Abhidharma system, a lower arhat still hasn't overcome, they haven't reached omniscience. See, that's why they're an arhat and not a Buddha.

Because they still can't see all planets, they can't see all times. Okay, so they got rid of their mental afflictions, but they can't see all times, they can't see all planets. Which means they are what about those things?

Ignorant. Does a lower arhat have ignorance? Right.

They don't have misunderstanding, they just have lack of understanding. Got it? Ignorance is an act of misunderstanding.

What's the example in the Abhidharma? He's not my friend. He's not my friend.

He's non-friend. Does that mean he's my enemy? No, there's lots of what?

There's lots of neutral people who are not your friend. So, which one is the example of ignorance? Yeah, you have to describe ignorance as an enemy and not as not my friend.

Because ignorance is an active misunderstanding. Ignorance is to ask backwards. Ignorance thinks, you know, the world is one way when it's totally the opposite way.

Got it? It's not just not aware. Got it?

Anyway, let's not play with that. So, well, hang in with me here for a second. Okay, what are we going to call it then, Mawa?

Even in your own system, those of you who still profess some outside thing, right? You believe that there are two types of things in the afflicted side of things. Those which are involved with mental afflictions and those which are not.

Okay? So, even in this lower school, they distinguish between afflicted things which are mentally affliction, mental affliction and not. Let's say it that way, okay?

So, you distinguish between two kinds of, like, ignorance. One which is a mental affliction and one which is not. Got it?

So, even in your own school, you're making a distinction between levels of mental affliction or levels of ignorance, okay? Some kinds you say are mental affliction. Some kinds you say are not mental affliction.

Even in your own school. Okay, got it? Why should he say that and why is that going to help him in a discussion of two different kinds of craving at the moment of your death?

Yeah, but I'm saying to you, you have a problem with my idea. I'm saying to you, it's just like your own system where you divide two kinds of ignorance. What does that imply about what you said?

Yeah, you divided, yeah, you said there's only one kind of craving at the end of your life, but no, no, it's just like your own system when you talk about ignorance in general. There's different, what do you call it? Yeah, there are grades of craving at the end of your life.

Just like you say there are grades of ignorance during your life. Got it? Got it?

It's a rikpa gosam. Say rikpa gosam. Parallel argument, you know.

You can't have ice cream in the mama house. Should I bring up the garibrelli chocolates tonight, today? That's rikpa gosam.

Okay, parallel argument. Got it? Got it?

You don't say anything. You just say, would you like your milk chocolates now? Got it?

Got it? That's rikpa gosam. Learn the word.

It's useful. You use it all day with your partner. You just, you don't know the name for it.

Okay. I'm going to cut this piece off and put it down here, which I'm doing nowadays. Oh, I'm sorry.

We got to somebody's translation. I'm sorry. I forgot.

Yeah. This is Andrea, right? Okay.

Is it right? No, just kidding. Okay, we're going to just paste it in here and we're going to critique it.

And this being a debating class, you are going to take critique with a great degree of gracefulness, which I don't do, but that's okay. I'm the teacher. Let's read together.

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

Okay. Congratulations. She's all high.

Okay. Oh, this is beautiful. Okay.

I don't care who did it. I'm sorry. I'm just going to adjust it a little bit.

In the same way, you must agree. I'm going to make it short. Okay.

Sometimes you break the sentence. Where is Andrea? Oh, sometimes you cut the sentence just to help it, you know.

So, in the same way, you must agree that there are two different kinds of craving. One is where, right, you grasp, right. Miknam.

There's a part in the sadhana. How's it go? Something like that, okay.

Right. Say, I am looking at my hand. Okay.

I am looking at my hand. Who's the suvinamacchan? What's the aspect which is held on to?

My hand. Who's the zinbinamacchan? Who's the one who has the aspect of holding on to it?

My eyes or my brain. Got it? This is zinbinamacchan.

This is suvinamacchan. They say here, miknam, which means the aspect which is observed. Then they made a verb from mik, you see, which is miked.

Okay, got it? Mik. Say mik.

Mikpa. Eyed. Mik.

Eye. Mik. Eyed.

Got it? Okay. One is where you grasp to the, so we would say the perceived aspect, right?

Well, how could you ever grasp to the held aspect, to the holding aspect? Yeah. Yeah.

You are focusing on your own ignorance. Right? You're holding to the holder.

Does it not then become the held? One is where you grasp to the perceived aspect. Okay?

As explained in the treasure house of higher knowledge. Nice. That was really sweet.

I would expand it though. As explained in the literature on higher knowledge. Okay, why?

