The Heart Sutra (7 December 2007)

0:08 Thus did I hear at one time. The Bhagavan was dwelling on mass vultures, mountain and Rajgir, together with a great community of monks and a great community of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Bhagavan was absorbed in the concentration on the categories of phenomena called profound perception. Also at that time, the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara looked upon the very practice of the profound perfection of wisdom and beheld those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature. Report an error in the passage at 0:08 Highlight the passage at 0:08

0:43 Then through the power of Buddha, the venerable Shariputra said this to the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara. How should any son of lineage train who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom? He said that and the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara said this to the venerable Sharivadiputra. Sharivadiputra, any son of the lineage or daughter of the lineage who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom should look upon it like this, correctly and repeatedly beholding those five aggregates also is empty of inherent nature. Report an error in the passage at 0:43 Highlight the passage at 0:43

1:23 Form is empty, emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form. Form is also not other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors and consciousness are empty. Shariputra, likewise, are emptiness. Without characteristic, unproduced, unceased, stainless, not without stain, not deficient, not fulfilled. Report an error in the passage at 1:23 Highlight the passage at 1:23

1:52 Shariputra, therefore, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling, no discrimination, no compositional factors, no consciousness, no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no visual form, no sound, no odor, no taste, no object of touch. Report an error in the passage at 1:52 Highlight the passage at 1:52

2:16 There is no I element and so on up to and including no mind element and no mental consciousness element. There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance and so on up to and including no aging and death and no extinction of aging and death. Similarly, there is no suffering, origination, cessation and path. There is no exalted wisdom, no attainment. Report an error in the passage at 2:16 Highlight the passage at 2:16

2:43 And also no non-attainment. Shariputra, therefore, because there is no attainment, bodhisattvas rely on and dwell in the perfection of wisdom, the mind without obscuration and without fear. Having completely passed beyond air, they reach the end point of nirvāṇa. All the Buddhas who dwell in the three times also manifestly, completely awaken to unsurpassable, perfect, complete enlightenment. Report an error in the passage at 2:43 Highlight the passage at 2:43

3:10 and reliance on the perfection of wisdom. The mantra of the perfection of wisdom, the mantra of great knowledge, the unsurpassed mantra, the mantra equal to the unequaled, the mantra that thoroughly pacifies all suffering, should be known as true since it is not false. The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is declared, Report an error in the passage at 3:10 Highlight the passage at 3:10

3:34 Om Gathe Gathe Paragathe Parasam Gathe Bodhishoha Shariputra, the Bodhisattva Mahasattva should train in the profound perfection of wisdom like that. Then the Bhagavan arose from that concentration and commended the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara saying, Well said, well said, son of lineage, it is like that. Report an error in the passage at 3:34 Highlight the passage at 3:34

4:00 It is like that. One should practice the profound perfection of wisdom just as you have indicated. Even the Tathagatas rejoice. The Bhagavan having thus spoken, the venerable Sharivadiputra, the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalokiteshvara, those surrounding in their entirety along with the world of gods, humans, asuras and Gandharvas were overjoyed and highly praised that spoken by the Bhagavan. Report an error in the passage at 4:00 Highlight the passage at 4:00

4:44 So once again we're in that section of the Heart Sūtra where Avalokiteshvara is answering Shariputra's question about how One should train in the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom. Or how one should train in the practice of realizing emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 4:44 Highlight the passage at 4:44

5:08 So then we've spent the last two classes talking about form is empty. So this passage, form is empty, emptiness is form, emptiness is not other than form, form is also not other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors and consciousness are empty. So this is how one trains, the Bodhisattva trains, on the first two of the five Mahāyāna paths, the path of accumulation and the path of preparation. Report an error in the passage at 5:08 Highlight the passage at 5:08

5:41 So this passage, form is empty, emptiness is form, etc., is describing four modes of emptiness. The first one, form is empty, that we've been talking about, is describing the ultimate nature of form. And then the next three are describing the conventional nature of form. Report an error in the passage at 5:41 Highlight the passage at 5:41

6:05 So form is empty, being empty of inherent existence, true existence, existence from its own side, objective existence, existence by way of its own entity, and existence by way of its own character. So all of these terms are synonymous for the highest school only, for Madhyamika Prasangika. So that's still just a review. Report an error in the passage at 6:05 Highlight the passage at 6:05

6:40 And then we've talked quite a bit about how important it is to identify the object of negation in our own experience. How just reading about emptiness and thinking about emptiness in theory isn't going to help remove our mental afflictions. We need to find the object of negation in our own experience. The self or the body or the mind that we really... Report an error in the passage at 6:40 Highlight the passage at 6:40

7:10 Believe exists. The inherently existent body, self, etc. That we, on a very, very deep level, still believe exists. Report an error in the passage at 7:10 Highlight the passage at 7:10

7:25 It's easy to repeat the words, oh, things are only merely imputed. They don't exist from their own side. But we need to look deep down in our belief system to see what we actually believe. Report an error in the passage at 7:25 Highlight the passage at 7:25

7:45 And so the object of negation comes up really strongly when we have a mental affliction. We have anger, irritation, attachment, fear, jealousy. Report an error in the passage at 7:45 Highlight the passage at 7:45

8:00 All of those mental afflictions are based on this wrong way of thinking that we still have. So it's very useful throughout the week as a mental affliction arises or as fear arises to really look at that. Report an error in the passage at 8:00 Highlight the passage at 8:00

8:21 Look for the object of mitigation. Look at that self that we think really exists. Report an error in the passage at 8:21 Highlight the passage at 8:21

8:33 Then if forms and other phenomena were inherently existent, then we would be able to find it, right? If something actually exists, then we should be able to find it. The tanka exists, we should be able to find it. The person exists, we should be able to find it. So if... We existed from our own side. We should be able to find that person that exists from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 8:33 Highlight the passage at 8:33

9:08 And so we talked quite a lot about that, how we search for that object in negation. We search among the parts, right? We search, in the case of the self, we search the body. We search the mind. And then we search separate from the body and the mind. And there's no other possibility of where it could exist, right? If it existed, it has to be within the body, within the mind or outside of the body and the mind. Report an error in the passage at 9:08 Highlight the passage at 9:08

9:43 So we search in all those places and if we can't find it, then it doesn't exist, right? Report an error in the passage at 9:43 Highlight the passage at 9:43

10:02 So we did a meditation last time and we'll do a meditation today as well. Good to do it again and again. Report an error in the passage at 10:02 Highlight the passage at 10:02

10:17 And then we talked. About emptiness being a non-affirming negation. About how emptiness, we search for the self among the body and the mind and separate from the body and the mind. And then emptiness is the lack of it existing amongst the body and the mind, etc. It's the lack of something. It's the absence of. Report an error in the passage at 10:17 Highlight the passage at 10:17

10:48 And so when we meditate, It's really good if we can stay in that absence, stay in the not finding and not let the mind switch to something more comfortable. The mind is constantly wanting to affirm something. Oh, well, okay, I can't find it, but I'm merely imputed by the mind. I'm just merely imputed by the mind. And so then that feels better, right? Because there's something that we're affirming. Report an error in the passage at 10:48 Highlight the passage at 10:48

11:25 But meditating on the fact that we're merely imputed by the mind is meditating on a conventional truth. Mere imputation by the mind is a conventional truth. The lack of inherent existence is the ultimate truth. We have to realize the lack of inherent existence. We have to realize ultimate truth. And it's only really through... Report an error in the passage at 11:25 Highlight the passage at 11:25

11:59 Realizing the ultimate truth, that we can really understand what it means to be merely imputed by the mind. And we'll talk more about that today. We'll talk about the two truths, I think. I'm just curious if there's a way that you can articulate staying in that non-affirming negation, which is to say, is it an active consciousness of still looking? Report an error in the passage at 11:59 Highlight the passage at 11:59

