The Heart Sutra (21 December 2007)

0:00 Too Report an error in the passage at 0:00 Highlight the passage at 0:00

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:15 many copies of these, so it's very useful. Report an error in the passage at 1:15 Highlight the passage at 1:15

· · · silence, 8 minutes

9:01 to the power of the Lord, the venerable Shari Kutra says, This is the place of the tzahariyad. should dance down the lineage train. process to the activity of the program. Report an error in the passage at 9:01 Highlight the passage at 9:01

9:17 said that, and the Bodhisattva, and the HaSatva, Ariya, HaKishara, said this is the man who was starting to attract any sons of the lineage or a daughter of the lineage. Who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom, should look upon it like this, for gravity and repeatedly beholding those five aggregates also is empty and inherent nature. Report an error in the passage at 9:17 Highlight the passage at 9:17

9:41 Forum is empty, emptiness is form, emptiness is not other than form, forum is also not other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors, and consciousness are empty. Shari Putra, likewise, all phenomena are emptiness, without characteristics, unintroduced, unspeakable, stainless, not without strain, not deficient, not fulfilled. Report an error in the passage at 9:41 Highlight the passage at 9:41

10:09 Shari Putra, therefore, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling, no discrimination, no compositional factors, Report an error in the passage at 10:09 Highlight the passage at 10:09

10:32 there is no eye element, and so on, up to and including, and no mental consciousness. 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. Report an error in the passage at 10:32 Highlight the passage at 10:32

10:51 There is no suffering, origination, cessation, and wrath. There is no result in wisdom, no attainment, and also no non-attainment. Shantideva, therefore, because there is no attainment, bodhicattas rely on and dwell in the perfection of wisdom. The mind without aspiration and without fear, having completely passed beyond error, they reached the end point in their God. Report an error in the passage at 10:51 Highlight the passage at 10:51

11:18 the Buddhists who dwell in the three times also manifestly, completely awakened to unsurpassable, perfect, complete enlightenment. The mantra of perfection of wisdom, the mantra of great knowledge, the unsurpassed mantra, the mantra equal to the unequal, The mantra that truly pacifies all suffering should be known as truth since it is not false. The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is declared. Report an error in the passage at 11:18 Highlight the passage at 11:18

11:50 Tala Om Bhate Bhate Paragate Parasambhate Bodhisattva Sharaputra Bodhisattva Mahasattva to train in the Pagana direction of wisdom like that. Then the Bhagavan arose from that concentration and commended the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Abu Diteshvara, saying, Well said, well said, son of the lineage. Report an error in the passage at 11:50 Highlight the passage at 11:50

12:14 It is like that. It is like that. One should practice the profound perfection of wisdom just as he has indicated, even the topic of his rejoice. The Bhagavan having thus spoken, the venerable Shari Vati Kucha. The Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Atul, and Tishwara, those surrounding in their entirety, along with the world of gods, humans, the servants, and the daughters, were overjoyed and highly praised as spoken by the Bhagavan. Report an error in the passage at 12:14 Highlight the passage at 12:14

12:55 So it was really nice to have pins around the ship here, wasn't it? I wasn't able to go to a lot of the teachings, unfortunately, but I did attend this really long. Were people able to understand? It's Report an error in the passage at 12:55 Highlight the passage at 12:55

13:15 good that we had those warm modes that we did. Report an error in the passage at 13:15 Highlight the passage at 13:15

13:21 then as soon as you went into it, I kind of... Report an error in the passage at 13:21 Highlight the passage at 13:21

13:27 where it was going a little bit, I think. Report an error in the passage at 13:27 Highlight the passage at 13:27

13:36 Yeah, Report an error in the passage at 13:36 Highlight the passage at 13:36

13:40 the four modes of emptiness, I wanted to focus on those today, because that's really the main point, the important part of the Heart Sūtra, making sure that we understand those four modes. Report an error in the passage at 13:40 Highlight the passage at 13:40

13:58 Form is empty, emptiness is form. right, so that was that. Report an error in the passage at 13:58 Highlight the passage at 13:58

14:03 Emptiness is not other than form. Form is also not other than emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 14:03 Highlight the passage at 14:03

14:13 So we talked a lot about the first one, right? Form is empty. Form is empty. We're talking about ultimate truth, right? The emptiness of inherent existence of form. Report an error in the passage at 14:13 Highlight the passage at 14:13

14:29 So we talked about emptiness, meaning according to the highest school, the emptiness of inherent existence. Emptiness of existence from its own side, emptiness of true existence, etc. And so ultimate truth is emptiness. Emptiness is a lack of inherent existence. It's a negation. It's a non-affirming negation. Report an error in the passage at 14:29 Highlight the passage at 14:29

15:02 So ultimate truth is not positing anything positively. It's not affirming anything. It's just regaining a particular mode of being. Report an error in the passage at 15:02 Highlight the passage at 15:02

15:20 Nothing exists from its own kind. Nothing exists independent from the mind. It doesn't exist independent from causes and conditions. Nothing exists independent of the heart. Report an error in the passage at 15:20 Highlight the passage at 15:20

15:43 So, habitually we tend to think of forms and other phenomena as being kind of separate and distinct. Entities, like the clock, is separate and distinct from the table, which is separate and distinct from the floor and my body. So we tend to think of these things as being very separate from each other and independent of each other. But when we search, right, there seems to be a clear boundary, right, between different phenomena. Report an error in the passage at 15:43 Highlight the passage at 15:43

16:25 But when we search, we can't find that clear analogy. Report an error in the passage at 16:25 Highlight the passage at 16:25

16:33 Look on the atomic level, the atoms are constantly going back and forth between objects. And so it's only our conceptual mind that is creating, you know, organizing data and creating things into separate, distinct objects. Well, Report an error in the passage at 16:33 Highlight the passage at 16:33

17:07 isn't there a basic function? Let's do the microchloric. Report an error in the passage at 17:07 Highlight the passage at 17:07

17:19 Well, would you say that every object has a base, which is function, a function of the clock, a function of the table, but there are all kinds of inherent existence, but there's a base of the function. It's also an inherent existence. They don't exist independently because they each have a base, which has a function attached to the base, but that's all. Report an error in the passage at 17:19 Highlight the passage at 17:19

17:45 Right, so, yeah, so the conventional truth, right, I mean, everything has a function. But the function is also merely imputed by the mind. The function is also empty. Also we're imputing things on a valid basis. I can't impute validly impute cup on this. So it's not that because things are merely imputed that you can impute anything on anything. Report an error in the passage at 17:45 Highlight the passage at 17:45

18:19 But a common mistake that we make is we tend to think that the function exists out there, the function out there, and then we impute. You know, there's something from the side of this that makes it a clock, makes it valid. Like, we think, right, there's something out here that makes it valid to impute a clock. Report an error in the passage at 18:19 Highlight the passage at 18:19

18:42 Like a function, like a function out here that makes it valid to impute a clock. And that's a mistake. Thinking that there's an appearance to the mind, Report an error in the passage at 18:42 Highlight the passage at 18:42

19:01 the acute, an Report an error in the passage at 19:01 Highlight the passage at 19:01

19:05 acute function, but there's no function out here. Report an error in the passage at 19:05 Highlight the passage at 19:05

19:17 But then we're getting into conventional truth. Report an error in the passage at 19:17 Highlight the passage at 19:17

19:23 But emptiness, if we just talk about ultimate truth, we're negating existence from its own side. So Report an error in the passage at 19:23 Highlight the passage at 19:23

19:40 people are pretty clear on the first mode. Report an error in the passage at 19:40 Highlight the passage at 19:40

19:49 Right, Report an error in the passage at 19:49 Highlight the passage at 19:49

19:55 so in order to get the correct view of emptiness, Report an error in the passage at 19:55 Highlight the passage at 19:55