What's that mean? Yeah. Just because something comes from the Abhidharma doesn't necessarily mean it comes from the Abhidharmakosha because there are seven other works on Abhidharma.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Something like that. Remember they did. One is where you grasp to the perceived aspect as explained in the literature on higher knowledge.

Okay. And the other is the craving which is induced by grasping to things as existing truth. Okay?

Got it? Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. That was right.

And the other a craving which is distinct from the from the first. Okay? We can say it that way.

Okay? What's he saying in essence? The other guy said this guy is not going to have trouble as he dies.

Why? Because he doesn't have the trigger. Why?

Because he understands he can't control his body and mind. And we said that's not enough. And he says I disagree.

And we say look in your system do you divide between two kinds of ignorance? Duh? And he says yeah, we do.

He says well, so do we. By the way, we're not saying they're the same. Okay?

We're not saying his two kinds of ignorance are the same as these two kinds of craving. We're just saying look, in your system do you divide between flavors of ignorance? He says yeah.

So, okay, we're doing the same thing. Dripagotsum. Got it?

And then he says how so? And we say look, there's one kind of craving to your body at the time of death which is brought on by not understanding that you're not in control. Got it?

But there's another kind of craving which is brought on by not understanding that you took the shower yourself. Got it? That it's coming from what you did in the past.

Okay? Got it? And need do good.

What? You have to accept them. You have to agree that there's two kinds.

That doesn't necessarily follow in my mind, but anyway. Now we get into some really tough stuff which is why I like teaching this class. Okay.

What am I going to say about these lines? It's poetry. Which means what?

Normally. Okay, you ready? One, two, three.

Who went down? Who went up? Yeah.

We went up, why? Yeah, we're trying to prove what we said is correct. It is so.

Okay? One, two, three. One, two, three.

Okay. And that is so the case. Because denyi, what's the book?

Yeah, the Bodhicaryavatara. That same book, denyi. Right?

Don't think it's the denyi that means tattva, which means, you know, emptiness or something like that. It just means the very same book. Because the very same work says, it is surely so, because, for the time being, they lack that craving for what is taken on.

That is what you say. How do you say? You may say that.

You may say that. It's a fact. But how, in fact, they lack it.

It's just like, they lack the craving. It's just like the one, it's just like the one which is afflictive, even though it is not real. Okay, let's think about this.

Who said the first four lines? Well, he's quoting somebody. He's quoting the other guy.

You see? What did the other guy say? What did the other guy say?

He said, there's a guy who's understood, he's in a deep meditation, he understood he's not in control of his mind, he's in control of his own body and mind. So, they must have overcome their mental afflictions forever, or something like that. They must have achieved nirvana, or something like that.

That's what he's saying, right? That was the original argument, right? But what is taken on means your body.

Why do they call your body the thing which is taken on? It's a Buddhist code word for your body and mind. It's a Buddhist code word for the five heaths.

Because what? What? Yeah, karma and mental afflictions have forced you to take it on at birth.

So, when you say that which is taken on, you have to read it as my impure five parts of me, which were my body and mind, which were taken on at birth. Okay, you can say that. But how can they lack that kind of craving?

It's just like the one which is afflicted, even though it is not a mental affliction. What's that last part talking about? It's just like the principle of something being afflicted, but not being affliction.

Yeah, great, great. It's like in your own school. You distinguish between stuff which is created by mental afflictions, but which is not a mental affliction because it's not a thought.

In your own school you agree that, right? So, in our school we have these two kinds of craving. Got it?

Okay. Read the last line and tell me a big mistake someone could make. Someone could read this poetry, right?

And they could think that I believe what? They could think that Madhyamika believes what? Or Shantideva believes what?

I'll give you the punchline. They could think that in these words Master Shantideva is saying he agrees that there's a kind of sepa or craving which is good. Okay?

Good. Got it? Got it?

Okay? Someone could misinterpret that last line. They could say, Oh, Master Shantideva did a Ritva Gotsam.

What kind of Ritva Gotsam did he do? He said, well we have stuff which is mentally afflicted and affliction. So you can have something which is mentally afflicted but not a affliction.

Oh, he must be talking about those other kinds of craving. Like they're bad but they're not a mental affliction. Got it?

I mean, can you have things that are bad but not a mental affliction? Yeah. Okay?

Got it? Oh, so he must believe that there's kinds of craving that aren't mental affliction. Okay, got it?

Why? Because he said, look, there's stuff which is afflicted but not afflictions. But that isn't what he was saying.

He was just making a parallel case. He was just saying, look, you divide stuff into afflicted and not afflicted and we divide stuff into this kind of craving and that kind of craving. Okay, got it?