12:28 Or is it more like, is it something more to the tune of, I haven't found it and now I'm going to take that in? I mean, I'm not sure if I understand that. Yeah, yeah. So what we do is we look everywhere, right? We look in the body, in the mind, etc. We've looked everywhere. And then at that point, we stay with the absence. Report an error in the passage at 12:28 Highlight the passage at 12:28

12:57 Because we've done the looking, and at that point it's a fault to keep looking. It's tempting to keep doing the analysis. I'll just keep looking. I'll just keep looking. It must be somewhere. I'll just keep looking. I'll just keep looking. So at some point we need to stay with the absence, which is so uncomfortable. Report an error in the passage at 12:57 Highlight the passage at 12:57

13:21 We just stay with the absence. It's like if someone close to us dies, just being there. With the absence in ourselves, it's so painful. Report an error in the passage at 13:21 Highlight the passage at 13:21

13:36 So staying with the absence of inherent existence is not painful in the same way, but it's uncomfortable. It's realizing that something we always believe existed doesn't exist and never did. That's kind of really weird. Report an error in the passage at 13:36 Highlight the passage at 13:36

13:59 It's something that we believe with every kind of pore of our being has always existed and it's never existed. And so it's very uncomfortable to stay with that. But that's precisely what we need to do. And when we can stay with that, the discomfort can kind of increase. Report an error in the passage at 13:59 Highlight the passage at 13:59

14:24 But that's where the realization starts is when we can stay with it. One key factor would be that. level of of comfort. Yeah, I mean, I can't say it's universal. No, I mean, I'm just asking because I feel like that's helpful. I mean, I feel like there's some point where I feel like I'm not so sure I should continue pursuing, you know, as I said, like an active looking and it seems like to keep. Report an error in the passage at 14:24 Highlight the passage at 14:24

14:59 Finding, having this negation, there's like some weird logic I have in my hand that says, well, I better keep looking, you know. Yeah. So I understand what you're saying. That helps. Yeah. It just gives me a new way to think about it. Uh-huh. Yeah. So at some point, you know, you stop looking and you stay with it. Report an error in the passage at 14:59 Highlight the passage at 14:59

15:18 And then with, right, with the lack of. And then when the clarity of that diminishes, then we apply the reasonings and start looking again. Report an error in the passage at 15:18 Highlight the passage at 15:18

15:31 But it's important to hold on to our conclusion for a while. So that's also why in the Meditation on Emptiness they talk about identifying the object of negation first and then the second step of what they call ascertaining the pervasion. So that's really determining in our minds that if I can't find it among the body and among the mind and separate from the body and the mind, that means it can't exist. Report an error in the passage at 15:31 Highlight the passage at 15:31

16:05 We need to spend some time on that. Otherwise, the not finding is not very impactful to us. It's like, okay, well, I couldn't find it. Oh, well. Right, yeah. Which I've done plenty. It's like, oh, okay, well, I didn't find it. Okay, it's time to go eat breakfast now. Report an error in the passage at 16:05 Highlight the passage at 16:05

16:35 Maybe tomorrow I'll find it. Report an error in the passage at 16:35 Highlight the passage at 16:35

16:41 Effie. Oh yeah, the microphone. Report an error in the passage at 16:41 Highlight the passage at 16:41

16:48 What about the subtle self that then goes on and reincarnates in another lifetime? Where is that? Yeah, well let's, why don't we talk about that? Will you bring that up again when we talk about the conventional truth? Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 16:48 Highlight the passage at 16:48

17:12 So when we're meditating on emptiness, that's the not finding, right? Then when we realize conventional truth, then we understand what actually does exist. Report an error in the passage at 17:12 Highlight the passage at 17:12

17:35 So we talked about this last time, how, right, so first we need to receive teachings. And then when we meditate on emptiness, we first do the analytical meditation and investigate whether or not we can find our body or find ourself. Report an error in the passage at 17:35 Highlight the passage at 17:35

17:56 And then the, if we correctly can, you know, if we correctly do the meditation, We conclude that the body or the self is not findable. Then the image of the body fades, or the self fades, and this vacuity, this absence appears. And that's the image of emptiness. And that's what we need to stay on. Then we stabilize on that for as long as we can. Report an error in the passage at 17:56 Highlight the passage at 17:56

18:32 And then when that clarity starts to diminish, Then we start with the analysis again. And then when we have a clear conclusion again, then we stabilize on that. So we go back and forth. Report an error in the passage at 18:32 Highlight the passage at 18:32

18:52 So that stabilizing part is really important. That's what will really give a lot of power to our meditation. Stabilizing on our conclusion. Report an error in the passage at 18:52 Highlight the passage at 18:52

19:14 I notice that a lot of people like to keep doing the analysis. I mean myself included. I like to keep analyzing it. more comfortable somehow. It keeps the mind active. It keeps it engaged somehow. But the stabilizing is... Report an error in the passage at 19:14 Highlight the passage at 19:14

19:32 I do do the stabilizing, I feel that the meditation works so much better. Report an error in the passage at 19:32 Highlight the passage at 19:32

19:47 then we'll start with new material this time. Report an error in the passage at 19:47 Highlight the passage at 19:47

19:58 the second mode of emptiness. Emptiness is form, in the Heart Sūtra it says emptiness is form. Report an error in the passage at 19:58 Highlight the passage at 19:58

20:08 Although form does not exist ultimately, it does not exist inherently, it does exist conventionally. So the way the second mode of emptiness is described is a very subtle way that form exists conventionally, and that is form is a manifestation of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 20:08 Highlight the passage at 20:08

20:41 And this is a little bit difficult for me to understand what they actually mean by a manifestation of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 20:41 Highlight the passage at 20:41

20:53 But there's three examples that I'll present to you. And the first two are not the greatest examples, but they kind of help. Report an error in the passage at 20:53 Highlight the passage at 20:53

21:02 So the first example, if I can find it, Report an error in the passage at 21:02 Highlight the passage at 21:02

21:20 but the first example is His Holiness the Dalai Lama. us. Report an error in the passage at 21:20 Highlight the passage at 21:20

· · · silence, 1 minute

21:25 He mentions it in his book, The Essence of the Heart Sūtra. And that's where we can say that forms, this form, this cup exists here due to, it can only exist here because there's space. Because there's space, then the cup can exist here. Report an error in the passage at 21:25 Highlight the passage at 21:25

21:56 Due to there being space, then cup. Can exist here in this place. Report an error in the passage at 21:56 Highlight the passage at 21:56

22:08 So kind of similarly, I mean there's a fault to this example, but similarly because things are empty, then they can appear, then they can exist. Report an error in the passage at 22:08 Highlight the passage at 22:08

22:28 The exact words that His Holiness uses, he Report an error in the passage at 22:28 Highlight the passage at 22:28

22:35 says, I'll just read this to you. Since form lacks independent existence, it can never be isolated from other phenomena. Consequently, dependence suggests a kind of openness and malleability in relation to other things. Report an error in the passage at 22:35 Highlight the passage at 22:35

22:56 Because forms have no fixed, isolated entity, we can say that emptiness is the basis for the existence of form. So he says we can say that emptiness is the basis for the existence of form. Report an error in the passage at 22:56 Highlight the passage at 22:56

23:18 In fact, in some sense, we can even say that emptiness creates form. Report an error in the passage at 23:18 Highlight the passage at 23:18

23:28 One can then understand the statement that emptiness is form in terms of form being a manifestation or expression of emptiness, something that comes out of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 23:28 Highlight the passage at 23:28

23:45 So form being a manifestation or expression of emptiness, form coming out of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 23:45 Highlight the passage at 23:45

23:57 you can kind of say that. There's a bit of a fault there because it's not as if there's emptiness and then things arise from, well, gosh, it's so hard to find the right words, but there's this kind of entity called emptiness and then things are created from that emptiness. It's not like that. It's not like there's a brick of gold and then we create a gold statue from it. Report an error in the passage at 23:57 Highlight the passage at 23:57