20:03 Actually, before we talk about that, so the object of negation, the most subtle object of negation is existence from its own side, existence independent from the mind. Report an error in the passage at 20:03 Highlight the passage at 20:03

20:23 And then, you know, in our experience, we notice other objects of negation, like of the self, right? We sometimes have a self that comes up. Sometimes we think that there's a self that's... Separate from the body and the mind, it's independent of the body and mind, as if there's like an eternal soul or something that after we die, the eternal soul will move on to the next life that's separate from the body and the mind. Report an error in the passage at 20:23 Highlight the passage at 20:23

20:53 So that is also, that eternal soul is also an object of negation, but it's not the most subtle object of negation. That's a self that's a separate entity from the body and the mind. Report an error in the passage at 20:53 Highlight the passage at 20:53

21:09 So it's useful to negate that also, but it's not the most subtle level. So it's not enough to just negate like in Lama Tsongkhapa. Report an error in the passage at 21:09 Highlight the passage at 21:09

21:21 You need to negate something more subtle. Also the, Janet. Report an error in the passage at 21:21 Highlight the passage at 21:21

21:40 that example, compared to like the example you used for a form of empty, if you're negating... An act, non-existent, even on a conventional level, one that could be harmed that doesn't match the three criteria for being a valid base. Report an error in the passage at 21:40 Highlight the passage at 21:40

22:01 Isn't that a little different? We do negate it, but it's a little different, isn't it, than if you're looking at the emptiness of clock. Report an error in the passage at 22:01 Highlight the passage at 22:01

22:15 It's a valid base on conventional sound. If you're looking at soul, it's not a valid base on a conventional sense. It's a non-existent. So is there a difference in the negation? Report an error in the passage at 22:15 Highlight the passage at 22:15

22:32 Well, but the thing is we're not negating a clock. And we're not negating a valid basis of clock. The inherent existence of clock. Right. But the inherent existence of clock doesn't exist as well. We're always negating something that doesn't exist. But I thought we had like the three... to consider a valid base. Report an error in the passage at 22:32 Highlight the passage at 22:32

22:52 So you have valid conventional existence versus non-existent conventional existence. Wouldn't a soul be similar to the horns of a rabbit? An inherently existent self is also similar to horns of a rabbit. It's just as non-existent as a permanent soul. So it doesn't matter whether you're negating an actual conventional, accepted conventional reality or a non-existent conventional reality. Report an error in the passage at 22:52 Highlight the passage at 22:52

23:44 It's still the same thing. No, we're always negating something that doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 23:44 Highlight the passage at 23:44

23:53 So this is a very interesting point. So the object of negation is necessarily something that doesn't exist. It's something that we believe exists, but it's something that doesn't exist. So when we're trying to search for, let's say, the self, or search for the self, we're searching for a self that we believe exists but doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 23:53 Highlight the passage at 23:53

24:24 In fact, exist. We're not searching for a conventionally existent self. We're searching for an inherently existent self or an eternal soul or... So basically the same thing. Basically the same thing. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 24:24 Highlight the passage at 24:24

24:54 So that's why the first step in meditation on emptiness is identifying the object of negation. So that an object invocation doesn't exist and then we search for that. If we're searching for a conventionally existent object, something that actually exists, then... Well, I'm thinking the difference is that you can find what we call conventionally a clock. You can't find what we call conventionally a soul or spirit. Report an error in the passage at 24:54 Highlight the passage at 24:54

25:31 And then you're negating the inherent existence of this conventional, findable clock, that we're negating that. To me it just seems like a little bit different, but maybe I'm thinking wrong in the story. Report an error in the passage at 25:31 Highlight the passage at 25:31

25:53 Well, let's cook them. Report an error in the passage at 25:53 Highlight the passage at 25:53

26:00 negating inherent existence. Report an error in the passage at 26:00 Highlight the passage at 26:00

26:09 Yeah, we're negating an inherently existent thing, an inherently existent self or an inherently existent phenomenon. So it doesn't matter if they exist conventionally or not. So an inherently existent something doesn't exist conventionally. Yeah, right. So I mean there are different levels of subtlety though. Right. Report an error in the passage at 26:09 Highlight the passage at 26:09

26:34 yeah, not the end, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 26:34 Highlight the passage at 26:34

26:50 And I guess I kind of see what you're saying. It's different to negate, let's say, horns of a rabbit as opposed to an inherently existent self. Because the horns of a rabbit, we're completely negating that whole phenomenon. Whereas an inherently existent self, we're negating more of a particular mode of its existence. So in that sense, it's different. Report an error in the passage at 26:50 Highlight the passage at 26:50

27:19 But in the meditation on emptiness, right, so we... Report an error in the passage at 27:19 Highlight the passage at 27:19

27:26 In the first step we identify the object of negation, we identify, let's say, the self that is accused, right? That feels accused, right? So that object of negation, that self, feels like a solid entity, right? That's independent from the mind. It feels like one very strongly existent thing. So that self... Report an error in the passage at 27:26 Highlight the passage at 27:26

28:00 feels accused, that strongly-existent self, that thing that feels like a strongly-existent that's what we're searching for. Report an error in the passage at 28:00 Highlight the passage at 28:00

28:12 not searching for a merely imputed self. searching for this that we really, really believe exists. Report an error in the passage at 28:12 Highlight the passage at 28:12

28:36 So Report an error in the passage at 28:36 Highlight the passage at 28:36

28:45 this distinction is so important. Distinguishing between the self that exists And the self that doesn't exist. The self that we believe exists but doesn't actually exist. Versus the self that actually does exist. Report an error in the passage at 28:45 Highlight the passage at 28:45

29:06 So all of our afflictions, all of our mental afflictions are based on this belief in a Report an error in the passage at 29:06 Highlight the passage at 29:06

29:19 self or a phenomenon that doesn't actually exist. A phenomenon that seems to exist out there independently of the mind, independently of other phenomena. That's what we very strongly, intuitively believe exists. And all of our mental afflictions are based on that wrong conception. Report an error in the passage at 29:19 Highlight the passage at 29:19

29:48 So let's say somebody accuses me of, Report an error in the passage at 29:48 Highlight the passage at 29:48

30:03 if I get angry, I'm feeling that there's this very solidly, strongly existing self. That would never do that. You Report an error in the passage at 30:03 Highlight the passage at 30:03

30:26 know, I have this strong feeling of this solid, unchanging entity, right? That's the object of negation, you know. It's the strong, unchanging entity that I really believe exists when I have a mental effect. Report an error in the passage at 30:26 Highlight the passage at 30:26

30:47 If, on the other hand, I realize emptiness and I realize that the self is just something... Merely imputed on an ever-changing mind, an ever-changing body, then who is being accused? Report an error in the passage at 30:47 Highlight the passage at 30:47

31:06 There's no reason to have a mental affliction if I have a realization of emptiness, if I know that there's no kind of solid independent empathy that's being accused. It's just a label on something that's constantly changing. Is Report an error in the passage at 31:06 Highlight the passage at 31:06

31:32 this making any sense? Okay. It's so hard to read your faces sometimes. Report an error in the passage at 31:32 Highlight the passage at 31:32

31:42 we're negating this solubility and Report an error in the passage at 31:42 Highlight the passage at 31:42

31:48 not negating the self that actually does exist, which is just something merely imputed on changing body and mind. I was Report an error in the passage at 31:48 Highlight the passage at 31:48

32:09 just Report an error in the passage at 32:09 Highlight the passage at 32:09

32:16 going to say, I think for me, that is very It's easy for me to accept and digest. Where it gets more difficult is that there's still a little bit of a belief in wanting to have some sort of eternal soul, some sort of eternal thread that continues and the fact that it's on such a subtle level what goes on, I think that's where emptiness becomes a little bit harder to digest because most world religions teach in some form of eternalism one way or the other. Report an error in the passage at 32:16 Highlight the passage at 32:16