Then we're going to address this mistake. Because if you look at the Tibetan, if you really know Tibetan, those of you who are pretty good at Tibetan, I'm sorry, I should have said that craving. I'm going to say that craving.

I'll tell you why. Sed di. Say, sed di.

This craving, right? Sed di. Which ones are you talking about?

We got two kinds of craving. One is where you're craving, you're holding, I'm in control at the moment of your death, right? And the other one is what?

I didn't do anything. This is not coming from me. Somebody else spilled the water on the floor.

Got it? So which one is he talking about? Let's say it this way.

I think it's a bad question. How about if we translate sed di as, we explain it as the craving which triggers the karma. The craving which triggers the karma.

Now that's even bad. No, it is right. No, it's not right.

Yeah, it is right. Okay. Okay.

Does the guy in question lack the craving which is going to trigger his karma? No. Because he only lacks the craving that holds that he's in control.

Got it? Does he lack the craving that's going to trigger his karma? No.

Does he lack any craving? Yes. What craving doesn't he have?

The one that says I'm in control. Got it? So, okay.

So now it's wrong look. Wrong look is going to accuse him of he's going to say to the other guy, but he doesn't have. How could he not have?

Chi te me. Got it? How could he not have the craving?

So what craving does it have to be when I say the craving? The one which triggers. Got it?

How on earth could he not have the craving? Which craving should I be talking about? The one that triggers.

Got it? Okay, got it? And would we ever say that's not a mental affliction?

Good. But unfortunately the wording in Sanskrit and Tibetan seems to suggest that. And that has caused trouble for centuries.

Okay, got it? We were just talking about another system that divides things into afflicted and not afflicted. When we say not afflicted in this sentence, we're not talking about the trigger.

The trigger is the ultimate affliction. Got it? Okay, got it?

Okay, you got to hang in there. I think you need a snack. Did somebody go yet?

They went, yeah. They need sugar. Okay.

Then when they get to Mama's Kristi class they're all like sleepy. Okay. I told her, you don't let them, you prohibit eating in your class.

I require eating in my class. She said, that's a statement about you. Okay, here we go.

One, two, three. Zimbe sepa, mai yimbe dun yingki. Wow.

Okay. I'm going to break this up heavily. Okay, because it's very difficult.

Let's talk about, that's sometimes how I make an excuse to break up. Okay? Let's talk about the lines which include the craving is not mental affliction.

Is that fair already? Is it fair to say, like President Obama gets up and says, I'm going to pull out the troops. What did he say?

I'm never not going to pull out the troops. I'm going to pull them out in 90 days. So someone takes that sentence and just keeps the, I'm never going to pull out the troops.

Okay? Is that fair? People do it all the time.

So let's talk about this little line you were just talking about. The craving is not mental affliction. Okay, got it?

All right. Let's talk about those lines. They are not meant to say that the person how do you say?

They're not meant to say that the craving which is brought on by holding that things aren't true. Right? Is not the craving described in the in the literature on higher knowledge.

Where we hold to what do we say? The perceived aspect. Right?

Is that what we said? Perceived aspect, yeah. Okay.

I'm going to cover the tar, okay, with is. Okay. Were we trying to prove that the real craving that triggers your karma as you die or the real misunderstanding we should say, right?

It's just called craving, right? Were we trying to prove that the misunderstanding that seeds your karma as you die, that arms your karma as you die were we trying to prove that that was not the same as the ignorance described in the Abhidharma? It's a delicate question.

It could go either way, okay? It could go either way. All we said was in your lower schools you divide between two different kinds of ignorance.

Right? We weren't trying to prove that the ignorance they talk about is not the same as the ignorance we're talking about. But in more general in a more general sense the overall argument is meant to prove that what kind of ignorance is not the trigger?

The one where you think you're in control. Okay? Is that the trigger?

And no. Is it presented in the Abhidharma? And the second school by the Dunmawadh?

It is. Okay? So almost you could get away with this argument.

Got it? Okay? That's almost okay.

Because the person who did say the person who did say that your problem as you die is that you think you're in control was in the first two schools. Got it? He is a Dunmawadh.

Okay? Got it? But was our argument that that's not the ignorance which triggers your karma, right?

Was our argument meant to say that our version of ignorance is not a mental affliction? We never said that. We never said that.

If you misread the lines you could think they said the trigger is not a mental affliction. Or if you do that Obama thing. Right?

Because it looks like that, right? Go back to this first line. The craving dot dot dot is not a mental affliction.

Got it? So it could look like we've been saying that the trigger is not a mental affliction. It could look like that.

But that's not what we're saying. We were just saying, you know, we're talking about a different kind of craving than what you're talking about when you say you're in control. Got it?

Got it? It's difficult. There's a huge problem here.

