The Heart Sutra (11 January 2008)

0:01 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. Then through the power of Buddha, the Venerable Shariputra said this to the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalokiteshvara. Report an error in the passage at 0:01 Highlight the passage at 0:01

0:24 Shout at any son of the 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. Shariputra, 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 as empty of inherent nature. Report an error in the passage at 0:24 Highlight the passage at 0:24

0:57 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, all phenomena are emptiness, without characteristic, unproduced, unceased, stainless, not without stain, not deficient, not fulfilled. Report an error in the passage at 0:57 Highlight the passage at 0:57

1:26 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 and no phenomenon. 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. Report an error in the passage at 1:26 Highlight the passage at 1:26

2:13 Similarly, there is no suffering, origination, cessation and path. There is no exalted wisdom. No attainment 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 error, they reach the end point of nirvāṇa. Report an error in the passage at 2:13 Highlight the passage at 2:13

2:42 All the Buddhas who dwell in the three times also manifestly, completely awaken to unsurpassable, perfect, complete enlightenment in reliance on the perfection of wisdom. Therefore, 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 truth since it is not false. The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is declared, Tayata Om Gata Gata Paragata Parasam Gata Bodhisattva. Report an error in the passage at 2:42 Highlight the passage at 2:42

3:22 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, said, well said, son of the lineage, it is like that, 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 Sharivadi Putra. Report an error in the passage at 3:22 Highlight the passage at 3:22

3:56 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 3:56 Highlight the passage at 3:56

4:21 So actually we only have two more classes after tonight. So we're going to have to kind of zoom through the rest of this. But today actually we're going to spend a bit of time on something we started talking about last. In the last class, right before Christmas, where we talked about the two truths being one entity and different isolates, because there seemed to be quite a bit of confusion about what that really meant. Report an error in the passage at 4:21 Highlight the passage at 4:21

4:50 So we'll actually spend some time and talk about that. Report an error in the passage at 4:50 Highlight the passage at 4:50

4:56 So just recall that the sūtra is divided into two sections, the prologue and the introduction, and then the body, actual body of the sūtra. And in the body of the sūtra, first Shariputra asked his question, and what was his question? How should the son of Valini train who wishes to practice the profound perfection of wisdom? Report an error in the passage at 4:56 Highlight the passage at 4:56

5:20 And then Avalokiteshvara answers. Report an error in the passage at 5:20 Highlight the passage at 5:20

5:28 And so we've been talking about the four modes of emptiness. Form is empty. Emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form. Form is also not other than emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 5:28 Highlight the passage at 5:28

5:43 So then these four modes of emptiness are really important to understand. And then the rest of the Heart Sūtra is applying these four modes of emptiness to all other phenomena. It starts with form and then goes to feeling, discrimination, etc. And then all other phenomena. So we've spent some time on the first two modes of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 5:43 Highlight the passage at 5:43

6:12 Form is empty. So remember that that's the ultimate nature of form, emptiness, the lack of inherent existence. And then emptiness is form. It's talking about the subtle conventional nature of form. The fact that form is a manifestation of emptiness. It's a mere appearance out of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 6:12 Highlight the passage at 6:12

6:40 So today we'll focus on the last two modes. The two truths being the same entity and yet different isolates. Report an error in the passage at 6:40 Highlight the passage at 6:40

6:56 So then just a review of the two truths. Ultimate truth being the emptiness of inherent existence. Report an error in the passage at 6:56 Highlight the passage at 6:56

7:07 So all emptinesses are ultimate truths. So the emptiness of the cup, the emptiness of the computer, the emptiness of the self, the emptiness of the body, etc. These are all ultimate truths. Report an error in the passage at 7:07 Highlight the passage at 7:07

7:22 And then all other phenomena, everything else that exists is a conventional truth. So the cup is a conventional truth. The computer is a conventional truth. The self is a conventional truth as well. The self not qualified by inherent existence. If we say inherently exists in itself, that's not a conventional truth. Because that doesn't exist at all. Report an error in the passage at 7:22 Highlight the passage at 7:22

7:53 But conventionally existent self, the merely imputed self, exists as a conventional truth. Skip Report an error in the passage at 7:53 Highlight the passage at 7:53

8:11 through that one. So then the two truths, we posit the two truths on each phenomenon. So each phenomenon, there are two different natures associated with each phenomenon. So for the cup, there's a conventional nature and an ultimate nature. The ultimate nature being the emptiness. Of inherent existence of the cup. And the conventional nature being really all of the other characteristics of the cup. The shape of the cup. Report an error in the passage at 8:11 Highlight the passage at 8:11

8:44 The color of the cup. Also the dependent arising of the cup is a conventional truth. The impermanence of the cup. The appearance of the cup. These are all conventional. The conventional nature of the cup. So are people pretty comfortable with the two truths? Report an error in the passage at 8:44 Highlight the passage at 8:44

9:12 Okay. In Kenzo Rinpoche's teachings, the translation that was used was the two truths being the same nature. But I prefer the term entity. The two truths are the same entity. Because actually, conventional truth and ultimate truth are different natures of the same phenomenon. So they're not really the same nature. Report an error in the passage at 9:12 Highlight the passage at 9:12

9:45 They're two different ways of looking at the same phenomenon. Report an error in the passage at 9:45 Highlight the passage at 9:45

9:54 So the Report an error in the passage at 9:54 Highlight the passage at 9:54

10:02 conventional truth of the cup, the color, the shape, the impermanence, it being dependent on causes and conditions, that's one way of looking at the cup. Report an error in the passage at 10:02 Highlight the passage at 10:02

10:20 The lack of inherent existence of the cup, the ultimate truth of the cup, It's another way of looking at the same thing. It's another way of looking at the cup. Report an error in the passage at 10:20 Highlight the passage at 10:20

10:35 So it's not as if there's emptiness out here that's completely separate from conventional truth. It's not as if there's this body of emptiness that is Report an error in the passage at 10:35 Highlight the passage at 10:35

10:56 some kind of absolute reality separate from phenomenon. Report an error in the passage at 10:56 Highlight the passage at 10:56

11:05 Emptiness is just the way that each phenomenon exists. It's the ultimate mode of existence of each phenomenon. It's a characteristic of each phenomenon. So that's what it means by saying that the two truths are the same entity. The two truths in relation to a particular phenomenon is the same entity. It's the same... Report an error in the passage at 11:05 Highlight the passage at 11:05

11:38 It's two different ways of looking at the same object. Report an error in the passage at 11:38 Highlight the passage at 11:38

11:48 So the measure of two things being the same entity, we talked about last time, is that to a direct perception, a non-conceptual direct perception, the two things can't be distinguished. Report an error in the passage at 11:48 Highlight the passage at 11:48

12:10 So the color of the cup and the cup itself, Report an error in the passage at 12:10 Highlight the passage at 12:10

12:16 Are referring to the same object, right? And the color of the cup and the cup itself can't be distinguished by your I consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 12:16 Highlight the passage at 12:16

12:28 It's just the conceptual consciousness that can isolate out particular aspects of the same phenomenon. The conceptual mind can think about the color of the cup as separate from the cup. Report an error in the passage at 12:28 Highlight the passage at 12:28

12:46 But it's just another way of looking at the same phenomenon. Report an error in the passage at 12:46 Highlight the passage at 12:46

12:56 So does that make sense? Report an error in the passage at 12:56 Highlight the passage at 12:56

13:03 So the two truths are the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 13:03 Highlight the passage at 13:03