32:45 And there's still that little thread inside that says, oh, please, just let there be something that continues, you know, with me. And I think that's probably the tougher nut for me to crack. Yeah. Judeo-Christian. Yeah, I mean, that self that's accused, right, that strongly... I can tell. Yeah, I mean, that's a very obvious, strong object of negation, right? But there are much more subtle objects of negation like that eternal soul that we believe. Report an error in the passage at 32:45 Highlight the passage at 32:45

33:18 We believe that we're the same person that was here last week. We can search for that. Report an error in the passage at 33:18 Highlight the passage at 33:18

33:29 What is the same? Report an error in the passage at 33:29 Highlight the passage at 33:29

33:35 Well, that connects to my question that you had said we would talk about later, and I don't know if you want to talk about it yet, but the idea of reincarnation and that there is this subtle essence that does continue on from lifetime to lifetime. Report an error in the passage at 33:35 Highlight the passage at 33:35

33:50 So what do you think does continue on from lifetime to lifetime? Is it the mind? Is it the body? Is it something else? What do you think? I think it's the accumulation of the karma, the karma exceeds. Okay, yeah. And is that some constant, unchanging thing? Absolutely not. So that is also constantly changing. Report an error in the passage at 33:50 Highlight the passage at 33:50

34:21 There's no kind of eternal thing that's moving from... Dang. Report an error in the passage at 34:21 Highlight the passage at 34:21

34:37 And we like to think of, you know, the accumulation of karmic seeds, right, as being something solid and physical, right, that's going to move on. But, you know, where's the solid physical accumulation of karmic seeds? Report an error in the passage at 34:37 Highlight the passage at 34:37

34:53 It's also, I mean, it's a continuity, right? This moment brings about the next moment, which brings about the next moment. Report an error in the passage at 34:53 Highlight the passage at 34:53

35:03 that doesn't mean that there's a like this eternal thread that's going through it right that thread that we so want exist Report an error in the passage at 35:03 Highlight the passage at 35:03

35:14 like this moment of mind gives rise to the next moment of mind, which gives rise to the next moment of mind. But the current moment of mind needs to cease before the next moment of mind. Report an error in the passage at 35:14 Highlight the passage at 35:14

35:30 eternal unchanging. Which was big in the New Age movement. This sort of eternal self that Report an error in the passage at 35:30 Highlight the passage at 35:30

35:44 to be written. Right. So. Report an error in the passage at 35:44 Highlight the passage at 35:44

35:51 So does that kind of address your question? Yeah, I mean we so much want to believe that. Like there's this me that's going to be reborn. There's this me that's here from this week to next week. But then we analyze what is this me that's the same between today and yesterday. Report an error in the passage at 35:51 Highlight the passage at 35:51

36:24 So understanding settling permanence, the constant changing of the body and the mind, is really helpful. And it's easier really to understand that than emptiness. But it's a real helpful step to understand emptiness. The mind is different from yesterday. The body is different from yesterday. Report an error in the passage at 36:24 Highlight the passage at 36:24

37:10 Any other questions? Report an error in the passage at 37:10 Highlight the passage at 37:10

37:14 Oh, I was just going to add something. Okay, yeah. When Sogyo Rinpoche talks about this, he says, This is the part where you say, but what about me? Exactly. What about me? And that's that final thing that I think is the hardest part to get over. Yeah. It's me. It's me. We have a strong concept of who I am, right? Yeah. Well, if you think about it, I strongly identify myself as being female. Report an error in the passage at 37:14 Highlight the passage at 37:14

37:52 I am female. But my female. Yee! Report an error in the passage at 37:52 Highlight the passage at 37:52

· · · silence, 1 minute

37:58 It's merely a dependent arising, right? Temporary. It's only due to my karma, really, that I was born female now. Also, it's based on causes and conditions, you know, imputation, parts. But there's no kind of eternal essence of being female. And I'm going to die and maybe I'm going to be reborn as a male. So this being female... Report an error in the passage at 37:58 Highlight the passage at 37:58

38:32 That I feel is so much me, you know, and the essence of me is just something Report an error in the passage at 38:32 Highlight the passage at 38:32

38:43 temporary. It's just a label. It's just a label on... And Report an error in the passage at 38:43 Highlight the passage at 38:43

38:58 so then there are so many other things that we identify ourselves with. I am. Report an error in the passage at 38:58 Highlight the passage at 38:58

39:17 And all of those things, if we look at them, are just temporary. They're arising dependent on causes and conditions, arising dependent on parts. Report an error in the passage at 39:17 Highlight the passage at 39:17

39:33 So anything that we can think of that we think of as being me is dependent in all three ways. So Report an error in the passage at 39:33 Highlight the passage at 39:33

39:57 are we okay with form is empty? Report an error in the passage at 39:57 Highlight the passage at 39:57

40:02 Maybe. Okay. I mean that's a big, I mean that's such a big thing to understand that form is empty. That's a silly question. Report an error in the passage at 40:02 Highlight the passage at 40:02

40:20 So in order to realize emptiness, the king of reasonings, the supreme reasoning that's used is the reasoning of dependent arising. So form is empty of inherent existence because it is a dependent arising. That reasoning can be used to help us understand emptiness. So we can realize dependent arising before we realize emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 40:20 Highlight the passage at 40:20

40:51 And use that understanding in order to realize emptiness. But only the first two levels of dependent arising, right? So there's three levels of dependent arising, dependent on causes and conditions, dependent on parts, and dependent on imputation. Report an error in the passage at 40:51 Highlight the passage at 40:51

41:12 So we can realize that things are dependent on causes and conditions, and dependent on parts, before we realize That things are empty of inherent existence. But to realize that things are merely imputed by the mind, we need to realize emptiness before we can really realize that things are merely imputed by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 41:12 Highlight the passage at 41:12

41:50 So the first mode of emptiness is that form is empty. And we can get to that through understanding that form is dependent on causes and conditions and dependent on parts. Report an error in the passage at 41:50 Highlight the passage at 41:50

42:05 And subsequently, then we can realize the subtle conventional nature of form is the second mode of emptiness. And in the sūtra it says, emptiness is born. I Report an error in the passage at 42:05 Highlight the passage at 42:05

42:31 guess what, I guess, in looking at it literally, emptiness is different than empty. And yet emptiness is empty of inherent existence. So it's different than empty. Empty is dependent. Empty is dependent on rising. see you. I'm going to do this. It is. Report an error in the passage at 42:31 Highlight the passage at 42:31

42:58 any service. Report an error in the passage at 42:58 Highlight the passage at 42:58

43:05 that what it guess are the two words different emptiness and empty I can see empty Report an error in the passage at 43:05 Highlight the passage at 43:05

43:14 So the difference is empty is an adjective and emptiness is a noun. It's like the cup is pretty, like we could say the cup is pretty, We can't say that cup is prettiness. Emptiness is more of a nature and empty is more of an actual present of being. Report an error in the passage at 43:14 Highlight the passage at 43:14

43:45 No, no, no. That's not the way that those are being used. It's just one, one is an adjective and one is a noun. So empty is like pretty. Empty is describing the cup. Report an error in the passage at 43:45 Highlight the passage at 43:45

44:09 The cup is empty. And what it's referring to is the empty of inherent existence. So it's an adjective describing, Lama describing, because emptiness is just, it's a noun, like prettiness. Report an error in the passage at 44:09 Highlight the passage at 44:09

44:40 So emptiness is also, Report an error in the passage at 44:40 Highlight the passage at 44:40

44:55 it's the mode of being, emptiness of inherent existence. I'm emptying. Report an error in the passage at 44:55 Highlight the passage at 44:55

45:05 the ultimate truth, emptiness. we can say an emptiness, emptiness, emptiness of the parent Report an error in the passage at 45:05 Highlight the passage at 45:05

45:29 they're just, just different. Report an error in the passage at 45:29 Highlight the passage at 45:29