There's a huge problem. What are the last two lines, what are the last two words of the Tibetan? What does it mean?

Yeah, say again. If you claim, if you make this ridiculous claim, sarna, right? What did he just claim?

Easily. What's the second half? The easy part.

What did the guy just claim? It's not true that we're saying that the trigger is not a... Got it?

Okay? It's not true that we're saying that it's not a mental affliction. That's not what we're saying.

He's defending Master Shantideva. But then it says what? If you claim.

There's gotta be a huge mistake in the Tibetan. There has to be a... And I was talking to Lama Kristi about it.

And she said, oh, it's the old yin-min thing, right? I said, yeah, it's the old yin-min thing. Why?

You have a piece of paper? Okay, what's that? Yin and min.

Okay, it's yin and min. In Tibetan it means... It is and it ain't.

The higher one means it is. The lower one means it ain't. Now, the block carver got lazy.

Or the guy who was handling the ink on the run that day didn't put enough on the block. The typist in Hunza who's being supported by Anne Currie's noble efforts types in min for yin because he can't see it. Okay?

And that's all. We have to explore this further. How would we do that?

We'd have to get the scan of the original text. We have a scan. Unfortunately, it's a handwritten...

Someone was... All the books in our monastery were burned in 1959 on March 11th, March 10th. The monastery library was bombed.

No books survived. They were all burned. When they got to India, they wrote out what they could by hand.

Right? Or from pieces. That's the only version we have.

We have to try to see if we find another one in Mongolia or something like that. Okay? So what we have now is corrupt.

All right. Suppose you make the following... I'm getting out of it.

I'm not saying claim, okay? Okay? One.

Two. Three. Mi.

Te. Ba. Ta.

Se. Pa. Yin.

Na. Nyong. Mong.

Che. Yin. Gu.

Be. Chi. Well, anytime it...

If it just came after he claimed, right? If it just came after he claimed, right? Then, when you say not correct, it must be going up or down.

Yeah. It can't be correct. Are you saying that's correct?

Are you saying that's correct? Okay. Are you saying that's correct?

Are you saying that's correct? Oh, I'm sorry. It's going down.

Mi. Te. Ba.

Ta. No. Mi.

Te. Ba. Ta.

Oh, yeah. But this is... But this must surely be incorrect.

Okay? I'm sorry. It's going up.

Okay. It's going up. Mi.

Te. Ba. Ta.

Mi. Te. Ba.

Ta. Because if something is a kind of craving, it must be involved with mental afflictions. Right.

Most of the time. I'm sorry. I didn't think about it.

Mi. Te. Ba.

Ta. Mi. You could translate it as, but isn't this surely incorrect?

You could translate it. Do you want to do it that way? It'd be too complicated, I think.

But anyway, let's put it like this. The guy is coming back with, we're coming back with, but all kinds of mental afflictions, all kinds of craving are mental afflictions. Got it?

We're coming back with, but all kinds of craving are mental afflictions. So what must he have said? That there's one kind of craving that's not a mental affliction.

Which would imply that this yin was a min. Got it? Okay.

And we'll deal with it later. Probably. Probable carving error at a check scan.

Okay. Not necessarily. Especially when it's adjectival phrasal.

That which is not a blah, blah, blah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
The book which is not the one to be bought. Like that. Okay.

One. Two. Three.

Da. Ta. Den.

Zen. Yin. Na.

Nyomong. Chen. Yin.

Okay. Good. Okay.

And that must so be the case. Because if something is a mental tendency where we hold to things as true then it must be involved with mental I'm just going to do this piece fast because I want to get you to the next section. And that is so the case because there does exist a way in which the tendency sorry in which the craving in this person's mind which has been inspired by holding things as true arises.

Okay. So he's doing an artificial bridge. Okay.

He's making a very artificial bridge. He said our guy said K. Lupton Badargi said it's not true that you can find a kind of craving which is not a mental affliction.

There is no kind of craving. There is no kind of misunderstanding of yourself at death which is not a mental affliction. Okay.

Got it? There's no kind of misunderstanding of yourself at death which is not a mental affliction. Right.

Got it? And he says and then he's just doing an artificial bridge because the sky is blue. Okay.

You use that as an excuse to go on to another subject sometime. Okay. Then we're going to discuss why the sky is blue.

Okay. But not quite as artificial as that. Okay.

Because there's a way that that kind of thinking gets started in your head. It's not true that the misunderstanding of your body at your death is not a mental affliction because there's a special way in which that particular mental affliction arises. And he's using it as an excuse to go on to how that mental affliction arises.

And it's very sexy. Okay. So here we go.

That's something we wanted to know. He should be talking about the water in the bathroom. Got it?