24:31 It's not like emptiness is a substance and then you create something from that substance. Because emptiness, and we'll talk about this later in this class, but emptiness cannot be separated from the basis of the emptiness. We can't just talk about emptiness. Emptiness of what? Emptiness is always in relation to something. Report an error in the passage at 24:31 Highlight the passage at 24:31

24:58 It's not just there's emptiness, there's... A clock and the emptiness of the clock. The lack of the clock existing from its own side is the emptiness of the clock. Report an error in the passage at 24:58 Highlight the passage at 24:58

25:14 And the emptiness of the person, the lack of that person existing from its own side. So it's not that there's this substance called emptiness and then things are kind of formed from that substance. Report an error in the passage at 25:14 Highlight the passage at 25:14

25:36 Yeah, Lewis? Report an error in the passage at 25:36 Highlight the passage at 25:36

25:39 So is emptiness a phenomenon or a characteristic of a phenomenon? Yes. Both. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 25:39 Highlight the passage at 25:39

25:52 You can talk about emptiness being a phenomenon in the sense that emptiness does exist. So everything that exists is a phenomenon. Report an error in the passage at 25:52 Highlight the passage at 25:52

26:05 But emptiness really is just... Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 26:05 Highlight the passage at 26:05

26:02 on. Report an error in the passage at 26:02 Highlight the passage at 26:02

26:08 A characteristic of each phenomenon. It's the ultimate way that things exist and the ultimate characteristic or the final mode of being of a particular phenomenon. Yeah, that's a good question. And Report an error in the passage at 26:08 Highlight the passage at 26:08

26:29 we'll talk more about that in this class too if we get that far. Report an error in the passage at 26:29 Highlight the passage at 26:29

26:41 So also the fault with saying, with the example of the cup exists here because... There's space. Space is something separate from the cup in that example. But the emptiness of the cup is not something separate from the cup. So that's where the analogy is deficient. And Report an error in the passage at 26:41 Highlight the passage at 26:41

27:16 we'll talk more about that too. Report an error in the passage at 27:16 Highlight the passage at 27:16

27:24 But because things are empty, they can appear. Because they're empty, they can appear and they can function. Report an error in the passage at 27:24 Highlight the passage at 27:24

27:39 It's not... In spite of the fact that they're empty, they can appear and function. It's because that things are empty, they can appear and function. Report an error in the passage at 27:39 Highlight the passage at 27:39

27:54 So that's something I think we really need to think about. So it's said that these four modes of emptiness described by these lines in the Heart Sūtra, form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form. Form is also not other than emptiness. These are progressive ways that we can deepen our realization of emptiness. Just understanding that form is empty of inherent existence is the first step. Report an error in the passage at 27:54 Highlight the passage at 27:54

28:32 Then understanding that form is a manifestation of emptiness is to deepen our understanding of emptiness and to help us not fall into the extreme of thinking. Nothing exists at all because that's the danger when we start studying emptiness is that we think, oh, okay, well, we can't find it, so it must not exist at all. Report an error in the passage at 28:32 Highlight the passage at 28:32

28:59 So the second mode of emptiness helps us to not fall into the extreme of nihilism or annihilation. Report an error in the passage at 28:59 Highlight the passage at 28:59

29:13 And then the third mode of emptiness and the fourth mode of emptiness, which we'll talk about. Even further helps us understand emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 29:13 Highlight the passage at 29:13

29:32 So form is a manifestation of emptiness. We can also say that emptiness is the basis for the existence of form. Report an error in the passage at 29:32 Highlight the passage at 29:32

29:48 Form can only exist because it's empty. It's the basis for the existence of form. Or we can also say that emptiness appears as form. Report an error in the passage at 29:48 Highlight the passage at 29:48

30:15 So because things are empty, They can appear. Report an error in the passage at 30:15 Highlight the passage at 30:15

30:39 So then this quote by His Holiness, I'm basically saying what we already kind of said. It is important to clarify that we are not speaking of emptiness as some kind of absolute stratum of reality. Report an error in the passage at 30:39 Highlight the passage at 30:39

30:56 Emptiness is not a core reality lying somehow at the heart of the universe from which the diversity of phenomena arise. Emptiness can only be conceived of in relation to individual things and events. So emptiness can only be conceived of in relation to particular phenomena. It's the final way that things exist. It's not something separate from other phenomena. It's the way each and every phenomenon exists. Report an error in the passage at 30:56 Highlight the passage at 30:56

31:43 I'm getting some looks. I'm not sure how to read those looks. No questions. Report an error in the passage at 31:43 Highlight the passage at 31:43

32:02 So then logically emptiness cannot exist without phenomena and form. Report an error in the passage at 32:02 Highlight the passage at 32:02

32:11 You couldn't have emptiness without form. Well, I mean, well, I would say you, I mean, emptiness is only in relation to a particular phenomena, not necessarily form. Or any phenomena. Without phenomena there could be no emptiness. And without emptiness there could be no phenomena. Yeah. So it has to be both ways. Is that right? Yeah, they're mutually dependent. I think so, from my understanding. Report an error in the passage at 32:11 Highlight the passage at 32:11

32:42 Is the formless realm empty? Yeah, right. So not all phenomena are form, right? Mind is formless and mind is also empty. Report an error in the passage at 32:42 Highlight the passage at 32:42

32:56 Space is also empty. Report an error in the passage at 32:56 Highlight the passage at 32:56

33:02 So form, right? So form is the, you know, what? We tend to interact with all the time, so we think that all phenomena are form, but the phenomena that aren't form also are empty of inherent existence. I guess my problem is because it says emptiness is not other than form. Yeah, we'll talk about that. Report an error in the passage at 33:02 Highlight the passage at 33:02

33:31 So in the sūtra it says form is empty, emptiness is form. yeah I mean it's Report an error in the passage at 33:31 Highlight the passage at 33:31

33:39 Emptiness is not other than form. Form is also not other than emptiness. So those lines are only talking about the first of the five aggregates so far. It's just talking about that aggregate. And then it says, likewise, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors, and consciousness are also empty. Report an error in the passage at 33:39 Highlight the passage at 33:39

34:00 So you can apply those same statements to the other four aggregates. Report an error in the passage at 34:00 Highlight the passage at 34:00

34:08 But we'll talk about what that emptiness is not other than form means. It's not, the meaning is not so literal. Okay, Report an error in the passage at 34:08 Highlight the passage at 34:08

34:27 so the conventional nature of form. Report an error in the passage at 34:27 Highlight the passage at 34:27

34:40 So we can talk about, okay, well how does form exist conventionally, right? We say that ultimately it doesn't exist, right? It doesn't exist inherently, but it does exist conventionally. So it said that... Phenomena are mere appearances to the mind. The cup is merely an appearance to the mind. The cup is a visual appearance to the mind, but it's also a tactile appearance. There's also a taste to the cup. Report an error in the passage at 34:40 Highlight the passage at 34:40

35:25 Maybe there's a subtle odor of the cup, too. So when we talk about appearances, we're not just talking about visual appearance. We're also talking about the odors and the tastes, etc. Okay, so phenomena do appear, right? And the appearance of phenomena is a conventional truth. It's Report an error in the passage at 35:25 Highlight the passage at 35:25

35:53 something positive. It's a conventional truth. And then it's based on phenomena appearing to the mind. Then we impute them. Report an error in the passage at 35:53 Highlight the passage at 35:53

36:12 So blue and white appears to the mind. And then I impute cup. Report an error in the passage at 36:12 Highlight the passage at 36:12

36:23 And then it appears back to me as cup. Report an error in the passage at 36:23 Highlight the passage at 36:23