13:21 So we already talked about that. And then the fourth mode of emptiness is the two truths being different isolates. So although the two truths are the same entity, they're not identical. They're not exactly the same thing. And if they were identical, they would have to be exactly the same in both name and meaning. Report an error in the passage at 13:21 Highlight the passage at 13:21

13:46 So Kenzo Rinpoche talked about this. Report an error in the passage at 13:46 Highlight the passage at 13:46

13:52 So the cup, for example, the cup and the color of the cup are not the same in terms of both name and meaning. Report an error in the passage at 13:52 Highlight the passage at 13:52

14:04 There are different isolates and isolates is referring to the conceptual mind being able to isolate out different attributes or different characteristics of the same phenomenon. Like the color of the cup and the shape of the cup versus the cup. Report an error in the passage at 14:04 Highlight the passage at 14:04

14:25 And so similarly, the emptiness of the cup and the cup. Are the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 14:25 Highlight the passage at 14:25

14:35 But there are different isolates because the conceptual mind can isolate out those different characteristics. Report an error in the passage at 14:35 Highlight the passage at 14:35

14:52 So currently, I mean, so one of the obscurations to omniscience or the obstructions to omniscience is believing or conceiving of the two truths as being different entities. Report an error in the passage at 14:52 Highlight the passage at 14:52

15:13 Because up until we become a Buddha, We can either see ultimate truth or we can see conventional truth. We can't ever see both at the same time. So when we're looking at the cup, we can only see the conventional nature of the cup. We can see the color and the shape, but we can't see the emptiness of the cup when we actually see the cup. Report an error in the passage at 15:13 Highlight the passage at 15:13

15:40 Or then we can meditate on the emptiness of the cup and directly realize the emptiness of the cup. But when we directly realize the emptiness of the cup, the cup doesn't appear. The conventional nature of the cup doesn't appear. So as a sentient being, we can either see the conventional nature or the ultimate nature of a phenomenon. Report an error in the passage at 15:40 Highlight the passage at 15:40

16:09 But we can't ever see both at the same time until we become a Buddha. Report an error in the passage at 16:09 Highlight the passage at 16:09

16:21 So then it seems as if those two would be different. Entities, right? Because we can only see one at a time. And actually, in fact, the way we see the cup, right? We see the conventional nature of the cup, right? The color and the shape. And we see the inherent existence of it at the same time. We don't see the emptiness of it, but actually, as ordinary beings, we see the inherent existence of the cup. Report an error in the passage at 16:21 Highlight the passage at 16:21

16:50 The cup being existing out here as independent from the mind. That's the way that things appear. To exist, right, for us. Report an error in the passage at 16:50 Highlight the passage at 16:50

17:27 All right. So I wasn't going to go into these four faults, right? The four faults of the two truths were identical and the four faults of the two truths were separate entities, different entities. But Kenzo Rinpoche went through these and people thought that it would be useful if I went through them. So we'll give it a try. Report an error in the passage at 17:27 Highlight the passage at 17:27

17:51 Okay. Report an error in the passage at 17:51 Highlight the passage at 17:51

17:55 Okay, so... So if we said that the two truths were identical, they were exactly the same thing, if conventional truth and ultimate truth were exactly the same thing, there would be four faults or four what they call absurd consequences if we said that, for example, the body and the emptiness of the body were identical. Report an error in the passage at 17:55 Highlight the passage at 17:55

18:22 First of all, the emptiness of the body would be a direct object of apprehension of an ordinary person. So what does this mean? So the body itself is something that we can all see with our eye consciousness. So if the body is exactly the same as the emptiness of the body, if we said that those were exactly the same, then we'd also be able to see the emptiness of the body with our eye consciousness, right? Report an error in the passage at 18:22 Highlight the passage at 18:22

18:53 Because we can see the body with our eye consciousness, then we would also be able to see the emptiness of the body with our eye consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 18:53 Highlight the passage at 18:53

19:03 Easy. Get out of cyclic existence by seeing the body. Report an error in the passage at 19:03 Highlight the passage at 19:03

19:10 First one is clear. Report an error in the passage at 19:10 Highlight the passage at 19:10

19:18 Then the second one. There would exist afflictive emotions such as attachment observing the emptiness of the body. So here, the body, with respect to the body, we have attachment arise. We can have aversion arise. We can have all sorts of afflictions arise with respect to the body. Right? Right. Report an error in the passage at 19:18 Highlight the passage at 19:18

· · · silence, 1 minute

19:42 So if the body and the emptiness of the body were identical, then we would also have afflictions arise in relation to seeing the emptiness of the body. Report an error in the passage at 19:42 Highlight the passage at 19:42

19:57 But realizing the emptiness of the body is the antidote to the afflictions. When we realize the emptiness of something, then that's the opposite. That's the exact opposite. To having ignorance and having all of the afflictions arise. Report an error in the passage at 19:57 Highlight the passage at 19:57

20:23 Okay, so then realizing emptiness would not be the antidote to the afflictions if the emptiness of the body and the body were exactly the same. How Report an error in the passage at 20:23 Highlight the passage at 20:23

20:38 are we doing so far? Okay. Report an error in the passage at 20:38 Highlight the passage at 20:38

20:50 This is similar to the first one. In order to see the emptiness of the body, there would be no need for the yogi to make effort in meditation. Other than seeing the body. Report an error in the passage at 20:50 Highlight the passage at 20:50

21:04 So we would see the emptiness of the body, right, when we saw the body. And we wouldn't have to make any effort, right, to realize emptiness. Because we could just see emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 21:04 Highlight the passage at 21:04

21:33 And then the fourth one, the emptiness of the body would be divisible into its color and shape, etc. Right, because the body is divisible into color and shape. Report an error in the passage at 21:33 Highlight the passage at 21:33

21:45 So then if they were identical, the emptiness of the body and the body, if they were identical. Then the emptiness of the body would also be divisible into color and shape, etc. Right? But emptiness is not divisible into color and shape, right? Report an error in the passage at 21:45 Highlight the passage at 21:45

22:05 Okay. Alright. That was really quick, but you got... Okay. No questions on that? Report an error in the passage at 22:05 Highlight the passage at 22:05

22:19 So the two truths are not identical, right? Because there would be these four faults if they were. Report an error in the passage at 22:19 Highlight the passage at 22:19

22:40 Then there would be four faults if we... Said that the two truths were different entities, like two completely different phenomena, like the cup and the computer. Report an error in the passage at 22:40 Highlight the passage at 22:40

22:54 These are two different entities, the cup and the computer. So if emptiness was completely separate from the, if the body was completely separate from the emptiness of the body, then the first fault would be the valid cognition, which realizes the emptiness of true existence of the body. Would not eliminate the ignorance that grasps the body as truly existent. So I'll say it in different words. Report an error in the passage at 22:54 Highlight the passage at 22:54

23:28 So basically this is saying that, okay, so first of all we have an ignorance that believes the body is truly existent or inherently existent. Report an error in the passage at 23:28 Highlight the passage at 23:28

23:45 So what is the antidote to that ignorance? It's realizing the emptiness of the body. So basically the first fault would be is saying that the mind that realizes the emptiness of the body wouldn't eliminate the ignorance that believes the body is truly existent. Report an error in the passage at 23:45 Highlight the passage at 23:45

24:13 So the mind that realizes the emptiness of the body would not eliminate the ignorance. Report an error in the passage at 24:13 Highlight the passage at 24:13

24:22 Why? Because they're two completely separate phenomena. They're two different entities. So just as... Report an error in the passage at 24:22 Highlight the passage at 24:22