He's taking us on to the water in the bathroom. We wanted that. Why?

Because I don't want another flesh body. I want a light body. Right?

Right? Like some people have. Okay.

Okay. Wow. You cheated.

You went in the middle. Are we struggling to maintain our argument? Or are we criticizing him sarcastically?

Yeah. We're still trying to say, Yeah it is so. Okay.

So we're going to go. Okay. ECHDOTEN.

DELPHEL DEGYULA TSORWE KORSU DENBAR ZINBE DENZIN SHENYU SUNMA CHUNGWE TSUKI YODPA GANGSHIK Say GANGSHIK. Okay. GANGSHIK.

You know. Say again? Say again?

Uh, what'd you say? Oh, you said split reason. Yeah, it's a split reason.

It means, uh, yeah, he is so bad because he's a fool. Because first of all, he's a fool. That's the conch sheep.

First of all, he's a fool, conch sheep. Second of all, he's stupid. Okay, that's a split reason.

Now I have to prove what? I have to prove he's a fool and I have to prove he's stupid. They're separate things.

Okay, or maybe not. Uh, and that is so the case because the way in which, uh, this, uh, craving exists in their in their mind is that they have yet to four powers. What are the four powers?

Shi? Regret? Refrain?

Do you remember the Tibetan word for the second one? Yeah, say And we spoke about that word because it was such a terrible, uh, wrathful word. It can also mean to rape someone.

It can mean to rape someone. It can mean to rip out someone's heart. but in the four powers it's sort of nice, which is what?

Yeah, through intelligent regret you are you are tearing out the heart of the bad deed, of a bad karma. Through intelligent regret. Oh.

Okay? Right? Okay.

You know this story. Everybody knows this story. I don't have to tell you that it means you drank some poison and then you just realized that you feel stupid.

Okay, uh, is that they have yet to Those of you who are really sophisticated and you're Tibetan. Present tense. Jin, present tense.

Chung, past tense. Okay, you can't guess. It's very difficult.

It changes from I to you. Is that they have yet to tear out or you could say obliterate the object which their habit of holding to things as being true is believes in. When you get When Venerable Nyingbo finally gets to uh, Kedrup Je's Tse-ma-de-dung-ik-i-mun-so in our small private class for six of the best students here that we'll have someday or maybe eight if there's that many uh, he'll be translating this section about different kinds of perceptual objects.

Mik-nam, so for example Mig-yo would be just the thing you're looking at like you're looking at a person, right? And then Shen-yo would be different. Shen-yo would be what?

The thing you think you see as opposed to the thing you see. Got it? Different, right?

The thing you think you see and the thing you see. Which would you want to obliterate in the case of craving? Huh?

Yeah, the object you think you see which is in the case of the first misunderstanding a Michael who was in control of his body. Okay? That's called Shen-yo.

Why doesn't it count as a yo? Yo Mig-pa, Yo-pa, Tse-ma-du-pa, Tse-ju-pa, Dun-ji, Min-do-ye-chir, same. I don't remember.

Mig-pa Yo Uh Yo-pa, Tse-ma-mig-pa Tse-ma-mig-pa Tse-ma-mig-pa They're all synonyms for an existing thing. So, Yo, the thing you see is a synonym for an existing thing. A Michael who is in control is a Yo or not?

Yo-ma-in-ba-ta You're telling me he's not an object? So, he's not a Shen-yo. How can he be a Yo if he's not?

If he's a Shen-yo, if he's a Shen-yo, how can he not be a Yo? Yeah, the problem is this. It holds true in English too.

The object which I think I see. The object which I think I see. Is that an object?

Because object is a synonym for an existing thing. So, you have to say what Ben Kramer said, which is what? Yeah, it's not an object, but it's an object I think I see.

Got it? Because object implies existing object. Got it?

So, can we sun-jin-ba the Shen-yo? Can we obliterate the Shen-yo? He said a nice one.

I was going to say yes you can, but he's like how can you obliterate something that's not there? What, you blow up the two-headed purple elephant? You know?

Got it? Good. The Shen-yo is there.

So, Shen-yo yo-ba-ta. Yo-yin-ba-ta. Shen-yo yo-yin-ba-ta.

Yo-ba-e-cha. Because it exists. You have to say it this way.

It exists as an imagination in my mind. But it doesn't exist what I think it is. You see what I mean?

I can imagine a two-headed purple elephant. And that picture in my mind exists. But it doesn't correspond to an actual thing outside.

Okay. Ooh, I almost got in trouble. So that is sort of the case.

And here we get to the important part. The thing that... Three elements in the act of feeling.

I don't like that. Okay. So this is the cool thing.