36:31 It's just that, you know, something appears to the mind, some colors and shapes appear to the mind, then I impute it as a cup, and then it appears back as if it's a cup from its own side. You Report an error in the passage at 36:31 Highlight the passage at 36:31

36:58 know, let's say this was something that you've never seen before, right? If it's something you've never seen before, right, it just appears as some colors and shapes, right? And then we figure out, somebody tells us, oh, you know, that's a cup. And then you think it's a cup, right, from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 36:58 Highlight the passage at 36:58

37:29 Another example is, like, when we're born, right, there's this little baby. Report an error in the passage at 37:29 Highlight the passage at 37:29

37:39 Then we're named, you know, my parents named me Emily. And then, right, so Emily was just a label put on, you know, some shapes and some colors and some sounds. Report an error in the passage at 37:39 Highlight the passage at 37:39

38:03 It's just a label. And then it appears back. Now you see this body and you say, oh yeah, there's Emily. Emily's sitting. As if there's an Emily here from her own side. It was just a name put. Report an error in the passage at 38:03 Highlight the passage at 38:03

38:27 Put on some ever-changing aggregates. Ever-changing body and an ever-changing mind. Then we put a name on it. Report an error in the passage at 38:27 Highlight the passage at 38:27

38:42 Person, the same thing. Ever-changing body and ever-changing mind. And then we label that person. And that's the extent of a person. It's just something labeled on something that's constantly changing. Report an error in the passage at 38:42 Highlight the passage at 38:42

39:12 Like if we think, oh yeah, I was sitting here last week in class. Who is this I that was sitting here last week in class? Is it the same I that's sitting here in this class? Report an error in the passage at 39:12 Highlight the passage at 39:12

39:27 The body is a little bit older. The mind. changed. so who is this eye? Report an error in the passage at 39:27 Highlight the passage at 39:27

39:42 It's just a Report an error in the passage at 39:42 Highlight the passage at 39:42

39:52 label. Report an error in the passage at 39:52 Highlight the passage at 39:52

39:59 Is there something else that's Report an error in the passage at 39:59 Highlight the passage at 39:59

40:05 the same from last week to this week? Report an error in the passage at 40:05 Highlight the passage at 40:05

40:19 We think that there is, right? Report an error in the passage at 40:19 Highlight the passage at 40:19

40:26 But when we really search, we can't find that thing that was the same last week to this week. And that gets us back to Effie's question. And before it's the same from life to life, right? It's just this merely labeled I, the mere I, the label from Report an error in the passage at 40:26 Highlight the passage at 40:26

40:58 life to life, Report an error in the passage at 40:58 Highlight the passage at 40:58

41:03 not some unchanging soul, right? Report an error in the passage at 41:03 Highlight the passage at 41:03

41:13 It's just a continuity, right? It's a continuity of consciousness. I think even a continuity, like sometimes we want to think, oh, well, it's the mental continuum, right? The continuity of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 41:13 Highlight the passage at 41:13

41:28 What goes from life to life, that's the person. But what's a continuity? Report an error in the passage at 41:28 Highlight the passage at 41:28

41:41 Continuity is just something Report an error in the passage at 41:41 Highlight the passage at 41:41

41:47 that we label to successive moments, then we label that a continuity. But it's not as if there's this thread that runs through it that's constant. Report an error in the passage at 41:47 Highlight the passage at 41:47

42:12 So that merely labeled I is a conventional truth. It's a conventional nature of things. Report an error in the passage at 42:12 Highlight the passage at 42:12

42:50 Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 42:50 Highlight the passage at 42:50

43:00 The thing that I've always found confusing is seeing how phenomena is empty. How come it is that we all agree upon that you are Emily and when I see Emily I see black hair, a purple top, etc., etc., and we're all in agreement with that. How is that? I don't understand how we can all be in agreement on seeing you the same way, seeing the Buddha the same way, when it's all empty. Karma. Report an error in the passage at 43:00 Highlight the passage at 43:00

43:29 Karma. We have a collective karma. We have a collective karma to see things in a similar way. Report an error in the passage at 43:29 Highlight the passage at 43:29

43:43 But then, if the cat walked in the room, the cat would probably see things differently. The cat wouldn't look at me and think Emily, right? Report an error in the passage at 43:43 Highlight the passage at 43:43

44:01 So the cat might see black hair. Actually, it's hard to know what a cat really perceives. But we all have a collective karma to perceive things in a similar way. So my guess would be Lama Zopa would see you differently maybe than we would because he sees and he perceives emptiness differently than we do. Report an error in the passage at 44:01 Highlight the passage at 44:01

44:30 I'm just guessing. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 44:30 Highlight the passage at 44:30

44:35 Well, the example that they give in the texts, I mean, the classic example is there's a glass of liquid, right? And a human being sees it as water, right? A hungry ghost sees it as pus and blood. Report an error in the passage at 44:35 Highlight the passage at 44:35

44:59 A person in the God realm, not the person, the being in the God realm sees it as nectar. So they're... They each have a different karma to see it in a different way. A hungry ghost cannot find, it's hard to talk about hungry ghosts because this is not something we've experienced and hard to know if they really exist. Report an error in the passage at 44:59 Highlight the passage at 44:59

45:26 But I'll tell you, this is what they say in the text. So the hungry ghost, because of their karma, they can't find food and drink. Report an error in the passage at 45:26 Highlight the passage at 45:26

45:37 They have the karma to not find food and drink. So something that appears as water to us can't appear as water to a hungry ghost because they don't have the karma to be able to quench their thirst with water. Report an error in the passage at 45:37 Highlight the passage at 45:37

46:01 There's also this story of Shakyamuni Buddha that he went to somebody's house who offered him spoiled food, basically, and his attendant. Report an error in the passage at 46:01 Highlight the passage at 46:01

46:21 I don't know. Yeah, right, right. But it was, I mean, but it was bad, right? It was bad food, right? And the attendant, you know, the attendant told Chakyamuni Buddha, don't eat that, you know, that's spoiled food. Yeah, exactly. And Chakyamuni Buddha said, you know, no problem, you know, and he ate it and experienced it as the most delicious thing because he had that. Report an error in the passage at 46:21 Highlight the passage at 46:21

46:48 He was Buddha, right? Report an error in the passage at 46:48 Highlight the passage at 46:48

46:54 So, you know, how we perceive things depends on our karma. Report an error in the passage at 46:54 Highlight the passage at 46:54

47:02 You know, I mean, there's, you know, one Lama who always gives a teaching on the pen, right? And a pen. I don't even have a pen. Wait. Report an error in the passage at 47:02 Highlight the passage at 47:02

47:19 He always uses this example to prove emptiness. I have a pen. Okay. So, right, so we think this is a pen, right, out here, existing from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 47:19 Highlight the passage at 47:19

47:33 But then a dog. A dog doesn't see it as a pen. A dog sees it as a chewy toy. So is it a pen from its own side? No. So that's kind of a pretty effective example, I think. A dog has a different karma to see it as something very different, not as something that writes, why would a dog want that, but something to chew on. Report an error in the passage at 47:33 Highlight the passage at 47:33

48:14 I think it's important too to remember that we all... See Emily differently, I'm sure, that we all have vastly different views on Emily. And each, in each, every other, you know, thing in this room. And also with the conventional thing, I think that that's why, that's exactly what a convention is, you know, like a convention in languages where we all agree that this is the right way to write a sentence or something. Report an error in the passage at 48:14 Highlight the passage at 48:14

48:36 And I think that it's a convention, that a conventional truth is very much a convention in that we all agree to kind of call Emily Emily. I mean, I could... I'd completely call her Judy if I wanted to do that. But I'm following the convention, so to speak, even though that's not the exact, I'm sure, Dharma, thinking on that. Report an error in the passage at 48:36 Highlight the passage at 48:36