24:33 As if, as like the cup in the computer. So if I warm up the cup, the cup of water in the microwave, it doesn't affect the temperature of the computer. Report an error in the passage at 24:33 Highlight the passage at 24:33

24:53 So if emptiness, you know, the ultimate truth, was a different entity from the conventional truth, the body, Report an error in the passage at 24:53 Highlight the passage at 24:53

25:06 then if I realize emptiness here, it wouldn't affect, The way I perceive the body at all, right? Because they're two different entities. Report an error in the passage at 25:06 Highlight the passage at 25:06

25:21 Does that make sense? Report an error in the passage at 25:21 Highlight the passage at 25:21

25:28 Kind of, sort of. Okay. So, right. So, if we have two different entities, right, then whatever helps or harms one entity, it doesn't affect the other entity, right? So, similarly, if... Emptiness or ultimate truth is one entity and conventional truth, such as the body, is another entity. If I realize ultimate truth, then it wouldn't affect the body at all, right? Report an error in the passage at 25:28 Highlight the passage at 25:28

26:13 It wouldn't affect the way that I see the body at all, right? Because it's two different things. Report an error in the passage at 26:13 Highlight the passage at 26:13

26:23 Is that making sense to others? Report an error in the passage at 26:23 Highlight the passage at 26:23

26:42 The second one... So if the emptiness of the body and the body were two separate entities, two completely separate phenomena, then we wouldn't say that the emptiness is the nature or the reality of the body. Report an error in the passage at 26:42 Highlight the passage at 26:42

27:02 So emptiness is actually a characteristic of the body. It's the nature of the body. But if they were two separate entities, we couldn't say that... The emptiness of the body is the characteristic of the body or the nature of the body. Just as we couldn't say that white, Report an error in the passage at 27:02 Highlight the passage at 27:02

27:27 you know, the color white is the color of the computer. White describes the cup, which is the same entity as itself. But we couldn't say white, the computer is white, because they're two separate entities. Report an error in the passage at 27:27 Highlight the passage at 27:27

27:55 Make sense? Report an error in the passage at 27:55 Highlight the passage at 27:55

28:02 And this is pretty intellectual. I Report an error in the passage at 28:02 Highlight the passage at 28:02

28:17 always Report an error in the passage at 28:17 Highlight the passage at 28:17

28:29 have trouble with analogies. The cup is white. So the nature or a characteristic of the cup is that it is white. If the cup and the computer were the same, then the nature or the characteristic of the computer would also be white. But the computer is black. Report an error in the passage at 28:29 Highlight the passage at 28:29

28:50 Because they're two different entities. The nature of the computer is to have a black color which is different on a conventional level than the white cup. Report an error in the passage at 28:50 Highlight the passage at 28:50

29:06 Yeah, no, I just had to repeat it for myself. Thank you. I just lost my train of thought. Yeah. No, it's good to ask questions because, I mean, it's the one thing to kind of try to understand the words. It's another thing to try to understand, well, what does that really mean? Right. Report an error in the passage at 29:06 Highlight the passage at 29:06

29:34 So actually, so we talked about, maybe we'll do a reality check for a minute. Like what is the whole relevance of understanding, you know, trying to understand that the two truths are the same entity and different isolates, right? Report an error in the passage at 29:34 Highlight the passage at 29:34

29:53 Yeah, so. Report an error in the passage at 29:53 Highlight the passage at 29:53

30:01 Because we believe one and ignore the other, basically, most of the time. I mean, our reality is based so heavily on a grasp of the isolates. Conventional reality as reality. And that's what we hang on to. So there's no real grasp of the emptiness of that until we make ourselves think about this in this analytical way to kind of push past our conventional attachment to this being true. Report an error in the passage at 30:01 Highlight the passage at 30:01

30:31 That's one aspect of it. I think one of the things that was really helpful that you said early on tonight was that emptiness is not an absolute thing out there that's happening. It really, really helps with this, I think, because the cup and the computer help a lot, but definitely, I mean, if you think of that absolute, that emptiness absolute, if there was this emptiness thing out there, and in realizing emptiness, I mean, that is why you have to realize the emptiness of the body, not this independent emptiness positive thing out there. Report an error in the passage at 30:31 Highlight the passage at 30:31

31:04 So, I mean, just in relation to, you said, this reality check thing. I mean, they have to be connected. We have to realize the emptiness of our... Report an error in the passage at 31:04 Highlight the passage at 31:04

31:14 Right. Yeah, and I think that's a common misconception that we think that emptiness is something completely separate from our conventional reality. That sometimes we think, oh, meditating on emptiness is like meditating on space. Let's just ignore conventional reality and meditate on space. And that's meditating on emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 31:14 Highlight the passage at 31:14

31:38 But that's not getting at the reality of phenomena at all, right? That's just meditating on space, right? And that's not going to help us not get angry at that person who, you know, falsely accuses us of, you know, whatever, right? Report an error in the passage at 31:38 Highlight the passage at 31:38

31:56 So meditating on emptiness is about analyzing the reality of a particular phenomenon. It doesn't make sense to talk about emptiness as something separate from a particular base, a particular phenomenon. We realize the emptiness of the cup. We first identify the object of negation of the cup and then we search for that cup. Report an error in the passage at 31:56 Highlight the passage at 31:56

32:29 We also maybe analyze the dependent arising of the cup and then we find out that that object of negation or that The cup that seems to exist out here, separate from our minds, doesn't exist at all. And that lack of existing out there from its own side is the emptiness. The lack of the cup existing out there is the emptiness of the cup. Report an error in the passage at 32:29 Highlight the passage at 32:29

33:08 It's not space, but it's the lack of something very specific. Report an error in the passage at 33:08 Highlight the passage at 33:08

33:17 And similarly to, you know, with all other phenomena, the self. Analyzing, okay, well, how do we believe the self exists? Report an error in the passage at 33:17 Highlight the passage at 33:17

33:30 And then looking for that self. And then if we do it correctly, then we find that that self doesn't exist at all. And the lack of, you know, the non-finding, right? The non-finding of that self is Report an error in the passage at 33:30 Highlight the passage at 33:30

33:53 the emptiness, right? The lack of that self-existing, that kind of self-existing is the emptiness of the self. Report an error in the passage at 33:53 Highlight the passage at 33:53

34:13 So emptiness isn't something out there, some absolute core of reality that we just need to turn our minds away from phenomena and just absorb in emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 34:13 Highlight the passage at 34:13

34:27 Right? Report an error in the passage at 34:27 Highlight the passage at 34:27

34:33 Jane and Lewis. Just something really fast, which is, is this working? Uh-huh. Report an error in the passage at 34:33 Highlight the passage at 34:33

34:40 That negation thing that you mentioned there at the end, that emptiness is that, is something I think that that's something I find myself slipping into. I mean the other, the opposite, which is the thing which is finding a positive emptiness, which is to sort of ascertain this like, oh, I found an emptiness kind of thing. Report an error in the passage at 34:40 Highlight the passage at 34:40

34:54 You know, if you get lucky enough to maybe feel something like that in your meditation. And I think that's exactly related to what you're talking about here because there's this sense of having produced a positive result. And I don't mean... It's not a pleasant result, but I mean a positive result of having sort of located an emptiness. And it's really easy for me to forget that sometimes, that the emptiness itself is the not finding of the thing. Report an error in the passage at 34:54 Highlight the passage at 34:54

35:16 So I mean that's really powerful, what you're saying. Yeah, and that's the whole purpose of the teaching on emptiness being a non-affirming negation, right? To remind us that emptiness is the lack of something, right? It's not something positive. It's the lack of finding what we believe exists, which is why it's scary. Report an error in the passage at 35:16 Highlight the passage at 35:16