45:36 One's a, you know, one's a noun and Report an error in the passage at 45:36 Highlight the passage at 45:36

45:41 So Report an error in the passage at 45:41 Highlight the passage at 45:41

45:46 form, we couldn't actually say that form is emptiness. Form, we can't say form is equivalent to emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 45:46 Highlight the passage at 45:46

46:02 Form is a conventional truth. Emptiness is an ultimate truth. A conventional truth is not equal to an ultimate truth. But we can say form is empty to describe the nature of form. Report an error in the passage at 46:02 Highlight the passage at 46:02

46:20 I'm having a difficult time expressing myself, but does that make kind of sense? That makes perfect sense. That's what I was trying to think about. Because it would not make sense to me logically that in the sūtra there would be the same work. Report an error in the passage at 46:20 Highlight the passage at 46:20

46:39 They have to have different, different something. I'm afraid if I describe it, it won't make sense, but they have to be, they have to have a different, a differentness to, for them to be in the sūtra, logically. In terms of reading sutras, there's always a difference when we're very carefully worded. I was just wondering what that could be. And I think you said it, that's what I was trying to say. Report an error in the passage at 46:39 Highlight the passage at 46:39

47:05 And I noticed in some translations that distinction isn't made. Good day. Report an error in the passage at 47:05 Highlight the passage at 47:05

47:13 form is emptiness, opposed to form is empty, but it's a different thing to say form is empty versus form Could Report an error in the passage at 47:13 Highlight the passage at 47:13

47:25 you say that the lack of inherent existence is the subtle conventional nature of form? The lack of inherent existence would be the ultimate nature of form. Report an error in the passage at 47:25 Highlight the passage at 47:25

47:41 It's not the conventional nature of form. The ultimate, Report an error in the passage at 47:41 Highlight the passage at 47:41

47:49 and we'll talk a little bit more about conventional nature versus form. The ultimate nature is basically the lack of inherent existence. Report an error in the passage at 47:49 Highlight the passage at 47:49

48:03 It's the ultimate nature. So it's the lack of existing in a particular way, which is the ultimate nature. Report an error in the passage at 48:03 Highlight the passage at 48:03

48:16 We could say the mere imputation of the form is the subtle conventional nature of form. So that's affirming something, right? Something being merely imputed is affirming a way of being. Whereas lack of inherent existence is negating a particular way of being. Report an error in the passage at 48:16 Highlight the passage at 48:16

48:46 Does that make sense? Report an error in the passage at 48:46 Highlight the passage at 48:46

48:53 Well, it's back to Keith's point. Kenser Rinpoche brought this up about how form and emptiness are not the same thing, but they are one in nature. He made a big point about that distinction. He didn't really explain it, but he said there's fallacies as to if they're the same thing and you can prove that there's contradictions. Report an error in the passage at 48:53 Highlight the passage at 48:53

49:14 But you also can disprove that they're different in nature. I think that's what he... I don't know exactly. But he was showing that there's a real subtle distinction between them being the same thing and being one in nature. And that's the third and fourth modes of emptiness. So we haven't gotten there yet. But yeah, that's explained. Report an error in the passage at 49:14 Highlight the passage at 49:14

49:40 That'll be explained. We'll try to explain that. Keith was jumping in. I was confused. huge. Report an error in the passage at 49:40 Highlight the passage at 49:40

49:53 I have a question, I'm confused when you say someone can, there's different levels of dependent arisings and perceptions, but you can perceive that in an uncontrived manner and you would not perceive emptiness. Because my question is, it seems like if you really perceived it, the true existence, even at the dependent arising level, if you knew exactly, This is why that flower looks this way. How could you perceive that and not perceive emptiness? Report an error in the passage at 49:53 Highlight the passage at 49:53

50:33 I'm confused when you say there's levels, but you can perceive this, truly perceive it, not myself analytically thinking, okay, there's a bumblebee and so forth, but how could you perceive that and not perceive emptiness? Report an error in the passage at 50:33 Highlight the passage at 50:33

50:49 Well, actually, for ordinary beings, we can either understand emptiness, I mean, or we can understand a conventional nature. Either we can understand a conventional nature or an ultimate nature. In the same moment, we can't perceive both in the same moment. So, until we really understand emptiness, until we really realize emptiness, we can't realize that it's merely imputed. Report an error in the passage at 50:49 Highlight the passage at 50:49

51:18 We really have to understand that it doesn't exist when it's inside. Before we can really understand that it's only imputed by the mind, that there's no flowers from its own side. It's merely imputed by the mind. So that's what I was trying to get at, is the sequence there. We can't realize it's merely imputed until we realize that it's empty. Report an error in the passage at 51:18 Highlight the passage at 51:18

51:48 So just going back, I'm confused when you're saying the different levels, then I understand. You know, analytically, you know, looking into it, but if it was from an unanalytical, maybe in, you know, concentration, meditation, and someone really truly perceives it, is exactly how it has arisen. You know, not myself analyzing, like, really graphs, how did this come to be, whatever the object of negation is. I'm confused how they still cannot. Report an error in the passage at 51:48 Highlight the passage at 51:48

52:22 Because it seems very omniscient, in fact, if you really could perceive it truly, or maybe I'm missing, I'm misunderstanding. So, you're talking about direct realization of emptiness? The direct realization of dependent arising or understanding, would those be one and the same? Could you perceive, you know, obviously when you perceive emptiness you understand everything, it's kind of the way, but if you really focus on dependent arising. Report an error in the passage at 52:22 Highlight the passage at 52:22

52:51 It was a direct realization of that not my analytical kind of try effort. Would you perceive emptiness? Not necessarily. Because when you're directly really independent arising, you're realizing something, a positive feeling. You're affirming a way it's existing. It's existing as dependent on whatever causes and conditions parts. Report an error in the passage at 52:51 Highlight the passage at 52:51

53:25 So there are different opinions according to different schools, but according to Rasaangika, you can directly realize some conventional truths before you directly realize emptiness. And then after you directly realize emptiness, then you can directly realize the subtle conventional truth. You can't directly realize subtle conventional truth until you can directly realize ultimate truth. Report an error in the passage at 53:25 Highlight the passage at 53:25

53:53 But we can directly realize... gross conventional truth first. then truth, then self-convectioned truth. goes in that word. First gross conventional truth, then ultimate truth, then subtle conventional truth. So Report an error in the passage at 53:53 Highlight the passage at 53:53

54:20 we've got a lot of questions. Report an error in the passage at 54:20 Highlight the passage at 54:20

54:27 I'm wondering if we should keep going on with the questions or if we should move through the material and see if the questions get answered as we move through this. for your questions. Report an error in the passage at 54:27 Highlight the passage at 54:27

54:39 So if people have specific questions on this form is empty, ultimate truth, maybe we can address those now. And then if people have questions on conventional truth, let's wait until we're moving through conventional truth and see if your questions get answered. Report an error in the passage at 54:39 Highlight the passage at 54:39

55:02 Otherwise I feel like we're jumping around a bit too much, so maybe there's not a continuity. Report an error in the passage at 55:02 Highlight the passage at 55:02

55:12 It's my fault because I asked her questions. Be careful what you wish. Yeah, okay. Report an error in the passage at 55:12 Highlight the passage at 55:12

55:20 if someone did you have a question on the phone When you are realizing the nature of anything in the dependent arising, isn't that always conceptual? So it wouldn't be in the same mind? Directly realizing emptiness because it's dualistic. Is that true? Well, initially we understand all these things conceptually. Eventually we can realize them directly. Report an error in the passage at 55:20 Highlight the passage at 55:20

55:56 But in the scripture it doesn't talk a lot about realizing conventional truths directly. Mostly we talk about realizing ultimate truths directly. That is such the pivot point. The point of becoming an already being. Report an error in the passage at 55:56 Highlight the passage at 55:56

56:20 But I think you can directly realize conventional truths as well. Report an error in the passage at 56:20 Highlight the passage at 56:20