48:53 But do you know what I mean? That's what a convention is. So a conventional truth is just that, just something that functions in that fashion and we all recognize it as such. Report an error in the passage at 48:53 Highlight the passage at 48:53

49:06 Yeah, that's right. I forgot to talk about that side. Right, so we all have a similar karma, right, to see a person here. But the fact that you call me Emily isn't your karma so much as a convention, right? Somebody told you that was my name and so you call me that, right? Report an error in the passage at 49:06 Highlight the passage at 49:06

49:27 And the fact that we call this the gompa is just a convention. Report an error in the passage at 49:27 Highlight the passage at 49:27

49:37 It's just what we've learned, right? We've learned. Report an error in the passage at 49:37 Highlight the passage at 49:37

49:44 I think what I'm saying too is there's no telling what we're all seeing when we look at Emily. You know what I mean? It's hard to know what my experience is. But, I mean, sometimes I think about this and it's true. I see purple and you see purple too, but I have no idea what purple looks like to you. It could be completely different. But that experience is defined by you as purple, but it's a convention. Report an error in the passage at 49:44 Highlight the passage at 49:44

50:05 So what I mean is that it's our similar karma to see that event, that phenomenon taking place, and we all agree to call it Emily or Jay or whatever, but there's no guarantee that we're all seeing the same thing. In fact, definitely in this room we're all seeing Emily quite differently because I can't see her right ear or anything like that. Report an error in the passage at 50:05 Highlight the passage at 50:05

50:22 So I just have to sort of assume she has one. Report an error in the passage at 50:22 Highlight the passage at 50:22

50:33 Right, yeah, yeah, yeah. And we can see that so much in terms of, you know, our varying likes and dislikes, you know, when it comes to food, when it comes to beauty. It's not as if we all would agree that Indian food is the greatest food on earth, right? Some of us would and some of us... I'll see you. Report an error in the passage at 50:33 Highlight the passage at 50:33

50:59 Definitely would not, right? So yes, we each have our own individual perceptions of things and then there's a collective as well. Report an error in the passage at 50:59 Highlight the passage at 50:59

51:11 And I think it's that object of negation again, that the Emily that doesn't exist is the Emily that exists from her own side or the Emily that means all the things we think it means. You know, that... Report an error in the passage at 51:11 Highlight the passage at 51:11

51:29 That all the, the thing it's, I'm lost again. It's hard to articulate, yeah. Yeah. So there's an appearance to the mind, right? And that's the conventional truth. It's just the appearance to the mind, not everything else we put on top of it. Report an error in the passage at 51:29 Highlight the passage at 51:29

52:01 Yeah, I'll qualify that statement later. I Report an error in the passage at 52:01 Highlight the passage at 52:01

52:07 have to be so careful with words. I always think His Holiness is a good example, too, because certainly everybody in this room probably has a great respect for Him and even sees Him as mystical and full of great knowledge and things. But, you know, there's a great many people who just think He's, you know, there's probably some people who think He should get a job, you know, and there's like, no, you know what I mean? Report an error in the passage at 52:07 Highlight the passage at 52:07

52:27 And certainly what the Chinese think of Him and the statements they make about Him. So that's definitely, that speaks highly about conventions. Yeah, and different karma, we think. See things differently. Report an error in the passage at 52:27 Highlight the passage at 52:27

52:54 Are you ready for a break? Okay, we'll take a break and then we'll come back and talk about the two truths. Okay. Report an error in the passage at 52:54 Highlight the passage at 52:54

53:05 So before I dive into the two truths, just a little bit more on phenomena being mere appearances to the mind. So in the text they give various examples. I think I've talked about the whirling firebrand before. So the fireball on the end of a string that we twirl around and it appears as a circle of fire, whereas a circle of fire doesn't exist at all. Report an error in the passage at 53:05 Highlight the passage at 53:05

53:37 It's just the coming together of the conditions of this ball spinning fast enough that it appears to be a continuity. And so everything is like that, right? Report an error in the passage at 53:37 Highlight the passage at 53:37

54:05 Like the body, right? It appears to be solid. But we all know on an atomic level that it's mostly space, right? There's mostly space between these particles, right? But it appears as being so solid, right? It's a mistaken appearance, just like the whirling firebrand. It's a mistaken appearance. Report an error in the passage at 54:05 Highlight the passage at 54:05

54:34 Just like a rainbow that appears to be something solid. But if we search for the rainbow, we won't be able to find it, right? Report an error in the passage at 54:34 Highlight the passage at 54:34

54:47 It's just some causes and conditions coming together to create an appearance of a rainbow. And everything is like that. Causes and conditions coming together to create an appearance. Report an error in the passage at 54:47 Highlight the passage at 54:47

55:07 But as soon as we investigate and try to find it existing out there, We can't find it. Report an error in the passage at 55:07 Highlight the passage at 55:07

55:26 So then although forms, you Report an error in the passage at 55:26 Highlight the passage at 55:26

55:33 know, form, feeling, discrimination, etc., they're mere appearances, they're just manifestations of emptiness, but they do exist conventionally, right, as merely imputed by the mind, and they do function. Report an error in the passage at 55:33 Highlight the passage at 55:33

55:51 A car, a properly functioning car, you know, doesn't exist from its own side, but it will still get you home. Right? We hope. All right. Report an error in the passage at 55:51 Highlight the passage at 55:51

56:16 Two truths. So there's ultimate truth and conventional truth. Right? The two truths. Ultimate truth is basically emptiness. The emptiness of inherent existence. The emptiness of the cup is an ultimate truth. The emptiness of the clock is an ultimate truth. The emptiness of the computer. The emptiness of the self. These are all ultimate truths. Report an error in the passage at 56:16 Highlight the passage at 56:16

56:46 Conventional truths are all other phenomena, all other things that exist besides emptiness. So the cup is a conventional truth, the clock, the computer, the tonka, the carpet, the light. These are all conventional truths. Report an error in the passage at 56:46 Highlight the passage at 56:46

57:12 So these are truths for ordinary people, right? These are truths... Not in the sense that they exist the way they appear, right? Because they don't exist the way they appear. But they're truths in that for ordinary people who have established a convention, right? This is a cup. This is a table. This is a clock. This is a tanka. It accords with the conventions of the world. Report an error in the passage at 57:12 Highlight the passage at 57:12

57:45 And conventional truths are established by valid cognizers. Report an error in the passage at 57:45 Highlight the passage at 57:45

57:56 So what is the significance of that? So in order for something to exist, Report an error in the passage at 57:56 Highlight the passage at 57:56

58:06 for something to exist conventionally, actually if something exists, then it must exist conventionally. Nothing exists ultimately. So if it exists, it must exist conventionally. If it exists conventionally, there are three criteria they need to meet. Report an error in the passage at 58:06 Highlight the passage at 58:06

58:32 First of all, it needs to accord with the conventions of the world. Or the conventions of a particular place at a particular time, a particular group of beings. So there's a convention that this is called a cup in this country, in this time. Whereas Report an error in the passage at 58:32 Highlight the passage at 58:32

58:58 in Tibet, no one would call it a cup. But here, in this country, we would call it a cup. So that's the first criteria. It needs to be... Report an error in the passage at 58:58 Highlight the passage at 58:58

59:17 In accordance with the conventions of the world or a common agreement. And then it must not be invalidated by other valid cognizers. Valid cognizers of the conventional and valid cognizers of the ultimate. So we can say cup exists, but we can't say, I mean inherently existent cup doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 59:17 Highlight the passage at 59:17

59:47 Inherently existent cup, it may be... In accordance with the conventions of the world, that there's a cup that exists out here from its own side. But a valid cognizer, specifically someone who's realized emptiness, invalidates the existence of an inherently existent cup. Report an error in the passage at 59:47 Highlight the passage at 59:47

1:00:12 So a conventional truth needs to be, its existence cannot be invalidated by what's called a valid cognizer. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:12 Highlight the passage at 1:00:12