35:47 Lewis? When you say, it's kind of a silly point, when you say emptiness is the lack of something existing out there, it becomes almost jargon to say out there. Do you mean outside of one's mind? Or where is there? What is out there? Yeah, I wasn't using technically precise words. So the lack of something existing from its own side, independent of the mind, independent of causes and conditions, independent of parts. Report an error in the passage at 35:47 Highlight the passage at 35:47

36:32 So there is no cup Report an error in the passage at 36:32 Highlight the passage at 36:32

36:39 independent of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 36:39 Highlight the passage at 36:39

36:48 We really believe that there's a cup independent of the mind, right? But there is no cup that's independent of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 36:48 Highlight the passage at 36:48

37:08 So with these four modes of emptiness, right? So the first mode, realizing the emptiness of inherent existence of the cup. Report an error in the passage at 37:08 Highlight the passage at 37:08

37:23 So realizing the lack of a cup existing independently from the mind, let's say. Report an error in the passage at 37:23 Highlight the passage at 37:23

37:36 So if we understand that, there's still a danger of falling into the extreme of nihilism or annihilation, believing that the cup doesn't exist at all. Report an error in the passage at 37:36 Highlight the passage at 37:36

37:50 Which is why then there's the second mode of emptiness, emptiness's form, that confirms that the cup does exist conventionally. It's an appearance. It's an appearance out of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 37:50 Highlight the passage at 37:50

38:14 And I hesitate to say, yeah, appearance out of emptiness. It's an appearance from its emptiness. It's an appearance. Because it's empty, it appears, basically. But it's not as if there's an emptiness, right, from which phenomena appear. Which oftentimes it seems like that, right? Like in Tantra, there's emptiness and then everything arises out of emptiness, right? But it's not like that. Report an error in the passage at 38:14 Highlight the passage at 38:14

38:44 There's not this substance emptiness from which everything appears. The emptiness is inseparable. The emptiness of the cup is inseparable with the cup. It's not as if there's an emptiness that's like space. There's all this space and then things appear in space. It's not like that. It seems like it would be like that, but it's not. Which is why then... Report an error in the passage at 38:44 Highlight the passage at 38:44

39:14 The third and fourth modes of emptiness are Report an error in the passage at 39:14 Highlight the passage at 39:14

39:21 then taught in the heart suture, right? So we can realize the emptiness of the cup. Then we can realize, okay, well, there's an appearance. It's a conventional nature of the cup. So the cup exists conventionally. But then still there can be this misconception that there's this emptiness out there, this substance emptiness from which. Report an error in the passage at 39:21 Highlight the passage at 39:21

39:46 Things arise, which is why the third and fourth modes of emptiness then are taught so that we realize that now they're just different ways of looking at the same thing. They're the same entity. It doesn't make sense to talk about emptiness separate from a basis of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 39:46 Highlight the passage at 39:46

40:20 So can you say the cup arises due to its nature of being empty or that the cup arises? Report an error in the passage at 40:20 Highlight the passage at 40:20

40:33 I lost the second thing. That sounds good. So it has to have a nature of being empty in order to arise. Exactly. Very well said. Report an error in the passage at 40:33 Highlight the passage at 40:33

40:55 Tim? To follow up on Lewis's, because if it didn't, then it wouldn't arise. It would just be that thing, right? That one. Yeah. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 40:55 Highlight the passage at 40:55

41:06 If it wasn't empty? Because if it wasn't empty, it would just be that thing. It wouldn't go from not being a cup to being a cup. It would never change, right, if it wasn't empty. Report an error in the passage at 41:06 Highlight the passage at 41:06

41:22 What's that? If the cup was not empty, then it would not arise. It couldn't arise. Right, it couldn't come into existence, right, if it wasn't empty. Report an error in the passage at 41:22 Highlight the passage at 41:22

41:34 Yeah, Report an error in the passage at 41:34 Highlight the passage at 41:34

41:37 yeah. I mean, there's a lot of consequences to saying that something is inherently existent. And actually you wouldn't even be able to perceive something that's inherently existent because then it would be dependent on the mind, perceiving it. But an inherently existent thing couldn't be perceivable because then it would be dependent on a mind. Report an error in the passage at 41:37 Highlight the passage at 41:37

42:03 All sorts of wild consequences if we asserted things actually existed the way they appear. Is that that Zen koan, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, doesn't make a sound? Because it's dependent on the mind in order to exist or to make a sound in that case. Report an error in the passage at 42:03 Highlight the passage at 42:03

42:33 I've never known the answer to that. That's just what I started thinking of when you were saying this, that everything is dependent on a perceiver in order to come into existence. So if there's nobody there to see a phenomenon, does it? Even have an existence. And I guess the answer would be ultimately no. Maybe. Well, you don't have to see it for it to exist. Report an error in the passage at 42:33 Highlight the passage at 42:33

43:00 Right. Report an error in the passage at 43:00 Highlight the passage at 43:00

43:04 Yeah. Yeah, I'm not even going to try to answer that. But yeah, I mean, right. Like, for example, a cup can only come into existence independence on. Someone, somewhere, at some point, labeling cup, right? It doesn't have to be me labeling cup, but if nobody ever, ever, ever labeled cup, then cup wouldn't exist, right? Report an error in the passage at 43:04 Highlight the passage at 43:04

43:39 Does that make sense? Report an error in the passage at 43:39 Highlight the passage at 43:39

43:52 I mean, if you all turned around and looked away, I mean, at least I would still perceive myself right. Report an error in the passage at 43:52 Highlight the passage at 43:52

44:09 No, I mean, it doesn't mean that a phenomena has to be imputed right this moment, right? So if, you know, 10,000 years ago somebody imputed cup, then, you know, and let's say, you know, there's a common agreement, you know, worldly convention that this thing is a cup, then cup exists, right? Report an error in the passage at 44:09 Highlight the passage at 44:09

44:33 Or let's say dinosaurs, right? Dinosaurs still existed even though none of us have ever seen a dinosaur, right? But dinosaurs did exist at one time. Report an error in the passage at 44:33 Highlight the passage at 44:33

44:45 Because there was a worldly convention. Report an error in the passage at 44:45 Highlight the passage at 44:45

44:54 Okay. All right. Go ahead, Janet. Well, I mean, about the dinosaurs. I mean, at the time when the dinosaurs existed, dinosaurs did not exist. Because it wasn't named dinosaur. But now dinosaurs exist. There was a being that existed. Report an error in the passage at 44:54 Highlight the passage at 44:54

45:15 But, anyway. Well, I mean, then we're getting a little bit more complicated into the philosophy. It's not saying that dinosaur came into existence when it was first named. Report an error in the passage at 45:15 Highlight the passage at 45:15

45:36 So we can't really say that dinosaurs didn't exist back then. And let me just use another analogy. Let's say, you know, we were born. Report an error in the passage at 45:36 Highlight the passage at 45:36

45:45 Let's say I was born. And two days later, my parents named me Emily. So does that mean that Emily didn't exist until two days after I was born? Report an error in the passage at 45:45 Highlight the passage at 45:45

46:01 Yeah, you existed in some way. You were a girl, baby, that was born. You had qualities, you had all the functions and everything. But Emily, it's like with the cup. Like if you're here in America, then we have a cup. You can have the object and be in another country and cup does not exist for them. It's some of the name. Report an error in the passage at 46:01 Highlight the passage at 46:01