I'll start a debate with you. The trigger that that arms your karma as you die is thinking that you're in control of your body and mind. Yeah, good.

Not so, they said. So the trigger that arms your karma as you die is not the misunderstanding that you're in control of your body and mind. That's correct.

That's what I said. It's a facts-reconfirmation thing. Is there a different kind of misunderstanding that triggers the billions of karma, including the purple flower one, in your heart as you die?

So there must be a different kind of craving. What does that one hold about Michael? Yeah.

That his death and his body and mind are not coming from how well he fought the war in Iraq. As he dies, he doesn't understand that. He thinks he's just dying.

He thinks all things die. Where does that tendency come from? How does that tendency derive?

You're telling me at the last moment of his life, Geshe Michael is having a misunderstanding about his body because he didn't realize that his death is coming by not protecting life very actively. Yeah, that's what I said. Where did that tendency come from?

Where did his misunderstanding at the last moment of his life come from? Having it your whole life. He spent 70, 80 years thinking that way.

So how can he not have it at the last minute? He spent 70, 80 years thinking that every time he got hurt it was done by somebody else. So how is he not going to have it at the last minute?

How is he not going to have the trigger? He's been having it his whole life about things that make him happy and things that don't make him happy. He has been actively misunderstanding every event in his life and everything that made him happy or unhappy for his whole life.

How can he not misunderstand it at the last moment? Got it? That's what this is saying.

What are the three elements of an active feeling? He hurt me. She hurt me.

Yeah. The hurt he. The hurt her.

And the hurt teen. Got it? Those are the three elements in any action.

The hurt her, which is her. The hurt he, which is me. And the hurt teen, which is just the occurrence of the thing.

So all along, throughout my whole life, every time I got hurt I misunderstood what was going on with the hurt her, the hurt he, and the hurt teen. How am I not going to have it when I die? That's what he's saying.

Got it? What's the two-headed purple elephant in that case? Relative to the three elements.

Yeah. You say the whole three. The hurt her who didn't come from me.

The hurt he who didn't put himself in that situation by his own goddamn self. Right? And the hurt teen.

You know, the whole thing. Why did it happen to me? Okay?

The incident. The person getting hurt who put himself there and the person hurting them. Who he put there.

Right? All along, his whole life he's been thinking why they're hurting me. Right?

And what's really happening? He created the person to be there in the room to yell at him. He created himself to open the door and walk in the room at the right moment.

And then he created the yelling. And you gotta think like that. He's giving you the antidote.

He's giving you the way not to die. He's telling you He's giving you the way not to die. He's telling you how to short-circuit your karma forever.

Get in the habit now. Of what? When someone hurts you, don't analyze the three things that are going on.

You know, analyze the three things that are going on. What? Number one.

Who put the person there? I did. Why?

Because I hurt other people. Who put me there to be hurt? That was me too.

I put me to slip on the floor and I put the water on the floor to slip on. Why me? Who made the whole thing?

Who made me walk in and who made the water there? Who made the interface? Me.

I made all three. Got it? Who made the dying?

Who killed the body? Who made the body to kill? Because I didn't act in a very concrete way to help the tens of thousands of people in Iraq who were killed.

In my name, with my taxes. I didn't do anything. I didn't even write a stupid email to my congressman.

Much less go throw blood on the White House or something. Do something really meaningful. I just sat in Diamond Mountain and complained about the food.

Okay. Actually, I didn't taste it yet. Uh...

There's something missing in the translation. We made a big deal about it. Yeah.

Okay. I like to do it that way sometimes. Okay.

You have to do this one because I'm chewing. One, two, three, go. Okay.

As long as they engage in this kind of behavior, what? The herder didn't come for me. The herdie didn't put himself there.

And you know that they're having some kind of nasty interaction. That's not my fault here. Okay.

As long as they engage in this kind of thinking, maybe it would be better, right? He doesn't say, he just says, Duke, right? Then whenever they get a good feeling, they will get that craving where they never want to be separated from it.

This has led to a lot of problems in Buddhism. This has led to infinite problems in Buddhism. Why?

What's the problem here? The implication is that if something good happens to you, you shouldn't want it to keep going. I mean, come on.

And then it led to this kind of nihilistic thinking like any Buddhist that enjoys a brown chocolate thing should never reach for a second one. It's very wrong. It's like Lama Kristi thinking.

No, when I'm having dessert, she's like, you can't have another one of those. That's a different thing. No, it's like it's not wrong to want good things to keep going, you know?

You draw these Buddhas in Buddha paradises, they're not like having a bad time and they're not like, oh, stop it, one chocolate chip cookie. Probably they have this thing in their stomach where they can just keep eating them all day. That's the heaven I'm going to.