1:00:29 It must not be refuted by a valid cognizer. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:29 Highlight the passage at 1:00:29

1:00:53 And then we can posit or assert the two truths on each and every phenomenon. So the ultimate nature or the ultimate truth with respect to the cup is the emptiness of the cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:53 Highlight the passage at 1:00:53

1:01:10 So we can posit the ultimate truth on the cup. The emptiness of the cup is the ultimate nature of the cup. The conventional nature of the cup... Many things. It's Report an error in the passage at 1:01:10 Highlight the passage at 1:01:10

1:01:29 impermanent. It's blue and white is a conventional nature. It's dependent on its parts. It's dependent on imputation. All of these things are the conventional nature. So the conventional nature has many different levels of subtlety. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:29 Highlight the passage at 1:01:29

1:01:52 Some that we can see with our senses, with our eye consciousnesses, etc. And some really subtle aspects of the conventional nature cannot be realized until we've realized emptiness. Like the most subtle level of dependent arising that phenomena are merely imputed by the mind can't be fully understood until we've realized emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:52 Highlight the passage at 1:01:52

1:02:40 Okay, so is that kind of clear, those two truths? Like pen. Is that conventional truth, ultimate truth, or neither? Report an error in the passage at 1:02:40 Highlight the passage at 1:02:40

1:02:51 Pen. Conventional truth, ultimate truth, or neither? Report an error in the passage at 1:02:51 Highlight the passage at 1:02:51

1:02:58 Pen. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:58 Highlight the passage at 1:02:58

1:03:07 So pen itself is a conventional truth. The emptiness of the pen is its ultimate truth. Pen itself is a conventional truth. The Report an error in the passage at 1:03:07 Highlight the passage at 1:03:07

1:03:29 impermanence of clock. Is that a conventional truth, an ultimate truth, or neither? Report an error in the passage at 1:03:29 Highlight the passage at 1:03:29

1:03:39 Conventional truth. The impermanence of clock. What about the color of the clock? Conventional truth, ultimate truth, conventional truth. What about the Report an error in the passage at 1:03:39 Highlight the passage at 1:03:39

1:04:06 existence from its own side of the clock? Conventional truth, ultimate truth or neither? Report an error in the passage at 1:04:06 Highlight the passage at 1:04:06

1:04:18 So the existence from its own side of the clock. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:18 Highlight the passage at 1:04:18

1:04:32 So it's neither. Why is it neither? It doesn't exist, right? Existence from its own side doesn't exist at all. either, Report an error in the passage at 1:04:32 Highlight the passage at 1:04:32

1:04:43 So it's not even a conventional truth. If it's a conventional truth, it has to exist. And it's harmed by a valid cognizer. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:43 Highlight the passage at 1:04:43

1:04:57 So the question, existence from its own side of the clock is neither a conventional truth nor an ultimate truth. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:57 Highlight the passage at 1:04:57

1:05:12 That's across the board, right? Yep. Okay. What about the Report an error in the passage at 1:05:12 Highlight the passage at 1:05:12

1:05:29 emptiness of the clock? Report an error in the passage at 1:05:29 Highlight the passage at 1:05:29

1:05:34 Ultimate truth. Okay. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:34 Highlight the passage at 1:05:34

1:05:40 The mere imputation of the clock. The fact that the clock is merely imputed. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:40 Highlight the passage at 1:05:40

1:05:51 Conventional truth. Okay. Clear? Report an error in the passage at 1:05:51 Highlight the passage at 1:05:51

1:06:02 Anybody not clear? Report an error in the passage at 1:06:02 Highlight the passage at 1:06:02

1:06:16 That part is pretty clear to me. But what we just went over on Valicognizers isn't very clear to me. I don't know if you want to go into that anymore. I know I've had teachings on it and I could research it further if you don't want to get into it. I'm not very clear because it seems as though we're just kind of accepting what a valid cognizer is. Plus I missed something you said. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:16 Highlight the passage at 1:06:16

1:06:47 I think you said cognizers of the conventional world or something like that. And then I missed the next. And then I think you also didn't, at least I didn't get the third, if it existed conventionally, and if so, three things. And you didn't mention the third. I vaguely remember that. Anyway, two and three are always kind of misty for me, but I don't know. We don't have to necessarily go into that, but when you said, do I understand, I've got this big one. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:47 Highlight the passage at 1:06:47

1:07:24 What we just went over, I don't understand. Yeah, I went through that really quickly, and I kind of didn't want to get hung up on it, because the valley cognizance kind of gets complicated. but... Basically the three things that establish that something exists is that it must accord with worldly convention, the first thing. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:24 Highlight the passage at 1:07:24

1:07:48 And then the second one is it can't be refuted by a valid cognizer of the conventional. So a valid cognizer looking at the conventional nature of things. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:48 Highlight the passage at 1:07:48

1:08:05 And the third one, it can't be refuted by a valid cognizer Report an error in the passage at 1:08:05 Highlight the passage at 1:08:05

1:08:14 Realizing the ultimate nature of things. So that would be a wisdom realizing emptiness. So Report an error in the passage at 1:08:14 Highlight the passage at 1:08:14

1:08:27 the inherent existence of the cup is refuted by a valid cognizer realizing the ultimate. It's refuted by the wisdom directly realizing emptiness or the wisdom realizing emptiness. Whereas inherent existence of cup is not refuted by worldly convention. It's not refuted by a valid cognizer just understanding the conventional nature of things. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:27 Highlight the passage at 1:08:27

1:08:57 You actually need a valid cognizer understanding the ultimate nature to refute the inherent existence of something. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:57 Highlight the passage at 1:08:57

1:09:14 The third one, even if you had an understanding of emptiness but not a realization of emptiness, You could kind of test this if you knew the arguments, right? The number three? I mean, can someone who hasn't realized emptiness... You know, a valid cognizer of the ultimate is someone who's realized emptiness. Right, but as someone who hasn't, in order to trust that this... Report an error in the passage at 1:09:14 Highlight the passage at 1:09:14

1:09:55 You know, as someone who hasn't, how can you put number three to the test? Your reasoning can't do it, right? Right. Okay, I'll think about it. It's not that each person has those three. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:55 Highlight the passage at 1:09:55

1:10:18 It's just that in general we can't say that an inherently existent cup exists because a valid cognizer refutes it. Not necessarily me being the valid cognizer. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:18 Highlight the passage at 1:10:18

1:10:34 I may very much hold that an inherently existing cup exists, but that doesn't mean that it does exist just because I think it exists. It doesn't mean that it actually does exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:34 Highlight the passage at 1:10:34

1:10:49 If it's refuted, for example, by a Buddha, then it can't exist, even though I think that it exists. Does that make kind of sense? It has to... Report an error in the passage at 1:10:49 Highlight the passage at 1:10:49

1:11:03 Well, it does, but I'm trying to approach it from the point of view of how you would explain how does someone have that faith? Oh, how do you have the faith? That's a big subject. But anyway, we don't have to go into all that right now. Yeah. Yeah. I don't want to go into that right now. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:03 Highlight the passage at 1:11:03

1:11:29 Yeah, the whole subject of valid cognizant gets really hairy. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:29 Highlight the passage at 1:11:29

1:11:41 Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:41 Highlight the passage at 1:11:41

1:11:47 We can have a separate discussion on that if you want. Very difficult. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:47 Highlight the passage at 1:11:47

1:11:58 Does this sort of go back to your true or false question before about whether the emptiness of the clock or whether the ultimate nature of the clock actually existed? Or whether the clock actually existed from its own side, whether that was true or false? Was that the thing that you were saying before? Report an error in the passage at 1:11:58 Highlight the passage at 1:11:58