46:34 We're talking just conventionally. Yeah. But then I wanted to say something. Wait, but let me just finish this point about Emily. So actually, but conventionally, if you said, let's say I was born on. Like August 5th, 1964. And let's say I wasn't named until August 7th. Then if somebody asked my mother, oh, did Emily exist on August 6th, 1964? Report an error in the passage at 46:34 Highlight the passage at 46:34

47:05 Conventionally we would say yes. Even though Emily hadn't been labeled until the day after, Emily still came into existence on the 5th. Why? Because... Report an error in the passage at 47:05 Highlight the passage at 47:05

47:23 The basis was there. Report an error in the passage at 47:23 Highlight the passage at 47:23

47:31 So then we get into this technical point. It's not as if things come into existence the moment they're labeled. The basis had the potential to be labeled. And just because it wasn't labeled until two days later doesn't mean that it didn't exist two days ago. So just a technical point. I'm agreeing in that sense because we do go back and we say, okay, that's enough. Report an error in the passage at 47:31 Highlight the passage at 47:31

47:56 And some people might say that you existed when you were conceived. And some people say it's this time and some people say when you're born. And we have big arguments about it. Conventionally, there's a wide range of where we place, you know, things. But just an interesting note on this thing about the tree. That question I remember came up in a class and it was either Geshe-la or... Report an error in the passage at 47:56 Highlight the passage at 47:56

48:26 One of the Rinpoche's teaching, they just simply said, what makes you think there was no one there to hear it? Report an error in the passage at 48:26 Highlight the passage at 48:26

48:36 Yeah, I mean, that's kind of, I mean, that's, I mean, the catch-all for everything is omniscient mind, right? Well, I mean, you've got a lot of animals there, too. It doesn't mean it has to be a human. Yeah, right. That's a good way to get out of the, go on. Report an error in the passage at 48:36 Highlight the passage at 48:36

48:58 A lot more clever than I don't know, which is my answer. Okay. Jay, did you have a follow-up to your question? It Report an error in the passage at 48:58 Highlight the passage at 48:58

49:15 relates a little bit farther back, I think, but mostly I think you answered the question about the tree if Emily did exist conventionally the day before. I think that's more or less the answer about the tree, too, which is nobody's there to hear it. But I think that the thing about the... about the label on the bass it's just I know this is the obvious thing, but it's just that the fundamental difference is that our thinking, our saying, our losing the difference between saying it's a cup, it's a cup, it's a cup and thinking it's saying I'm a cup, I'm a cup, I'm a cup, you know what I mean? Report an error in the passage at 49:15 Highlight the passage at 49:15

49:49 So there's that big difference there. And that was just irrelevant like maybe four paragraphs ago. Report an error in the passage at 49:49 Highlight the passage at 49:49

50:04 Yeah, okay, right. The difference between our mind labeling cup versus thinking there's a cup out there saying, here I'm a cup, I'm a cup. Report an error in the passage at 50:04 Highlight the passage at 50:04

50:17 But that's what we do all the time, right? We argue all the time about who's right, right? As if there's somebody right from their own side, right? No, no, no, no, no. Clinton's right. No, you know, Obama is right. You know, we can get in arguments, you know, and infinitum, you know, on who's right and who's wrong. And that's a perfect example of how we believe that something's existing from its own side, right? Report an error in the passage at 50:17 Highlight the passage at 50:17

50:49 There's a right way out there. Report an error in the passage at 50:49 Highlight the passage at 50:49

51:00 Okay, so does that bring a little more relevance to the four faults? Okay. All right, so if emptiness was some... You know, separate reality out there, separate from the body. Then it wouldn't be the nature of the body. It wouldn't be a characteristic of the body. It wouldn't be a feature of the body because it's separate from the body. Report an error in the passage at 51:00 Highlight the passage at 51:00

51:34 Okay, Report an error in the passage at 51:34 Highlight the passage at 51:34

51:37 make sense? Report an error in the passage at 51:37 Highlight the passage at 51:37

51:45 Then the third fault is that the body would not be the basis of negation of the true existence of the body. So here, this is what we were talking about earlier, right? When we're trying to realize emptiness, the emptiness of the body, right? We start with the object mitigation of, you know, this truly existent body that we believe exists. Report an error in the passage at 51:45 Highlight the passage at 51:45

52:07 And then we search among the body, right? Among the parts of the body for that body, right? We search the body, we search separate from the body, we search the collection of the parts of the body. And then realizing the emptiness of the body is the... The not finding, the lack of finding that truly existent body. That's the emptiness of the body. We find that after searching the body. Report an error in the passage at 52:07 Highlight the passage at 52:07

52:39 So the body is the basis that we search in order to find the emptiness of the body. Report an error in the passage at 52:39 Highlight the passage at 52:39

52:53 So if the body and the emptiness were two separate things, then the body wouldn't be the basis for analyzing emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 52:53 Highlight the passage at 52:53

53:13 We're kind of okay with that? Report an error in the passage at 53:13 Highlight the passage at 53:13

53:17 The last one I have a hard time with. Report an error in the passage at 53:17 Highlight the passage at 53:17

53:25 And this is a literal translation from a Tibetan text that's used in the monasteries. And so I'll read the literal translation and then we'll talk about what it means. There would exist both the valid cognition seeing the emptiness of the body And the valid cognition seeing that the emptiness of the body and the body are different entities in the continuum of an Arya Buddha. Report an error in the passage at 53:25 Highlight the passage at 53:25

53:58 So basically Report an error in the passage at 53:58 Highlight the passage at 53:58

54:04 what I think this is saying is that a Report an error in the passage at 54:04 Highlight the passage at 54:04

54:10 Buddha would, you know, if emptiness or the emptiness of the body and the body were different entities, then a Buddha would see that they were different entities. Report an error in the passage at 54:10 Highlight the passage at 54:10

54:23 And the Buddha doesn't see that they're different entities. Right. Report an error in the passage at 54:23 Highlight the passage at 54:23

54:27 They can't be different entities. Report an error in the passage at 54:27 Highlight the passage at 54:27

54:34 And that's basically what Kenza Rinpoche said. He said, if the form and the emptiness of that form were completely separate things, then all of the enlightened minds would see that. But they don't. So in that one we kind of have to take on faith, right? We don't know what the Buddha actually sees. That one's not, you know, Report an error in the passage at 54:34 Highlight the passage at 54:34

55:09 we need to take that one on faith. Okay. All right. So I think it's a good time to take a break. Right. So and then we can ask questions. Okay. Okay. So in conclusion. Okay. So are we clear? Are people understanding the four modes of emptiness now? Are we pretty clear on that? Okay. Report an error in the passage at 55:09 Highlight the passage at 55:09

55:40 So through realizing those four modes, our understanding of emptiness becomes more and more profound. So successively, from realizing the emptiness of form, then realizing the subtle conventional nature of form, then realizing that the two truths are the same entity in different isolates. Report an error in the passage at 55:40 Highlight the passage at 55:40

56:08 So then we understand That the two truths mutually support each other. So phenomena appear to our minds because they are empty of inherent existence rather than in spite of being empty. Sometimes we think, oh well, that Report an error in the passage at 56:08 Highlight the passage at 56:08

56:34 conventional truth and ultimate truth would be contradictory. But actually they... They coexist, right? They support each other, right? Because things are empty, then things can exist. Report an error in the passage at 56:34 Highlight the passage at 56:34

56:57 And then we apply the four modes. Oh, wait, I haven't... Yeah, I just wanted to talk briefly about the two extremes, right? So when we realize the four modes, right, it's helping us to refine our understanding of emptiness, you know, the middle way, so that we don't fall into the two extremes, right? Report an error in the passage at 56:57 Highlight the passage at 56:57

57:20 So actually until we get the correct view of emptiness, we're always falling into one of the extremes, right? We're either thinking that things exist more solidly, independently than they actually do, or we're negating, you know, it's less likely that we're negating something that actually exists. So either we're... Report an error in the passage at 57:20 Highlight the passage at 57:20

57:48 Believing that things exist, well Report an error in the passage at 57:48 Highlight the passage at 57:48

57:57 the words they use is we're superimposing a mode of existence that doesn't actually exist or we're deprecating something that actually does exist. Report an error in the passage at 57:57 Highlight the passage at 57:57

58:10 So either we're superimposing inherent existence or independent existence, subjective existence or we believe that if it doesn't exist that way then it can't exist at all. Report an error in the passage at 58:10 Highlight the passage at 58:10

58:28 So finding the middle way, so the Gishu Sonam Rinchen in his book, he says, finding the middle way is rather like walking on a path between an abyss and barbed wire. Report an error in the passage at 58:28 Highlight the passage at 58:28

58:41 If we step too far in the one direction to avoid the barbed wire, we plummet into the abyss of nihilism. If to avoid the danger, or this danger, we move too far to the other side, we get caught in the extreme of permanence or reification. Or into the barbed wire. So the Buddha showed us how to avoid these two extremes by following the middle way. So we're trying to walk this fine path of trying not to fall into either of the extremes. Report an error in the passage at 58:41 Highlight the passage at 58:41

59:15 But we are. We're always falling into them until we get the correct view. I see the word reification used a lot. I've been too lazy to look it up for years. Can you define reification? Okay. So reification, reifying. Report an error in the passage at 59:15 Highlight the passage at 59:15

59:35 Oh, if you'd like. Report an error in the passage at 59:35 Highlight the passage at 59:35

59:41 Re means thing. Reification is thingification. You make it, you treat it as a real thing. Is that right? Yeah, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 59:41 Highlight the passage at 59:41

59:57 Thank you. Thing. Report an error in the passage at 59:57 Highlight the passage at 59:57

1:00:05 Okay. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:05 Highlight the passage at 1:00:05

1:00:14 So then, in the same way, right, so form, we've only been analyzing form, right? So in the same way the other four aggregates. Feeling, discrimination, compositional factors and consciousness are empty. So in a way, form, that's what we experience all the time. That's kind of the easiest thing to realize the emptiness of. It's easy to see that, well I don't know about easy, but easier to realize that. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:14 Highlight the passage at 1:00:14

1:00:49 This cup is dependent on causes and conditions. It's dependent on parts. It's dependent on imputation. But then our feeling, a feeling of pleasure or a feeling of suffering, that feels really real. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:49 Highlight the passage at 1:00:49

1:01:07 It's pleasure from its own side. It's not just my mind imputing pleasure or pain. It is painful. It is painful. You know, wonderfully pleasurable. And based on having feelings, right, that's the basis of our attachment and aversion, right? A pleasant feeling arises, then we become attached. A suffering feeling arises, and we develop aversion. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:07 Highlight the passage at 1:01:07

1:01:37 And we do this like clockwork, right? This is kind of this instinctual reaction that we have, right? My mind feels really peaceful. Grasp, grasp. I want to keep that peaceful feeling. Or my mind feels really happy. I grasp onto that. I want to feel happy all the time. My mind feels depressed. Let's get as far away from that as we can. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:37 Highlight the passage at 1:01:37

1:02:06 We feel sad. We feel lonely. We feel whatever. And we develop aversion toward that. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:06 Highlight the passage at 1:02:06

1:02:22 Once again, even pleasurable and painful feelings are dependent on causes and conditions. They're dependent on karma, really. Pleasurable feelings are dependent on virtuous karma. Painful feelings are dependent on non-virtuous karma. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:22 Highlight the passage at 1:02:22

1:02:44 Feelings are dependent on parts. So that's kind of an interesting one, right? A pleasurable feeling seems to be this really solid... Report an error in the passage at 1:02:44 Highlight the passage at 1:02:44

1:02:54 One thing that doesn't seem to have parts. But if we analyze, if we really look at a feeling, we'll see that even a feeling has parts. Individual sensations. And then feelings are dependent on imputation. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:54 Highlight the passage at 1:02:54

1:03:15 So we have a sensation and then we label it either painful or pleasurable. It's not painful or pleasurable from its own side. Hard to believe, right? But they're not painful or pleasurable from their own side. So if we look for the pain, once again we go through the same analysis. We feel pain and then we search for it. See if we can find it. And the lack of would be the emptiness of the feeling. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:15 Highlight the passage at 1:03:15

1:04:03 Betty. One of the things I noticed, we're really relating to our own physical form here, you know, in terms of relationship to what's empty or what's not empty. You know, we really relate to the pain. We really relate to the cup. What happens in the formless realms? Do you still have the pain? I mean, if you don't have the body that creates all the chemicals that release to cause the pain to whatever, you know, that creates everything that we're experiencing in this physical form. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:03 Highlight the passage at 1:04:03

1:04:35 How can you have that in the formless realm? How can you see and understand emptiness in the formless realm? So far we've been talking about form, basically the form aggregate. But feelings, there are mental feelings, there are physical feelings and then there are mental feelings too. So physical pain and physical pleasure you don't experience in the formless realm. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:35 Highlight the passage at 1:04:35

1:04:59 But mental pain and mental pleasure. We still experience, right? So, well, actually in the formless realm, yeah, I mean, the pain you feel is very, very little, very subtle in the formless realm compared to what we experience. But there is, you know, mental pain and mental pleasure, right, or mental happiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:59 Highlight the passage at 1:04:59

1:05:29 And that's even worse than physical pain and pleasure, right? Well, physical pain is worse. I mean, mental pain tends to be even worse than physical pain. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:29 Highlight the passage at 1:05:29

1:05:41 Depression, etc. Anger, rage, all of that is even worse. So we can analyze those feelings, mental feelings as well as physical feelings, and try to find their inherent existence, Their existence from its own side. I guess I relate pain and pleasure so much to a physical form that I can't even imagine it in a non-physical form. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:41 Highlight the passage at 1:05:41

1:06:13 Even mental pain in our bodies here is a physical reaction. We create chemicals that are causing us to physically feel lousy. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:13 Highlight the passage at 1:06:13

1:06:24 The hypothalamus is doing its thing up there. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:24 Highlight the passage at 1:06:24

1:06:35 David. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:35 Highlight the passage at 1:06:35

1:06:39 Is it correct to put all the aggregates through those same four modes to say that feeling is empty, emptiness is feeling, emptiness is not other than feeling, or consciousness is empty, emptiness is consciousness, emptiness is not other than consciousness, consciousness is also not other than emptiness? Report an error in the passage at 1:06:39 Highlight the passage at 1:06:39

1:06:59 Exactly, exactly. And that's basically what this passage is doing, you know, in the same way. Feeling is emptiness. Emptiness is feeling. Emptiness is not other than feeling. Feeling is not other than emptiness. Same. Discrimination is empty. Emptiness is discrimination. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So these aggregates are progressively more subtle, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:06:59 Highlight the passage at 1:06:59

1:07:32 So feeling, we have a lot of experience with feelings too, right? But they're not quite as, you know, gross as form. And then discrimination. Discrimination, the mental factor that judges, discriminates between good and bad, right and wrong. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:32 Highlight the passage at 1:07:32

1:07:57 That's said to be the basis of arguments. Discrimination is the basis of arguments. And so our discriminations, even though we believe that we're right from its own side, We can analyze, once again, discrimination. We analyze and then the non-finding of that discrimination, once again, is the emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:57 Highlight the passage at 1:07:57

1:08:35 And then yet discrimination does exist conventionally as an appearance of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:35 Highlight the passage at 1:08:35

1:08:47 And then discrimination and the emptiness of discrimination, once again, are the same entity. And yet different isolates. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:47 Highlight the passage at 1:08:47

1:09:02 And then we can move to compositional factors. So other mental factors, such as anger is a compositional factor. Attachment is a compositional factor. Wisdom is a compositional factor. So each of those, same thing, they're empty, yet they exist conventionally. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:02 Highlight the passage at 1:09:02

1:09:26 And each of those mental factors and the emptiness of that mental factor are the same entity. Different isolates. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:26 Highlight the passage at 1:09:26

1:09:39 And then consciousness, same thing. So the five sense consciousnesses, the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body consciousnesses, and the mental consciousness, once again. They're empty, yet exist as appearances of emptiness. Same entity, different isolates. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:39 Highlight the passage at 1:09:39

1:10:07 Do you want to spend any more time on any of these? Are we okay? Report an error in the passage at 1:10:07 Highlight the passage at 1:10:07

1:10:31 I have to correct what I said about... Rayification, I think ray means matter, like in ray, in the matter of, so it's matterification. It's treating, thing might have been better, I don't know. Yeah, reifying, reifying. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:31 Highlight the passage at 1:10:31

1:10:56 Yeah, yeah, I don't, okay. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:56 Highlight the passage at 1:10:56

1:11:03 Yeah, I don't, yeah, I don't know the etymology of that. But basically, it does mean, right, we're reifying or reinforcing a mode of existence that doesn't actually exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:03 Highlight the passage at 1:11:03

1:11:22 Oh, you did? Great. Okay. Even better. Essentially, it means it's the error of treating as a real thing something which is not. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:22 Highlight the passage at 1:11:22

1:11:34 Excellent. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:34 Highlight the passage at 1:11:34

1:11:41 Ah, the glories of the Internet. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:41 Highlight the passage at 1:11:41

1:11:51 Uh-huh. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:51 Highlight the passage at 1:11:51

1:11:54 That's what you're doing, typing. Looks like you're taking notes. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:54 Highlight the passage at 1:11:54

1:12:02 Okay. Betty, did you have a question? Yeah, I just got through, well, it's been a while since I read the introduction to Enlightened Beings by Jan Willis. And in there were some... Things that kind of blew my mind in terms of what the cities are capable of accomplishing. And one of the things that they're capable of accomplishing is walking through walls. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:02 Highlight the passage at 1:12:02

1:12:27 And this is saying something to me on the quantum physics level of things, is that maybe they're able to, just like a question I had asked you a long time ago, what they're able to perceive and what they're able to not perceive. When you get really to that place of understanding emptiness, truly understanding it, realizing it, Report an error in the passage at 1:12:27 Highlight the passage at 1:12:27

1:12:47 Walking through walls. You know, that's a heavy duty concept. Heavy duty. Let go of it. No big deal. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:47 Highlight the passage at 1:12:47

1:13:08 Yeah, Report an error in the passage at 1:13:08 Highlight the passage at 1:13:08

1:13:12 you don't even have to realize emptiness to walk through walls, actually. Concentration. I think calm abiding are the first concentration you can walk through walls. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:12 Highlight the passage at 1:13:12

1:13:23 So it really calls into question how we see things, right? Yeah, that's elementary school. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:23 Highlight the passage at 1:13:23

1:13:33 No, I'm just kidding. No, there's a book, I think now it's called Calm, Abiding, and Special Insight by Jeffrey Hopkins. But before it was called Calm, Abiding, and Special Insight, it was published as Walking Through Walls. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:33 Highlight the passage at 1:13:33

1:13:57 And then you can learn how to do that. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:57 Highlight the passage at 1:13:57

1:14:05 No, Report an error in the passage at 1:14:05 Highlight the passage at 1:14:05

1:14:10 I mean, there's also this story. I mean, speaking of emptiness, realizing emptiness, there's a story of Chandrakirti, right? Chandrakirti was one of the great clarifiers of emptiness. There's a story of him milking a picture of a cow. Right. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:10 Highlight the passage at 1:14:10

1:14:04 That's right. y 'all. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:04 Highlight the passage at 1:14:04

1:14:12 worry. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:12 Highlight the passage at 1:14:12

1:14:31 Yeah, so what we see is not the way things exist. That one's really hard to understand. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:31 Highlight the passage at 1:14:31

1:14:44 Yeah, how do you milk the picture of a cow? Report an error in the passage at 1:14:44 Highlight the passage at 1:14:44

1:15:01 I think that's what they said when Jesus was asked how did he turn the stone into bread. He said, I didn't reach out and picked up a stone. I reached out and picked up bread. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:01 Highlight the passage at 1:15:01

1:15:21 So he wasn't milking the picture. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:21 Highlight the passage at 1:15:21

1:15:26 It just appeared that way. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:26 Highlight the passage at 1:15:26

1:15:36 Okay. I think we're digressing a little bit too much. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:36 Highlight the passage at 1:15:36

1:15:53 So, right, so we talked about, right, the five aggregates, right, the four modes of emptiness with respect to the five aggregates. And so it's the same with the self, right? The self is empty of inherent existence. It doesn't exist ultimately. It doesn't exist from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:53 Highlight the passage at 1:15:53

1:16:10 But the self does exist conventionally as a manifestation of emptiness or as an appearance of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:10 Highlight the passage at 1:16:10

1:16:24 And then the self and the emptiness of the self are the same entity and different isolates. So sometimes we think, oh, the self doesn't exist. But there is a self that does exist. The merely imputed self does exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:24 Highlight the passage at 1:16:24

1:16:52 Merely imputed on an ever-changing body and mind. That self exists. The self that we believe exists, that self-image that we have, that we hang on to, that doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:52 Highlight the passage at 1:16:52

1:17:11 The smart person, the competent person, the funny person, existing from its own side. Those are just merely imputed. Those are just dependent on... Report an error in the passage at 1:17:11 Highlight the passage at 1:17:11

1:17:30 Causes and conditions. So everything that we believe about ourselves that is some kind of unchanging characteristic of ourselves is just arising due to causes and conditions. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:30 Highlight the passage at 1:17:30

1:17:45 So let's say that I think that I am a competent person. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:45 Highlight the passage at 1:17:45

1:18:00 We think this is some unchanging characteristic of myself. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:00 Highlight the passage at 1:18:00

1:18:09 You know, it's impermanent. It's arising through causes and conditions. Sometimes, actually, I'm a competent person and sometimes I screw up, right? So I'm not a competent person, you know, from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:09 Highlight the passage at 1:18:09

1:18:25 It's just due to our karma, you know, maybe we're good at something in this life. But when that karma shifts, we're not going to be good at it anymore. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:25 Highlight the passage at 1:18:25

1:18:40 It's also dependent on parts, right? What is competence? Report an error in the passage at 1:18:40 Highlight the passage at 1:18:40

1:18:52 That's really not something so objective, right? It's something that we're just labeling to some skill that we have. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:52 Highlight the passage at 1:18:52

1:19:18 So there's no such thing as some unchanging characteristic of ourselves or Report an error in the passage at 1:19:18 Highlight the passage at 1:19:18

1:19:30 our personality we tend to hang on to. This is the way that I am, right? I'm an outgoing person or I'm a kind person or I'm a funny person. Those are just arising. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:30 Highlight the passage at 1:19:30

1:19:44 Due to causes and conditions, due to parts, and then due to imputation. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:44 Highlight the passage at 1:19:44

1:20:19 Have people found the object of negation of the self or have started to find an object of negation of the self? Have kind of an idea of what that object of negation looks like. Any Report an error in the passage at 1:20:19 Highlight the passage at 1:20:19

1:20:45 questions or comments on the object of negation? Report an error in the passage at 1:20:45 Highlight the passage at 1:20:45

1:20:54 Very slippery. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:54 Highlight the passage at 1:20:54

1:21:04 Yeah, it's real slippery. And I was thinking, looking at this list, how it's very difficult for me to separate the self that's conventionally there and the one I think of. In fact, the only way I can even halfway imagine what a conventional self would be like without grasping at an inherently existent self is thinking of a few of the high Lamas that I've seen. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:04 Highlight the passage at 1:21:04

1:21:40 That's the only way I can even vaguely, because when it comes to me, I can't. It's really hard to separate them. I mean, yeah, my focus goes out. You know, sometimes I can a little bit, but they're so married to each other that I can't. No, I mean, exactly. I mean, that's true for all of us, right? Because the self, I mean, everything that's ever appeared to us has appeared inseparably with. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:40 Highlight the passage at 1:21:40

1:22:09 The object of negation, right? Inherent existence. So we can't even imagine what it would be like for it to not be inherently existent, right? It's a real stretch. So we just, we do our best. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:09 Highlight the passage at 1:22:09

1:22:31 For me, I don't know if I'm, to begin to think of myself and always, I've always, it's always been a problem where some people will find me attractive. And other people won't. Some people say I'm intelligent and other people won't. And that just has to be in terms of my thinking about it because I don't exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:31 Highlight the passage at 1:22:31

1:22:51 I don't really have an existence. People just impute that existence on me. Some people might find me attractive. Some people don't. I mean, something's there, but it's really nothing. And so to follow that down further and further, I try to just understand that really I don't exist. There really isn't anything there. All there is is, there is something there, but it's really no more than what people impute on it. And then trying to take it down one step further, there really is nothing there. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:51 Highlight the passage at 1:22:51

1:23:23 Inherently, I don't exist. As I. I'm just a... Well, I mean, but you do exist, but you don't exist the way you think you exist. Well, I don't know how I exist, and I exist as other people impute. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:23 Highlight the passage at 1:23:23

1:23:42 My existence onto me and the I that I have exists my own imputation onto myself. It must be just kind of like a stream of water going forever. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:42 Highlight the passage at 1:23:42

1:23:57 And people form it somehow and I form it through countless lives. That's how I don't know. It's hard for me. Yeah, so it's tricky, right? yeah yeah it's Report an error in the passage at 1:23:57 Highlight the passage at 1:23:57

1:24:13 To separate what people are imputing on top, right? From, how should I say this? Report an error in the passage at 1:24:13 Highlight the passage at 1:24:13

1:24:28 We tend to think that Keith exists out there, right? Here I'm using out there again. From his own side, right? From your own side, Keith is intelligent or Keith is attractive or unattractive or whatever, right? So from your own side, you don't exist that way at all. No. So we can impute specific characteristics onto Keith. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:28 Highlight the passage at 1:24:28

1:24:58 But from your own side, you don't exist. And then it's a very tricky thing to say, okay, well, what does exist conventionally? We could say Keith exists conventionally. But can we say intelligent Keith exists conventionally? That's really hard to say, you know. When we really started examining, I mean, I... Report an error in the passage at 1:24:58 Highlight the passage at 1:24:58

1:25:20 Opening up a huge can of worms, but when we start examining what does exist conventionally, what does exist according to worldly convention, it's hard to really say. Can you say an intelligent person exists conventionally? Report an error in the passage at 1:25:20 Highlight the passage at 1:25:20

1:25:41 I mean, is there a common agreement, right? If some people think that you're intelligent and other people don't think you're intelligent, who's right? Report an error in the passage at 1:25:41 Highlight the passage at 1:25:41

1:26:01 Why didn't I think of that? Report an error in the passage at 1:26:01 Highlight the passage at 1:26:01

1:26:09 One more trippy thing is where I work, we allow men to become women if they want. So I can witness, I've always thought of myself as a man, but that's just an imputation because I can see men changing to women. Okay, that's different though, Keith. That's different because we're not... Because there is a convention for what a man is and what a woman is. If I just want to call you a woman, that doesn't make you a woman conventionally. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:09 Highlight the passage at 1:26:09

1:26:44 Just imputing something does not make it so. It has to be in accordance with, for something to exist conventionally, it has to be in accordance with worldly convention. And it has to be... Posited by a valid cognizer. So we have in our culture a definition of what a man is and what a woman is. And if you don't meet that definition, then conventionally you're not that. So if I just want to call you a woman but you don't meet the definition of a woman, then even though I've imputed woman, that doesn't make you a woman. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:44 Highlight the passage at 1:26:44

1:27:28 That's what's trippy because on a prison yard there's a little world. And so what's conventional in one place may not be conventional in another place. Yeah. That's what's really trippy. That's what's really trippy about it. We define our own saṃsāra yards and then we impute what's conventional. But really that's all we've done is define saṃsāra. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:28 Highlight the passage at 1:27:28

1:27:58 It's kind of scary for me anyway. A convention is just a convention in a given place in a given time. There's nothing more substantial than that. So that kind of proves emptiness, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:27:58 Highlight the passage at 1:27:58

1:28:21 I was Report an error in the passage at 1:28:21 Highlight the passage at 1:28:21

1:28:26 just going to say to kind of back that up, if you look at what was conventional in the 18th century, It's totally different than right now, the way people dress, the way they spoke, what they ate. And you can see emptiness in action just by going through historical periods and seeing how much things shift. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:26 Highlight the passage at 1:28:26

1:28:42 And the paradigm just keeps changing from century to century. And even just going across the world to another country, right? The conventions are very different. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:42 Highlight the passage at 1:28:42

1:28:53 And also, His Holiness, though, obviously the Dharma is a very important thing, would probably, may, I'm not sure, but I suspect he's probably a really incompetent basketball player, you know what I mean? So there you go. I mean, like, we can say that we think of His Holiness as a very competent person, but somebody who takes basketball very seriously and then chose him for their team would be like, this guy sucks, you know what I mean? Report an error in the passage at 1:28:53 Highlight the passage at 1:28:53

1:29:13 You know what I mean? He's totally incompetent, you know? Because that's what matters is basketball. Right. Of course, I don't know, maybe he's really good at basketball. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:13 Highlight the passage at 1:29:13

1:29:25 Yeah, exactly. Competence is only relative to a particular, what you're thinking about, right? Maybe very competent at studying the Dharma and very incompetent at fixing a car, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:29:25 Highlight the passage at 1:29:25

1:29:47 I think that's enough for one night. I think we covered a lot tonight. So we're going to cover a lot more next week and then the week after. Okay. So we'll dedicate. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:47 Highlight the passage at 1:29:47

1:30:07 Age six. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:07 Highlight the passage at 1:30:07

1:30:16 Through the merits of these virtuous actions, may I quickly attain the state of a guru Buddha and lead all living beings without exception into that enlightened state. May the supreme jewel bodhicitta that has not arisen arise and grow and may that which has arisen not diminish but increase more and more in the land encircled by snow mountains. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:16 Highlight the passage at 1:30:16

1:30:42 You are the source of all happiness and good. All-powerful Chenrezig, Tenzin Gyatso, please remain until saṃsāra ends. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:42 Highlight the passage at 1:30:42