You know? So that's not the problem. The key word here is sepa, which is what?

In the translation? Craving. And how have we kind of been glossing it?

As misunderstanding. Read it as misunderstanding and see if it feels better. Is it wrong to want a second chocolate chip cookie?

Is it wrong to want a chocolate chip cookie and misunderstand it? Yeah, it's a different thing. If I really want If I really want more of these, which is not a bad thing, right?

Is it wrong if I want more? Is it wrong if I want more with misunderstanding? Because then what would I do?

I would eat them all up. And I wouldn't give more to more people. Got it?

Okay, got it? It's not wrong to want. It's wrong to want and misunderstand how to get more.

Okay, good. Say again? Yeah, you could say that.

Sometimes misunderstand feels more comfortable to me. Ignoramus has sort of bad connotations in our... Yeah, okay, good.

Sorry? Is all misunderstanding a kind of mental affliction? I don't think so.

Like, if I don't understand how a car works, that's not a mental affliction. You see? All craving in this context is a mental affliction.

And that's what you say in a debate so you don't get in trouble. And whenever they... get a bad feeling, they will get that craving where they want to be separated from it.

Is it wrong to want to avoid a bad situation? No. But you have to be careful, right?

When you explain this to your students, you have to be careful. It's not wrong to want to avoid a bad situation. It's just wrong to want to avoid it in the wrong way.

What's the wrong way of dealing with a bad situation? Hurt the other person. Say something bad about the other person.

Hurt them. What's the right way to deal with someone who bothers you? First of all, realize that whatever bugs you is coming from you.

Second of all, understand that the way to fix it is to stop bugging other people the same way. Third, if you could love them, it would help a lot too. Okay?

Because that short-circuits everything. Okay. We're going to stop there on that.

We're going to do a little debate. We have a few minutes. We'll do a short one.

So I was thinking to I'm going to do it on this side again. Can you two guys defend? Surprise.

Okay. So you got to get back there where those guys You guys can stay where you are, but if they give a wrong answer, you give them a kidney punch. Okay?

Oh, who's geeky? Nicole Davis is geeky, okay? I want straight lines there in two minutes.

I was thinking that you guys get over there. Me and Mercedes, you ready? We're going to debate.

Come on, come on, come on. No, I'm right. I'm going to tell you what we're going to say.

You can fight with him in public. Okay. Say it loud.

You don't have to see emptiness directly to get rid of your mental afflictions. Unh.

[Speaker 2]
Unh.

[Speaker 1]
They're such wimps, they can't even say what they believe loudly. Unh. Have some chutzpah.

Unh.

[Speaker 2]
Do it here.

[Speaker 1]
One, two, three. Good, good, good. Unh.

Unh. You tell me, do you get it? You don't have to see emptiness directly to get rid of your mental afflictions.

Say it again, say it again.

[Speaker 2]
So you must see emptiness directly to get rid of your mental afflictions.

[Speaker 1]
Come on, did it. That's what I said. Unh.

Lungi dukche yava pa. So there must be some scriptures that back that up. Well, I guess Umachitin wouldn't be one of those books.

Yeah, good. We've got to wipe the hell out of Alastair. All right.

Umachitin yimba pa. Umachitin yimba pa. Who said?

Oh, they said, right. They said, oh, the books we're studying up here, it must have some proofs that you need to see emptiness directly to get rid of your mental afflictions, right? It must have some proofs.

Stop! So give me the goddamn one. Just one, if you can.

Oh, just check back. You just yell at him. Just check back.

Say what he said. Repeat what he said. Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
So he must quote. That Umachitin's book is saying that you have to see emptiness directly.

[Speaker 1]
Are you're saying that the Pramanavartaka by Dharmakirti, Master Dharmakirti, has some kind of statement to that regard? Yeah, what is it? What are you signing on?

Could you repeat for us what it said in that regard? Loudly, I mean. We've got other people here besides yourself.

No, what did it say in that regard? What does the Pramanavartaka of Master Dharmakirti say about having to see emptiness directly in order to stop your mental afflictions?

[Speaker 2]
Pramanavartaka? Pramana-mayimvarta.

[Speaker 1]
So I guess the Pramanavartaka is not in the Pramana school. So I guess the Pramanavartaka, should I repeat? Is the microphone broken or something?

I guess the Pramanavartaka is not in the Pramana school. Because it's not in a lower school. Doche, che, what che means, you know, like, gap, or stop.

Like Doche Chupa, cut. Che means, oh, I guess you're, like, discontinued, huh? You don't have anything to say anymore.

Oh, OK. So what was that last thing? Oh, OK.