1:12:22 Yeah, well the ultimate... And we said false, but we only said false because we've learned that in class. I mean, we haven't actually seen it because we haven't, you know, realized emptiness. Is that sort of what, you know, what the valid cognizer... The valid cognizer, we can infer it's there, but we don't really need to be it just because we can say what we've learned, but we don't need to actually perceive it in order to say true or false. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:22 Highlight the passage at 1:12:22

1:12:55 See, I'm remembering the question differently than the way you're stating it, so I want to look at the actual question. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:55 Highlight the passage at 1:12:55

1:13:06 So it's on homework four, I think. So basically, if you're talking about question number five, when I'm asking which of the two truths is each of those, like the C, emptiness of inherent existence of the Is it a conventional truth or an ultimate truth? That's what's coming to my mind, but I'm not quite sure about your question. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:06 Highlight the passage at 1:13:06

1:13:43 Do you have a copy of this? Report an error in the passage at 1:13:43 Highlight the passage at 1:13:43

1:13:48 I was just referring to what you were talking about just five or ten minutes ago when you held up the clock and you said, is it true or false that the clock had its reality from its own side? And we said false, but only because we know that, because we've learned it, not because we've actually seen it. Right, we haven't actually realized it. Right, so the third test for a conventional truth, that it needs to be validated by a cognizer who has perceived emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:48 Highlight the passage at 1:13:48

1:14:25 We don't need to actually... Perceive emptiness to know that it would be true from their perspective. Does that make sense? We can say it because academically we know it, but we don't have to actually perceive emptiness in order to say that it would be true from their perspective. Right. Does that make sense? Right, yeah. But to really believe it, we need to realize it, right? So for now, you're just taking my word for it, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:14:25 Highlight the passage at 1:14:25

1:14:53 Which is dangerous. dangerous. Right. But, uh... Report an error in the passage at 1:14:53 Highlight the passage at 1:14:53

1:15:04 But the inherent existence of anything doesn't actually exist because we're taking it on faith really until we realize it. We're taking it on faith that it's invalidated by someone who's realized emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:04 Highlight the passage at 1:15:04

1:15:37 So we'll finish with the two truths next time. I want to get into a meditation now instead of... Filling you up with lots and lots of intellectual information, we'll do an exercise. So last time we looked for the self, and the object of negation we brought up was maybe something, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:15:37 Highlight the passage at 1:15:37

1:16:14 It was something we feel proud of. That was funny, Jay. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:14 Highlight the passage at 1:16:14

1:16:25 That might have been just you. It's very Report an error in the passage at 1:16:25 Highlight the passage at 1:16:25

1:16:35 But this time I want to do a different one, whereas the object navigation is that the possessor of the body and the mind. That I that believes that I have a body and I have a mind. Or we say my body and my mind. So this I that possesses the body and the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:35 Highlight the passage at 1:16:35

1:17:09 Do we have energy to do a meditation? I hear some yawns. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:09 Highlight the passage at 1:17:09

1:17:17 Okay, Report an error in the passage at 1:17:17 Highlight the passage at 1:17:17

1:17:22 so let's get a meditation and let's settle the mind for a couple of minutes first. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:22 Highlight the passage at 1:17:22

1:17:35 I had to get ready. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:35 Highlight the passage at 1:17:35

1:17:41 We'll settle the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:41 Highlight the passage at 1:17:41

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:18:53 Okay, so then bring up. yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:53 Highlight the passage at 1:18:53

1:17:21 So, okay. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:21 Highlight the passage at 1:17:21

· · · silence, 2 minutes

1:18:56 This sense of I that has a body and has a mind. I have a body. I have a mind. Get a sense of that I. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:56 Highlight the passage at 1:18:56

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:19:49 Start by searching the body. Is that I the top of our head? Report an error in the passage at 1:19:49 Highlight the passage at 1:19:49

1:20:05 Is it our forehead? Report an error in the passage at 1:20:05 Highlight the passage at 1:20:05

1:20:21 Is it our eyes? Do our eyes have a body and a mind? Report an error in the passage at 1:20:21 Highlight the passage at 1:20:21

1:20:39 Our ears? Is it our ears? Report an error in the passage at 1:20:39 Highlight the passage at 1:20:39

1:20:46 So then go systematically step by step through all of the different parts of the body. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:46 Highlight the passage at 1:20:46

1:20:57 It's really important to go through each Report an error in the passage at 1:20:57 Highlight the passage at 1:20:57

1:21:05 part and not just jump to the conclusion. It may feel tedious, but really important to go through it. And Report an error in the passage at 1:21:05 Highlight the passage at 1:21:05

· · · silence, 3 minutes

1:24:41 we do the same thing with the mind. Search the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:41 Highlight the passage at 1:24:41

1:24:53 We can search. Does our eye consciousness have a body and a mind? Report an error in the passage at 1:24:53 Highlight the passage at 1:24:53

1:25:06 Does our ear consciousness have a body and a mind? Report an error in the passage at 1:25:06 Highlight the passage at 1:25:06

1:25:15 Does our mental consciousness? You Report an error in the passage at 1:25:15 Highlight the passage at 1:25:15

1:25:34 can also go through and ask, does this moment of mind have a body and a mind? How about this moment of mind? What about this moment? Report an error in the passage at 1:25:34 Highlight the passage at 1:25:34

· · · silence, 2 minutes

1:27:56 Let's search outside of our body and mind. Is there an eye that we can find that's separate from our body and mind? Report an error in the passage at 1:27:56 Highlight the passage at 1:27:56

1:28:11 That possesses the body and mind. And Report an error in the passage at 1:28:11 Highlight the passage at 1:28:11

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:29:10 if we've reached a conclusion, then just hold on that. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:10 Highlight the passage at 1:29:10

· · · silence, 4 minutes

1:33:14 Questions? Report an error in the passage at 1:33:14 Highlight the passage at 1:33:14

1:33:19 I think I kind of missed the point of it. Because at first I couldn't hear really what your instruction was because of the fountain bubbling kind of loud. So I wasn't sure what I was supposed to look for. Like, does the top of my head have what? Report an error in the passage at 1:33:19 Highlight the passage at 1:33:19

1:33:40 So we were looking for the possessor of the body and the mind. So is the top of your head the possessor of the body and the mind? So does that. Because we tend to think that there's an eye that has a body and an eye that has a mind. So we're searching for that eye. So you're looking for the possessor. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:40 Highlight the passage at 1:33:40

1:33:58 So are you looking to find it in the top of your head? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, we're looking in all the parts of the body. To see if that is the possessor of the body and the mind. And then looking in the parts of the mind to see if that's the possessor of the body and the mind. And then to look separate from the body and mind to see if that is the possessor of the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:58 Highlight the passage at 1:33:58

1:34:29 Does that make sense? Yeah, I guess. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:29 Highlight the passage at 1:34:29

1:34:36 I'll have to think about it some more. Pretty confusing to me in a way because it seems as though you can kind of separate the consciousness and the body in some way and still have an awareness of things without an awareness of the body. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:36 Highlight the passage at 1:34:36

1:35:08 I didn't quite get that. Still have a consciousness, like a mental. You don't have awareness or have awareness without having any awareness of a body connected with it. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:08 Highlight the passage at 1:35:08

1:35:29 So then it's like that part is like, when you bring it back together, then it's like you're occupying, this is like you're just kind of using the body like a car, kind of to get around. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm, right, and so. So I get a little confused and I think maybe my mind is just like playing tricks with me to not get to the point. But I do get confused about it because there is some different separation between my consciousness and my body. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:29 Highlight the passage at 1:35:29

1:36:09 Okay. So it sounds like you're identifying yourself with your consciousness. More or less. But it's like I'm not really... It's really like a thinking type consciousness. It's just like an awareness kind of thing. Yeah, right. And it's kind of hard for me to sort through it all. Uh-huh, right. Yeah, I mean oftentimes it seems like it's just that awareness is the self, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:36:09 Highlight the passage at 1:36:09

1:36:44 The awareness that they can watch the thoughts. I can watch what's happening. It seems like that awareness is the self sometimes. Then we have to search the awareness to see if there's a self there. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:44 Highlight the passage at 1:36:44

1:37:07 Yeah, that's pretty subtle. But then we check and see if there's a self from its own side, a self in the awareness. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:07 Highlight the passage at 1:37:07

1:37:22 And then we'll discover the awareness is something that seems to be really stable. and enduring, also the awareness is constantly changing. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:22 Highlight the passage at 1:37:22

1:37:37 self there, right? We can impute the self on the awareness, but... the awareness itself is constantly changing, too. It's not this enduring self that we think it is. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:37 Highlight the passage at 1:37:37

1:37:55 It just keeps squirting away. Yeah, yeah. We just have to keep trying. Yeah, this meditation on emptiness is just tricky, right? I mean, it would be nice if we could just do it a few times and get it. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:55 Highlight the passage at 1:37:55

1:38:25 But yeah, the mind plays all kinds of tricks and doesn't want to do it and avoids it and gets distracted and thinks what a stupid meditation this is or whatever, you know. right. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:25 Highlight the passage at 1:38:25

1:38:38 Yeah, and so some of these meditations work for us and some of them don't. And, you know, we'll just try. Okay. Did anybody have any positive experience with looking for the possessor of the body? I kind of kept coming back to this thought of... Well, like if my knees hurt or any number of things, you know, if my knees hurt or if I'm worried about my health or who knows what, just the things that start distracting me. So I was sort of using that and thinking, well, who is this? Report an error in the passage at 1:38:38 Highlight the passage at 1:38:38

1:39:11 Then who is that? Who's the thing? What's the thing in here with me bouncing around apparently or whatever that thinks it owns these knees, this thing occupying this body? And it was very helpful to do the body first, of course, but that thing felt very findable because all I could keep coming back to was that... Report an error in the passage at 1:39:11 Highlight the passage at 1:39:11

1:39:29 This experience I'm having, I don't know how to explain it, except that there's definitely an experience taking place, and I seem to be cognizing some sort of experience, but there's not necessarily something possessing this. There's not something here going, well, yeah, those are my knees, because I did feel like I couldn't connect with just exactly who it was that thinks they have some knees here, you know, kind of thing. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:29 Highlight the passage at 1:39:29

1:39:58 And curiously, too, that really would help that distraction go away a little bit, too. But then my arm would hurt, you know what I mean? So it was just a whole different thing. There was a very sincere thing where there's this thing that feels like, in not finding it, definitely you feel, sometimes I have this semblance of only then only having that experience, you know, then only suddenly just feeling like I'm just having an experience. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:58 Highlight the passage at 1:39:58

1:40:22 And even though I'm using I, and it's hard not to use that word. Yeah. So sometimes it's as if... There's just experience, right? There's no I that's having the experience. Is that what you're talking about? Sometimes there's pain and I think I, my knee is in pain or I am experiencing pain. And sometimes it's just pain without the I. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:22 Highlight the passage at 1:40:22

1:40:53 And so that's getting closer. Right? To where it is. Because there is no I that's experiencing the pain. We think that there's an I that's experiencing this pain. That I that's separate from the pain, right? That's experiencing the pain or that has the pain. But there's just a sensation, right? I think that's what I kept asking myself. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:53 Highlight the passage at 1:40:53

1:41:15 So who feels so threatened by that? Or what is that? Like what is that? Or why am I in a hurry to stand up? Not I. I mean it's that thing too. But what is that thing? Who's that thing? Who's the possessor of this body that once I stand up, the possessor can take this body somewhere and do something with it that the possessor would prefer to be doing, apparently, whatever it is. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:15 Highlight the passage at 1:41:15

1:41:40 Once you really start to, at least for me, when I start to really look at that and really look at that, it's just absurd. It really feels absurd. And then that's when it starts to, what I mean to say, I can't articulate it, but there's some sort of experience there. What starts to just be an experience where it doesn't feel like suddenly I need to get up. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:40 Highlight the passage at 1:41:40

1:41:56 So bad. Because I'm aware that whatever it is that thinks it needs to get up is not necessarily that I can't find it. So if I can't find it, why would I get up and take it somewhere? Or let it take me somewhere more accurately. All of us, whatever. Yeah, Report an error in the passage at 1:41:56 Highlight the passage at 1:41:56

1:42:20 it's interesting how that sense of I really changes, makes it so much more suffering than just the experience itself. I'll just share a story with you about a friend of mine who's had really bad chronic headaches for years. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:20 Highlight the passage at 1:42:20

1:42:41 Recently he did a retreat down at Vajrapani with Venerable Renee on emptiness. Up until that point, I had seen him and he was just getting progressively more miserable. He had a lot more days with a migraine than without. And it was just so debilitating for him. And his face would look really gray. It was just awful. And so he did a meditation on just that, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:42:41 Highlight the passage at 1:42:41

1:43:09 There's this pain. And who is this I that's experiencing this pain? And he found that there was no I that was experiencing the pain. Well, actually, the thought process he went through is, okay, if there's no I experiencing the pain, is there pain? And his experience was that the pain went away. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:09 Highlight the passage at 1:43:09

1:43:40 He didn't have a migraine at that point. And then since then, this was what, September, August, September, whatever. But the last few months, he's had like two migraines in these months. Before he was having migraines practically every day. And he's had two migraines since then. He's like a new person, you know. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:40 Highlight the passage at 1:43:40

1:44:09 So really, I mean, we can do it, right? We just have to sit down and, Report an error in the passage at 1:44:09 Highlight the passage at 1:44:09

1:44:18 yeah, this belief that there's an I that's suffering creates a lot of suffering, right? So let's look for that I. Who is that I that's suffering? Report an error in the passage at 1:44:18 Highlight the passage at 1:44:18

1:44:38 You know, in hearing stories like that and even feeling my own pain go away in my legs sometimes, it seems to me that it's not so terribly a large jump to really think about what... Why the llamas are probably capable of such absolutely miraculous things. You know, seriously, like if you can make your own headache, if that kind of awareness, the way that I can cultivate it, which is almost none at all, can make pain in my legs go away, then there's no question in my mind that Geshe Dakpa could be in here with us right now or whatever he's doing, you know, that is beyond me. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:38 Highlight the passage at 1:44:38

1:45:26 So for me, it actually was a real kind of liberating experience. I think the difference was probably the cappuccino I had, but the possessor was really powerful, I think, just with my background, really looking at kind of martial arts and like, don't touch me type of thing. And I've had this instance like, and I asked you this question last week, where I kind of get this sense of like vertigo. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:26 Highlight the passage at 1:45:26

1:45:53 Every way, kind of analyzing emptiness and kind of this separation from the combined Morgan, you know, the body-mind. And I go, what? And then just for a second, it's that little sense of vertigo. What was really helpful, though, was just the concentration on it and staying with it. And what happened, actually, it was a real validation that I'm not all this, you know, kind of putty of negative karma, that there is... Report an error in the passage at 1:45:53 Highlight the passage at 1:45:53

1:46:19 Something beyond this control, it really, I mean, really just for maybe a couple seconds, I was like, oh, this isn't what I think. I'm not stuck in this the way I do think. And that moment staying with it, which I had never done, was really what was really kind of, I was like, oh, I mean, when we finished, I was smiling and I was like, oh, that was great. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:19 Highlight the passage at 1:46:19

1:46:57 Anybody else? Report an error in the passage at 1:46:57 Highlight the passage at 1:46:57

1:47:04 You don't have to top it. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:04 Highlight the passage at 1:47:04

1:47:12 He was just saying it's hard to top that story. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:12 Highlight the passage at 1:47:12

1:47:23 All right, okay, we'll dedicate. ha ha. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:23 Highlight the passage at 1:47:23