56:32 Well, Report an error in the passage at 56:32 Highlight the passage at 56:32

56:38 some will start with just say something and then stop. Another time. Such a big subject. Report an error in the passage at 56:38 Highlight the passage at 56:38

56:54 And then emptiness is form is talking about... The subtle, conventional nature of the phenomenon. We talked about it being, form is a manifestation of emptiness, or because things are empty, because they don't have this unchanging essence, then things can form Report an error in the passage at 56:54 Highlight the passage at 56:54

57:26 out of emptiness, because things are emptying, then forms can appear. They can come into existence, they can appear, because they are empty. Report an error in the passage at 57:26 Highlight the passage at 57:26

57:41 So when we first hear about emptiness, it's easy to fall into the extreme of nihilism and think, okay, well nothing exists. Report an error in the passage at 57:41 Highlight the passage at 57:41

57:52 So the second mode of emptiness it's talking about, it's eliminating the extreme of nihilism. It's talking about the way that things do exist. And the subtle way things exist is that form is an appearance. Report an error in the passage at 57:52 Highlight the passage at 57:52

58:17 or emptiness appears as one. Report an error in the passage at 58:17 Highlight the passage at 58:17

58:24 It's Report an error in the passage at 58:24 Highlight the passage at 58:24

58:34 easier to realize that because things are dependent arisings, then they are empty. Because they are dependent arisings, then they are empty. It's more difficult to realize that because things are empty, Report an error in the passage at 58:34 Highlight the passage at 58:34

59:04 then function exists. Because karma is empty, it functions. It's not in spite of things being empty that they function, but because they are empty and Report an error in the passage at 59:04 Highlight the passage at 59:04

59:26 exist. Report an error in the passage at 59:26 Highlight the passage at 59:26

59:33 So if we think about it, you know, if things were, like if this cup was inherently existent, it could never change. Report an error in the passage at 59:33 Highlight the passage at 59:33

59:45 If it existed out here, independent of causes and conditions, independent of the mind, it could never change. It will have always existed. It could never change. And then it couldn't function. If something can't change, it can't function. Report an error in the passage at 59:45 Highlight the passage at 59:45

1:00:14 Functions, I can drink out of it because it's constantly changing. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:14 Highlight the passage at 1:00:14

1:00:25 I can drive my car from home to such an end because it's constantly changing. It can only move if it's constantly changing. It can only come into existence because it's constantly changing. And Report an error in the passage at 1:00:25 Highlight the passage at 1:00:25

1:00:49 the classic example is like a sea and a sprout, right? A seed, moment by moment, is transforming into a sprout. Because it is changing, a sprout can be created. If the seed doesn't change, then a sprout can't be. If Report an error in the passage at 1:00:49 Highlight the passage at 1:00:49

1:01:16 the seed was inherently existent, it could never turn into a sprout. Because if it existed out there, independent from the mind, it wouldn't be able to change into Report an error in the passage at 1:01:16 Highlight the passage at 1:01:16

1:01:33 a sprout. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:33 Highlight the passage at 1:01:33

1:01:48 So realizing the second mode of emptiness is more difficult than realizing the first. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:48 Highlight the passage at 1:01:48

1:02:05 Are people ready for a break or should we... Report an error in the passage at 1:02:05 Highlight the passage at 1:02:05

1:02:20 So emptiness is the basis of the existence of form, the basis of existence of all phenomena. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:20 Highlight the passage at 1:02:20

1:02:41 So the subtle conventional nature of form is referring to the appearance of the form. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:41 Highlight the passage at 1:02:41

1:02:52 So phenomena are mere appearances to the mind. There's a mere appearance of this cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:52 Highlight the passage at 1:02:52

1:03:09 But the appearance is still mistaken. So for all ordinary beings, it still appears as if there's a cup out here, independent of the mind, solidly existing, one thing covering a particular area. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:09 Highlight the passage at 1:03:09

1:03:31 So it's a mistaken appearance, Report an error in the passage at 1:03:31 Highlight the passage at 1:03:31

1:03:44 but it's still a valid, you know, it's a valid conventional, it exists validly, not a solidly... independently and inherently existing cup, but a cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:44 Highlight the passage at 1:03:44

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:04:42 rainbow who being something you can actually find, as soon as you search for it... Report an error in the passage at 1:04:42 Highlight the passage at 1:04:42

1:05:04 solid, something over there. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:04 Highlight the passage at 1:05:04

1:05:08 if we search for it, we can't find it. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:08 Highlight the passage at 1:05:08

1:05:19 soon as we search for it, we Report an error in the passage at 1:05:19 Highlight the passage at 1:05:19

1:05:32 Then the two truths. We talked about, I think we started getting into the two truths before, right? Ultimate truth and conventional truth. Ultimate truth being emptiness and conventional truth being really all phenomena that exist, it's not an emptiness, is a conventional truth. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:32 Highlight the passage at 1:05:32

1:05:58 So a cup is a conventional truth, a table is a conventional truth, a concha is a conventional truth, a person is a conventional truth. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:58 Highlight the passage at 1:05:58

1:06:09 An inherently existent person is not a conventional truth. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:09 Highlight the passage at 1:06:09

1:06:15 An inherently existent person does not exist at all. A conventional truth is something that exists and Report an error in the passage at 1:06:15 Highlight the passage at 1:06:15

1:06:26 exists according to worldly conventions, and it's not invalidated by a valid cognizer. So an inherently existent person does not exist at all. So an inherently existent person is not a conventional truth at all. It doesn't exist at all. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:26 Highlight the passage at 1:06:26

1:07:07 then, we can... Report an error in the passage at 1:07:07 Highlight the passage at 1:07:07

1:07:13 The two truths on each phenomenon. So we can posit a conventional truth and an ultimate truth on the cup. So what is the ultimate truth of cup? Report an error in the passage at 1:07:13 Highlight the passage at 1:07:13

1:07:37 So emptiness of inherent existence of the cup would be the ultimate truth of the cup or the ultimate nature of the cup. And what would be a conventional nature of the cup? Report an error in the passage at 1:07:37 Highlight the passage at 1:07:37

1:07:52 The cupiness of the cup. Conventionally agreed upon names and parts and causes and conditions. We could say, right, it being dependent on causes and conditions is a conventional nature. So conventional nature, really all the other characteristics of the cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:52 Highlight the passage at 1:07:52

1:08:13 So the dependence on its parts is a conventional nature of the cup. It being merely imputed is a conventional nature of the cup. The shape of the cup is a conventional nature of the cup. It being blue and white is also a conventional nature of the cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:13 Highlight the passage at 1:08:13

1:08:33 So conventional nature runs a whole gamut of things that are really obvious that we can see and then things that are really subtle that we can't realize until we realize emptiness, like that it's a mere appearance, that it's merely imputed. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:33 Highlight the passage at 1:08:33

1:09:04 Actually, why don't we take a break and then we'll talk about the two truths being the same entity of the same nature. I Report an error in the passage at 1:09:04 Highlight the passage at 1:09:04

1:09:21 liked the cupiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:21 Highlight the passage at 1:09:21

1:09:37 So we'll Report an error in the passage at 1:09:37 Highlight the passage at 1:09:37

1:09:43 talk about the third and the fourth modes of emptiness now before we finish. So this is the two truths being the same entity and yet different anomaly or sometimes called different isolates or different conceptually. So conventional truth and ultimate truth are the same entity. Sometimes people say the same nature. I don't like this much. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:43 Highlight the passage at 1:09:43

1:10:13 The same entity is different conceptually. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:13 Highlight the passage at 1:10:13

1:10:21 So the same entity. What does it mean for two things to be the same entity? So we would say that the cup and the color of the cup are the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:21 Highlight the passage at 1:10:21

1:10:38 Why can we say that? So the measure of two things being the same entity, where that to a non-conceptual direct perception, these two things cannot appear as distinct. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:38 Highlight the passage at 1:10:38

1:10:55 So for an eye consciousness, an eye consciousness can't distinguish between a cup and the color. The conceptual mind can isolate those qualities out, but the cup and the color of the cup Don't appear separately to Report an error in the passage at 1:10:55 Highlight the passage at 1:10:55

1:11:20 a direct perception. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:20 Highlight the passage at 1:11:20

1:11:27 Whereas the cup and the clock appear as separate entities. They appear as separate to the eye consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:27 Highlight the passage at 1:11:27

1:11:40 These are two separate entities. These are different entities. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:40 Highlight the passage at 1:11:40

1:11:55 But the cup and the color of the cup don't appear as separate to an eye consciousness. They're the same entity. Also the cup and the... The shape of the cup don't appear as separate to the I consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:55 Highlight the passage at 1:11:55

1:12:31 So it's the same entity, it's one object, roughly speaking. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:31 Highlight the passage at 1:12:31

1:12:46 But conceptually we can think about different characteristics of the cup. Conceptually we can isolate out the color of the cup from the shape of the cup. from the of the cup, say. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:46 Highlight the passage at 1:12:46

1:13:04 they're all the same entity, right? The cup, color of the cup, they're the same entity. cup and the shape of the cup are the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:04 Highlight the passage at 1:13:04

1:13:16 cup and the impermanence of the cup are the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:16 Highlight the passage at 1:13:16

1:13:35 didn't hear too many uh-huhs, one of the times I made a sense, so let's... It's trickling in. So, similarly, Report an error in the passage at 1:13:35 Highlight the passage at 1:13:35

1:13:53 Maybe we'll just do some exercises. So the cup and the table are separate entities. They appear separately. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:53 Highlight the passage at 1:13:53

1:14:06 The wall and the tanka are separate entities. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:06 Highlight the passage at 1:14:06

1:14:14 Because we can, from the eye consciousness, we can see that the tanka and the wall are separate. Whereas the tanka and the gold of the tanka are Report an error in the passage at 1:14:14 Highlight the passage at 1:14:14

1:14:32 the same entity. So if we just look at it. We can't distinguish with our eye consciousness the difference between the Report an error in the passage at 1:14:32 Highlight the passage at 1:14:32

1:14:48 tancha itself and the color of the tancha. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:48 Highlight the passage at 1:14:48

1:14:54 Only our conceptual mind can isolate the different qualities out. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:54 Highlight the passage at 1:14:54

1:15:15 Paperclip, paperclip, same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:15 Highlight the passage at 1:15:15

1:15:31 We're getting a feel for same entity versus different entities. So it's based on eye consciousness? It's based on a non-conceptual direct perception. So it could be... An eye consciousness or an ear consciousness or a Report an error in the passage at 1:15:31 Highlight the passage at 1:15:31

1:15:51 nose consciousness or a non-conceptual mental consciousness. It could be my voice and the sound of my voice are the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:51 Highlight the passage at 1:15:51

1:16:12 So there's no parsing. I was going to ask for the microphone. I'm asking for it. So in other words, a direct... Perception through the senses without any kind of mental parsing to put it together. It's just the blue cup, the Bach fugue, whatever. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:12 Highlight the passage at 1:16:12

1:16:31 The mental parsing is done by a conceptual mind. A conceptual mind can isolate particular characteristics out and think about them separately. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:31 Highlight the passage at 1:16:31

1:16:46 But the direct perception doesn't do that. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:46 Highlight the passage at 1:16:46

1:16:59 I think the sound of my voice... And the sound of the traffic outside. Separate entities for Report an error in the passage at 1:16:59 Highlight the passage at 1:16:59

1:17:14 your consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:14 Highlight the passage at 1:17:14

1:17:31 Would your sound or your voice and the word be the same entity? Sound and word. What word does it come from? Report an error in the passage at 1:17:31 Highlight the passage at 1:17:31

1:17:50 Sound and language. Can you see that as two different or the same entity or the difference? Report an error in the passage at 1:17:50 Highlight the passage at 1:17:50

1:18:03 difference that lover. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:03 Highlight the passage at 1:18:03

1:18:14 just sound the music. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:14 Highlight the passage at 1:18:14

1:18:22 Yeah, well I mean it would be like music and the sound of music would be the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:22 Highlight the passage at 1:18:22

1:18:40 And then I guess you could say word and the sound of the word would be the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:40 Highlight the passage at 1:18:40

1:18:52 example of the traffic noise outside and your voice, if completely... When you let go of identifying and naming the sounds, it blends into a single tone which you don't have, so it would be like one Report an error in the passage at 1:18:52 Highlight the passage at 1:18:52

1:19:23 because you can't identify the noise outside versus your speaking. When you take away that level. When you stop trying to identify it, and you let go of the identification, it becomes just this single tone. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:23 Highlight the passage at 1:19:23

1:19:48 It seems like that would be true, but I don't think it is. Because the appearance, even before the conceptual mind, the appearance is mistaken. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:48 Highlight the passage at 1:19:48

1:20:05 They appear to be separate. They lose the separateness, I think, too. Knowing like the sound of the traffic comes from there, and the sound of another noise comes from... Yeah, like if they always hear all of the noises that are going on around you, and you focus and concentrate really on just allowing yourself to hear the sound without identifying the sound, then the sounds blend into like a, almost like into a single... There is a... Report an error in the passage at 1:20:05 Highlight the passage at 1:20:05

1:20:44 Some sort of sound, it seems like. But you don't hear it from different places, you don't hear it as separate things. I Report an error in the passage at 1:20:44 Highlight the passage at 1:20:44

1:21:01 think you still do, because that's one of our fundamental, that's one of our knowledge observations, basically, is that we, things appear out there as separate things. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:01 Highlight the passage at 1:21:01

1:21:17 Because it's the same with the I-consciousness, the Thangka and... And the wall, I mean, we could try to mute it and just think of it as a bunch of colors, but still, it appears to be two separate things into the eye consciousness. We don't need the labeling mind for it to appear as separate. I Report an error in the passage at 1:21:17 Highlight the passage at 1:21:17

1:21:43 think it's similar with sounds and all the objects of the senses. taking the tanga, if you say the tanga and the gold color, then you have the cords, or whatever you call those, the ties that are hanging from the tanga. If you think of the tanga, it's all the parts, but then if you, it's like, it's after, like when you think of the individuals, you know, the right the right string. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:43 Highlight the passage at 1:21:43

1:22:14 string versus the left string. If we think Report an error in the passage at 1:22:14 Highlight the passage at 1:22:14

1:22:24 about the tanka and the parts of the tanka, those are the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:24 Highlight the passage at 1:22:24

1:22:34 The tanka and the shape of the tanka. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:34 Highlight the passage at 1:22:34

1:22:39 Then we can say, oh well, the left string versus the right string, well those are two separate entities. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:39 Highlight the passage at 1:22:39

1:22:52 So what I'm trying to do here is, maybe there are some flaws in my examples, but just for people to get an idea of what it means for two things to be the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:52 Highlight the passage at 1:22:52

1:23:06 So the two truths are the same entity, the conventional truth and ultimate truth of a particular phenomenon, the same entity, the cup and the emptiness of the cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:06 Highlight the passage at 1:23:06

1:23:27 emptiness of the cup. ultimate truth, which is the same entity. not as if there's emptiness over here, the emptiness of a cup over here and a cup over here. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:27 Highlight the passage at 1:23:27

1:23:45 like the cup and the impermanence of the cup are the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:45 Highlight the passage at 1:23:45

1:23:57 My question is, I understand the concept of the same entity, but it also seems like you're still talking about boundaries. You say the cup. And the emptiness of the cup is the same entity. I mean are the same isolates. Same entity. Same entity. But it also seems like when it's taught, it seems like it still has these boundaries. So like if we're looking at the cup and then you say the prayer book and the cup, you know, they're of the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:57 Highlight the passage at 1:23:57

1:24:28 It seems like maybe this is me misunderstanding. But wouldn't it be like the cup? And everything has the same emptiness, the same, or are you saying this emptiness is specific to this object and you're saying it's the same entity that's coming? Which are you, what are you, I'm sorry. Yeah, so I'm saying the cup and the emptiness of the cup are the same entity. Not emptiness in general and cup are the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:28 Highlight the passage at 1:24:28

1:25:03 The emptiness of the cup and the cup are the same entity. The emptiness of the paper and the paper are the same entity. Not that the cup and the emptiness of the paper are the same entity. So those are separate entities. But the emptiness, when you're saying true nature, though, when you're saying that emptiness has a whole, I understand that the emptiness of the paper isn't going to be the emptiness of the cup in this. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:03 Highlight the passage at 1:25:03

1:25:41 In this teaching, but as the whole though, when we're looking at emptiness, it seems like we're still stuck in these boundaries somehow. It seems like we're saying the emptiness of the cup and the cup and then the emptiness of the table and the table. Are we conceptually saying there is still a boundary within this phenomenon somehow, even in the emptiness? Report an error in the passage at 1:25:41 Highlight the passage at 1:25:41

1:26:08 Well, conventionally there are boundaries. Yeah, right. Yeah, so emptiness, actually, I mean, if we think about emptiness, emptiness devoid of talking about a base doesn't even make sense. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:08 Highlight the passage at 1:26:08

1:26:26 It's not as if there's this amorphous emptiness out there that everything is made out of. We can only talk about emptiness in relation to a particular phenomenon. The cup and the cup are the same. Because emptiness is just the final mode of being, the ultimate. the ultimate mode the cup exists, it's lacking in hair existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:26 Highlight the passage at 1:26:26

1:26:56 can't talk about the lack of inherent existence in particular, right? Then it's just an abstract concept, right? It does make Report an error in the passage at 1:26:56 Highlight the passage at 1:26:56

1:27:24 sense. It just seems like it still is constricted. My thoughts, my imagination would be... go a little beyond an object of concentration. That's my own miedness. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:24 Highlight the passage at 1:27:24

1:27:59 move on and see if it gets in there. It seems like the emptiness of the cup and the emptiness of the paper would be the same. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:59 Highlight the passage at 1:27:59

1:28:22 Because we're talking about the lack of enhanced existence. And the lack of inherent existence of the cup is the same lack of inherent existence of the paper, isn't it? They're just two different things that you're setting the Dalai, but it's the same lack of inherent existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:22 Highlight the passage at 1:28:22

1:28:49 That's kind of along the lines of yours, isn't it? Yeah, I mean... Can I just... It may be that the nature of the emptiness of the cup kind of taking it to that... But I might think of it. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:49 Highlight the passage at 1:28:49

1:29:02 Another abstract level is the same as the nature of the emptiness of the prayer book. But the emptiness of the cup belongs to the cup, and the emptiness of the prayer book belongs to the prayer book, and they're irrelevant. It's kind of a very, I can understand this sometimes, very abstractly, logically, and I always get lost. When I understand the concept, okay, I got that, but then I completely have lost the irrelevance of where does that go back and apply to what we're really talking about, you know? Report an error in the passage at 1:29:02 Highlight the passage at 1:29:02

1:29:31 That's where I always get lost. Like, so why is this point specifically so important? You know, I can't, I don't seem to be able to be, I can get the concept, but I can't remember it long enough to go back to understand why it really makes a difference. You know, but I think it's about the level of relativity between the different objects. Yeah, so, let me address, wait. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:31 Highlight the passage at 1:29:31

1:30:04 You two were saying, you know, it may be that the emptiness of the cup and the emptiness of the paper are the same entity. I'm not sure about that. I have to think about that. Because it's said that when you directly realize emptiness, you directly realize emptiness of all phenomena. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:04 Highlight the passage at 1:30:04

1:30:31 Conceptually, when you think about emptiness, we're trying to realize emptiness, we realize the emptiness of a particular phenomena, and then we move our minds. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:31 Highlight the passage at 1:30:31

1:30:43 But it's said that when you directly realize it, you know, non-conceptually, then you realize the emptiness of all phenomena. So that might be a sign that all emptinesses are the same empathy. But that's not the main point of this teaching. So we're getting to the point of this teaching. So in the four modes of emptiness, first we're... Report an error in the passage at 1:30:43 Highlight the passage at 1:30:43

1:31:13 Understanding that form is empty of inherent existence. And then each of the four modes are progressively trying to strengthen our understanding of emptiness. And each of the four modes are progressively more subtle. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:13 Highlight the passage at 1:31:13

1:31:44 And I won't pretend to understand. This, you know, the subtle significance of these things. I'm presenting you what I know, right? But I haven't realized any of this stuff, so. But Report an error in the passage at 1:31:44 Highlight the passage at 1:31:44

1:32:02 first we realize the emptiness and inherent existence of this cup. But we can still, at that point, we can fall into the extreme of nihilism, thinking, okay, well, it's empty, therefore I can do whatever I want, you know, then anything can be anything. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:02 Highlight the passage at 1:32:02

1:32:19 We can still fall into a mistaken view. Then, more subtly, then we realize that form is a manifestation of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:19 Highlight the passage at 1:32:19

1:32:36 Form is an appearance of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:36 Highlight the passage at 1:32:36

1:32:44 So that negates the extreme of nihilism. So the first one eliminates, form is empty, eliminates the extreme of permanence or reaffining, you know, some solid existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:44 Highlight the passage at 1:32:44

1:33:00 Realizing the second one negates the extreme of nihilism. Thinking that nothing exists and nothing matters. Then the third and fourth modes are eliminating still the potential for thinking there's emptiness on one hand and there's conventional truth over here. There's an emptiness, as if they're separate things. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:00 Highlight the passage at 1:33:00

1:33:31 And sometimes we think, oh, well, everything dissolves into emptiness, so there's emptiness as a separate thing. And then things here. Like space. If there's space, therefore the cup can appear. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:31 Highlight the passage at 1:33:31

1:33:54 So space is something separate from the cup. But emptiness is not like that. It's not as if there's emptiness out there, and then the cup abides in emptiness. Emptiness is very different from space in that respect. Space is something separate, and then the cup can abide in... A place in space. But emptiness is not separate from the cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:54 Highlight the passage at 1:33:54

1:34:28 Emptiness is the way that the cup exists. Or the emptiness of the cup is the way that the cup exists. It's inseparable from the cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:28 Highlight the passage at 1:34:28

1:34:45 Not as if there's an empty of inherent existence up here and a phenomena that are separate from that. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:45 Highlight the passage at 1:34:45

1:34:58 Emptiness of inherent existence is the way that things exist. It's the nature of things. So Report an error in the passage at 1:34:58 Highlight the passage at 1:34:58

1:35:15 that's eliminating yet another subtle misconception that you can have about emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:15 Highlight the passage at 1:35:15

1:35:28 So the cup, the conventional truth of the cup and the ultimate truth of the cup are not separate entities. They're Report an error in the passage at 1:35:28 Highlight the passage at 1:35:28

1:35:41 just two different natures of the same phenomenon. The Report an error in the passage at 1:35:41 Highlight the passage at 1:35:41

1:35:55 cup and Report an error in the passage at 1:35:55 Highlight the passage at 1:35:55

1:35:59 the nature of it not existing solidly out here, separate from the mind, separate from causes and conditions. Separate from its club. These aren't separate. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:59 Highlight the passage at 1:35:59

1:36:20 Emptiness is just the way that this is done. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:20 Highlight the passage at 1:36:20

1:36:33 some abstract principle. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:33 Highlight the passage at 1:36:33

1:36:38 What Report an error in the passage at 1:36:38 Highlight the passage at 1:36:38

1:36:50 were the terms again that you did? Report an error in the passage at 1:36:50 Highlight the passage at 1:36:50

1:36:57 I was kind of following it, and then I wanted to write this down. Then I realized that. I don't think they've cut, and it seems to us, it says are not separate. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:57 Highlight the passage at 1:36:57

1:37:13 Did you say they're not separate entities? They're not separate entities. I don't know exactly what I said. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:13 Highlight the passage at 1:37:13

1:37:21 That's what I'm going for is the process terms that you're using. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:21 Highlight the passage at 1:37:21

1:37:33 do you remember anything? I thought you said Anthony Jesus. I thought you said they weren't separate entities, what you said. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:33 Highlight the passage at 1:37:33

1:37:46 Yeah, I thought they weren't separate entities, but their mode of appearance was different. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:46 Highlight the passage at 1:37:46

1:37:55 I was thinking really, I don't know if that's what she said. It didn't sound quite precise enough for me. No, mode of appearance? No, I don't think I said that. just tap into each other. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:55 Highlight the passage at 1:37:55

1:38:11 Maybe you just want to weave over it, but maybe you don't. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:11 Highlight the passage at 1:38:11

1:38:17 I keep going back to emptiness and the cup and the emptiness of the cup aren't separate entities. That's what's used in the text again and again, separate entities. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:17 Highlight the passage at 1:38:17

1:38:38 And it may be helpful to think it's similar to the cup and the impermanence of the cup. you. And turn into The constant changingness of the cup is not separate from the cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:38 Highlight the passage at 1:38:38

1:39:00 Emptiness of the cup, the lack of inherent existence of the cup is not separate from the cup itself. It's Report an error in the passage at 1:39:00 Highlight the passage at 1:39:00

1:39:13 not a separate entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:13 Highlight the passage at 1:39:13

1:39:20 So that lack of inherent existence, the lack of existing out here, independent from the Martin, is the way that the cup exists. It's not separate, it's a separate, it's the way that it exists. It's the final nature of the cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:20 Highlight the passage at 1:39:20

1:39:51 You're just using the key and nature synonymous. I mean, not exactly. Oftentimes people will say that they're the same nature. Sometimes the transition, maybe in Kenji Rinpoche's teachings, they're using that. Translation is that emptiness of a cup and a cup are the same nature. So you can say that too. But I was using it in terms of, like, you know, every phenomenon has a conventional nature and an ultimate nature. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:51 Highlight the passage at 1:39:51

1:40:28 So the ultimate nature is the emptiness, and it's also the final nature, the final mode of being. Then there's also a conventional nature, you know, the cup, the shape of the cup, the color of the cup, etc. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:28 Highlight the passage at 1:40:28

1:40:45 It's also a nature of the cup. It's just not the final, ultimate nature. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:45 Highlight the passage at 1:40:45

1:40:58 So is the significance of that making a bit of sense? Report an error in the passage at 1:40:58 Highlight the passage at 1:40:58

1:41:07 And so then the next thing is, okay, the cup and the emptiness of the cup, it's the same entity, but it's not that they're exactly the same, right? They're not identical, the cup and the emptiness of the cup. There is a cup conventionally. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:07 Highlight the passage at 1:41:07

1:41:29 separate from Report an error in the passage at 1:41:29 Highlight the passage at 1:41:29

1:41:34 So, um, for distinct conceptually, so... Conceptually we can isolate out the emptiness of the cup, which is the cup. Just like conceptually we can isolate out the color and shape of the cup from the cup. Conceptually we can think about them differently. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:34 Highlight the passage at 1:41:34

1:42:07 But the color and the shape of the cup are just characteristics of the cup itself. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:07 Highlight the passage at 1:42:07

1:42:15 The emptiness of the cup is a characteristic of the cup itself. Same entity as the cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:15 Highlight the passage at 1:42:15

1:42:32 Same entity, but not identical. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:32 Highlight the passage at 1:42:32

1:42:48 In Tibetan, the word for vase is pumba. So vase and pumba, they are identical. Maybe we could say those are identical, right? They're the same thing. They're just different words for the same thing. Or in Italian, the table is tabolo. You know, tabolo and table are the same thing. But we're not saying that cup and emptiness of a cup are the same thing. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:48 Highlight the passage at 1:42:48

1:43:28 They're the same entity, but they're not the same thing. So they're different isolates or different conceptually. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:28 Highlight the passage at 1:43:28

1:43:54 Heavy topic for Friday night. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:54 Highlight the passage at 1:43:54

1:44:00 So maybe we can go... Water and ice also? Huh? Like water and ice? Water and ice. Well, the water that turns into the ice? Or the ice that's floating in water? They're made of the same substance. Yeah, but that's different. Because one is formed. The form is different. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:00 Highlight the passage at 1:44:00

1:44:27 Water and ice are different. I mean you could say the table and the wood of the table are the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:27 Highlight the passage at 1:44:27

1:44:43 But water...ice is water. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:43 Highlight the passage at 1:44:43

1:44:52 Two different products. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:52 Highlight the passage at 1:44:52

1:44:57 Like the ice and the H2O of the ice? the same, it's not, but it's sticking out. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:57 Highlight the passage at 1:44:57

1:45:00 If you're talking about the water of the ice, as opposed to the water that the ice is floating in. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:00 Highlight the passage at 1:45:00

1:45:13 So, we'll have next week off, but we'll go through this, how about one more time, in two weeks. Because Report an error in the passage at 1:45:13 Highlight the passage at 1:45:13

1:45:27 this is one of those things that maybe needs to sink in a little bit. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:27 Highlight the passage at 1:45:27

1:45:35 Alright, so I think we struggled a little bit today. It's good, it's a healthy stroke. Could I ask one final question? So you said that the first three modes negated certain things. What did the fourth one negate? So, well, the third and the fourth kind of go together. But I'd say the fourth one, it negates the conception that thinking that emptiness and the cup were the same thing, like identical, the same. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:35 Highlight the passage at 1:45:35

1:46:23 And in the teachings it gets into four faults if the two truths were the same thing, and the four faults if the two truths were different entities. Yeah, what he did on Saturday. And Kendra Rinpoche actually went into that? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That was helpful. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I didn't think you'd go into that level of detail. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:23 Highlight the passage at 1:46:23

1:46:44 But if you want, I mean, we could go into it. It was helpful. Okay. Okay, maybe you can explain it to me. It's like watching fireworks. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:44 Highlight the passage at 1:46:44

1:47:03 Yeah, because I wasn't planning to go into that because that's a lot of detail, but we could. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:03 Highlight the passage at 1:47:03

1:47:10 actually is helpful. right. also try to get a recording about teaching. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:10 Highlight the passage at 1:47:10

1:47:24 Thank you. Talking to the right person. Thank you, Chad. So we'll dedicate on page 6. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:24 Highlight the passage at 1:47:24

1:47:47 merit of these virtuous actions, may I quickly attain the state of the Guru Buddha, and lead all living beings without exception into that night and state. I the supreme jewel, Bodhicitta, that has not arisen, arise and grow, and may that which has arisen not diminish. and increase more and more. In the land encircled by snow mountains, you are a source of all happiness and good, all-powerful chanrezig. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:47 Highlight the passage at 1:47:47

1:48:20 Please remain until saṃsāra ends. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:20 Highlight the passage at 1:48:20

1:48:38 everybody have a great holiday peaceful holiday oh yeah the homework you have and oh and we have new homework that um that We'll finish covering this material in the next class, so it doesn't need to be done for the next class, but I'll hand it out. And then I have past homework, so if people hand it out past homework, I can do it back. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:38 Highlight the passage at 1:48:38

1:49:21 Should we leave tables out for the puja? Let's call the whole thing out. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:21 Highlight the passage at 1:49:21

1:49:29 Can we leave tables out for the presentation? Four. Four? Okay. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:29 Highlight the passage at 1:49:29