So Master Dharmakirti is a lower school. Is a lower school. Duh.

What would make him a lower school? Well, what would make him a lower school? Could it be his misunderstanding of emptiness?

Could it be that he thinks emptiness is the fact in a person? Could it be that his idea of emptiness, that a person isn't in control of themself? So you're saying that if you stop thinking that you're in control of yourself, that you can stop your mental affliction?

Because that's exactly what Master Dharmakirti thinks emptiness is.

[Speaker 2]
Can't or can?

[Speaker 1]
No, I'm sorry. So if you can't say emptiness is emptiness, can you stop your mental affliction?

[Speaker 2]
So if you can't say emptiness is emptiness, you can't.

[Speaker 1]
Are you claiming that if you saw the kind of emptiness that Master Dharmakirti describes, you could stop your mental afflictions? Because you just quoted him as an example of somebody said that if you saw emptiness, you could get rid of your mental afflictions. You brought him up.

We didn't bring him up. Maybe you want to go to a. We suggest you go to another proof that if you could see emptiness directly, you could get rid of your mental affliction.

Because bringing up a guy who doesn't understand emptiness to prove that is a little weird to us. Yungi-do, choo-chin. Oh, you want us to talk about the mother sutras?

Yungi-do-la, dong-yi, ge-ba-ta. Are you saying that in the mother sutras, it says that you have to see emptiness to get rid of your mental afflictions? Shut up!

Yeah. No, in English, now in English. Show me.

[Speaker 2]
Show me!

[Speaker 1]
That's like, he's got to quote it now. That's really bad. When you bring us a scripture, you have to be able to quote it.

Hopefully, he won't be able to. Is that ah in the scripture?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Ooh. Yungi-do-la, ngo-po, du-che, la-tar, me-pa-sin-me-i-che.

[Speaker 2]
That's tough.

[Speaker 1]
Loud, loud.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, show us. For those who still.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, he beat us, he beat us. Let's get one more proof out of him. There's no third proof in the book, right?

Well, reverse that. All right, that's enough.

[Speaker 2]
So I guess it's the first chance to actually get rid of your mental afflictions.

[Speaker 1]
If they beat you on one, you just go on to another one. This is your last chance to beat us.

[Speaker 2]
That's the reason this group, this page, this page, you're left out.

[Speaker 1]
Are you telling me there's a logical proof? Are you telling me there's a logical proof? So they gave one scriptural proof, which was ridiculous.

They gave a second scriptural proof that was good, so we avoided it. And now he's saying, I have a logical proof. I don't have to depend on scripture.

For those of us who can't quote scripture, it's important to pay attention now. He's like patting Yingbo on the back, you go for it, man. Say it loud for them.

Say it loud for them.

[Speaker 2]
So...

[Speaker 1]
Oh, good, good, good, good. Now you got it, now you got it. So understanding that you're not...

[Speaker 2]
Understanding that you're not...

[Speaker 1]
Oh, good, good, good, good.

[Speaker 2]
So I guess if you see this thing...

[Speaker 1]
And not over a period of time. Yeah, he just said, understanding that you're not... Did you say that?

Or was that the other elephant? No, you guys said that, right? You said that.

It's a method to reason around it, but only in time. OK, good. So I guess, if you see emptiness directly, it doesn't take time to reach the room, I'm guessing.

So I guess there's no, like, path of habituation that takes seven lifetimes at the bath. This was in the scripture. Yeah, at the worst, sorry.

I don't mean... We never said, I don't mean that. What?

We never said, I don't mean that. So you didn't say, it takes time after you see the emptiness directly.

[Speaker 2]
So you didn't say, after you see emptiness directly, it takes time.

[Speaker 1]
It takes time. So, if a method takes time, good method.

[Speaker 2]
So, if a method takes time, good method.

[Speaker 1]
So seeing, you know, that you're not in control, is a good method.

[Speaker 2]
So seeing that you're not in control, so seeing that you're not in control, is a good method. Because it works in time.

[Speaker 1]
So it is a good method. So it's not a good method. So the Buddha taught bad method.

[Speaker 2]
Uh...

[Speaker 1]
You have to go like that. You beat us, you beat us. You're not done with your preparation?

Korvala... There's no end to something. Korvala...

There's no end to samsara. So you're telling us there is a... an end to the suffering of humankind, all living kind.

Good, right? Why the hell? Show us.

That's okay. But what's the classical Tibetan? Loud?

Say it big. They gotta scream. After this, you know you have to scream in joy, right?

After you hear the English. Are you saying there's a powerful antidote that can stop the pain of living kind? Yeah!

Okay. See you next time. Yeah, well...

They were beating us, what could I do?

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry.