Automated transcript, estimated accuracy about 90% for this source; report an error.
Words the recogniser was unsure of are underlined with dots. Use “Report an error” beside any passage to tell us what the teacher actually says.
Key passages
The teacher's own words, quoted from the transcript below and chosen automatically as representative.
- 0:21
So, just a reminder, as we said in the meditation, that the cause of all our problems, as the root, right, the self-grasping ignorance, misconceiving the nature of the self, the nature of reality, and particularly the nature of the self, And then cherishing that self as being more important than others. So all of our afflictions arise from these two, all of our anger, attachment, etc.
- 1:34
And then of the two inner enemies, the ignorance is overcome by ultimate bodhicitta and self-cherishing is overcome by conventional bodhicitta. So this is one of the main points of this entire text. So we've talked a lot about the self-cherishing and now we're covering the self-resting ignorance.
- 3:36
So now hear this. Everything is dependently co-arisen. Being dependently co-arisen, they are not independent. Okay, so everything is dependently co-arisen or a dependent arising.
- 15:56
So, I mean, there's different levels of subtlety of understanding selflessness, and according to, actually, all of the schools... The self doesn't exist as a self sufficient, substantially existing entity. And what that means is that there isn't a self that's a controller, like a boss. So if we think about it, we think that there's this self that kind of owns the body and the mind.
- 29:32
So we can say the cup exists conventionally. There is a cup in my hand. It functions like a drink out of it. but as soon as you and so
Transcript
0:00 Okay, so you may notice that I didn't send out any of these slides, because we're just going to continue with the one from last week, because we didn't get very far. Report an error in the passage at 0:00
0:21 So, just a reminder, as we said in the meditation, that the cause of all our problems, as the root, right, the self-grasping ignorance, misconceiving the nature of the self, the nature of reality, and particularly the nature of the self, And then cherishing that self as being more important than others. So all of our afflictions arise from these two, all of our anger, attachment, etc. Report an error in the passage at 0:21
0:52 And then all of the other suffering that we have, the conflicts that we have, all of the illness and difficulties we have in our lives. Report an error in the passage at 0:52
1:11 Okay, and then happiness comes from cherishing others. And you can see that with the Lama and the Bodhisattvas who are focused on cherishing others. Report an error in the passage at 1:11
1:34 And then of the two inner enemies, the ignorance is overcome by ultimate bodhicitta and self-cherishing is overcome by conventional bodhicitta. Report an error in the passage at 1:34
1:46 So this is one of the main points of this entire text. So we've talked a lot about the self-cherishing and now we're covering the self-resting ignorance. Report an error in the passage at 1:46
2:13 I asked you this last week, but see if you still remember, what is conventional bodhicitta? You can tell me. Yeah, I know. But it sounds very well. Report an error in the passage at 2:13
2:32 Because this is such an important point, you know, to understand what conventional bodhicitta and ultimate bodhicitta are, because those are, ultimately, those are the two things that we're trying to cultivate. Report an error in the passage at 2:32
2:46 Conventional bodhicitta is the... Report an error in the passage at 2:46
3:06 kind of evaporating. Report an error in the passage at 3:06
3:12 And then the ultimate bodhicitta is left. Report an error in the passage at 3:12
3:19 So Report an error in the passage at 3:19
3:26 we'll continue with verse 104 and hopefully we'll get through it. We've been on it for three weeks. Report an error in the passage at 3:26
3:36 So now hear this. Everything is dependently co-arisen. Being dependently co-arisen, they are not independent. Okay, so everything is dependently co-arisen or a dependent arising. And who can tell me the three levels of dependent arising? Report an error in the passage at 3:36
4:08 So which Report an error in the passage at 4:08
4:26 one's the highest view? Report an error in the passage at 4:26
4:38 So Report an error in the passage at 4:38
4:48 we've gone through the first two lines. mean, you know, something really, really good. Report an error in the passage at 4:48
4:54 So changing this way in that there are false appearances and illusions. So we've talked in the past about how everything that appears to us as ordinary beings appears mistakenly. Everything will go back to the mundane cup. So this appears to be a cup from its own side, casting its appearance to you. It appears as... Report an error in the passage at 4:54
5:30 One thing, and it appears not to be, well it appears as one solid thing, right? It doesn't appear to be consisting of a lot of different atoms. Report an error in the passage at 5:30
5:50 It doesn't appear as if it's changing from moment to moment. And it doesn't appear to be dependent on the causes and conditions, right? We can't see that it was made by a machine. machine made from Report an error in the passage at 5:50
6:16 materials. Report an error in the passage at 6:16
6:19 So it doesn't look like the earth is in here. Report an error in the passage at 6:19
6:26 So there are false appearances and illusions. So changing this way and that. So all objects of our senses, everything that we see, hear, taste, touch, are all changing from moment to moment. Report an error in the passage at 6:26
6:52 And they can change because they don't exist from their own side. If they existed from their own side, they wouldn't be able to change. But because they don't exist from their own side, they can change. So the impure can become pure. People can have Report an error in the passage at 6:52
7:15 afflictions. We can eliminate our afflictions. We can be happy at one time. We can be sad at another time. We can be intelligent at one time and really stupid at another time. Report an error in the passage at 7:15
7:37 So everything that we see is a false appearance. It's a mistaken appearance. Report an error in the passage at 7:37
7:45 And we've talked previously how everything appears to exist from its own side, and then our conceptual mind believes in that appearance. Report an error in the passage at 7:45
7:58 So for someone who has directly realized emptiness, things still appear to exist from their own side. Well, if you're not a Buddha, a non-Buddha, who has directly realized emptiness, things still appear. As if they're inherently existing or existing from their own side. But the arias, arias who have directly realized that they no longer believe in that appearance. Report an error in the passage at 7:58
8:31 And it's like, actually we'll talk about this in a future verse, but like a reflection in the mirror. Like we look at ourselves in the mirror and it looks as if we're in the mirror, right? That's the way it looks. But we know that... We know better, right? We know that that's just a reflection. And that's similar to the way the arias are. Everything appears a certain way. Report an error in the passage at 8:31
8:58 It appears to be inherently existing. But they don't believe in it. Report an error in the passage at 8:58
9:06 There are images that appear like a whirling firebrand. So a whirling firebrand, I think we've talked about that in a previous class, and it's like a ball of fire at the end of a string or rope or something that you twirl in. And it looks like it's a ball of fire, or like a circle of fire. Report an error in the passage at 9:06
9:26 And that's like everything that appears to us. It appears, the whirling firebrand appears as a circle of fire because it's swinging around so fast that it appears to be one of the things. Report an error in the passage at 9:26
9:46 And similarly with everything that we see, it's changing from moment to moment, it's constantly changing, but we can't see that even Report an error in the passage at 9:46
10:00 at such a subtle level that we can't see. Report an error in the passage at 10:00
10:19 And it's always helpful for me to just think in terms of atoms, a bunch of atoms. We know that when it's scientifically. Report an error in the passage at 10:19
10:31 So we don't have to just take the Buddha's word for it. Report an error in the passage at 10:31
10:36 We know as soon as we put it under a microscope that it looks hilarious. Report an error in the passage at 10:36
10:58 Oh, okay. And so another thing is, if we look at the cup, it looks as if there's a cup kind of covering this whole area. Report an error in the passage at 10:58
11:13 You know, in fact, it's a bunch of atoms, it's over and actually smaller particles, but it appears as if there's something covered into this. Report an error in the passage at 11:13
11:27 This is one thing, like a spread, like a peanut butter, spread across here, like a cup across this area. It Report an error in the passage at 11:27
11:42 doesn't exist out here. It appears as if there's a cup covered in this area, but cup! And if we go back to the exercise of noticing how it appears as if there's a cup out here projecting its image, then Report an error in the passage at 11:42
12:07 if you refocus on some detail of the cup, Report an error in the passage at 12:07
12:17 it disappears. Report an error in the passage at 12:17
12:33 Because cup wasn't really imputed by our mind. There were some shapes and colors that appeared. Then our conceptual mind imputed cup, and then it appears back to us as a cup. Report an error in the passage at 12:33
12:53 it happens so quickly that we don't even notice it. Report an error in the passage at 12:53
13:25 Like the plantain tree, life has no inner core. Like a bubble, a lifetime has no inner core. Like a mist, it dissipates upon close examination. Like a mirage, it is beautiful from afar. Like a reflection in a mirror, it seems as if it were really true. Report an error in the passage at 13:25
13:49 Like clouds and fog, it seems if it were really stable. So like the plantain tree, life has no inner core. So a plantain tree is a tree that grows in the water, apparently. Report an error in the passage at 13:49
14:10 And so this tree grows in water and it's hollow inside. So it looks as if it's really solid, but in fact it doesn't take much for it to keel over. Report an error in the passage at 14:10
14:35 It's easily breakable. Similarly, our lives, our lives, we tend to think of them as being quite strong and solid. We think that we're going to live for a long time. But in fact, our life is pretty fragile and we could die at any rate. We Report an error in the passage at 14:35
15:11 can also take life in this context to mean the self, the self-identity, or the person, or the I. Report an error in the passage at 15:11
15:33 So, I mean, we've talked about this before, about how the self seems to be, you know, some solid thing existing here, not dependent on causes and conditions, etc., when the self doesn't actually exist that way. Report an error in the passage at 15:33
15:56 So, I mean, there's different levels of subtlety of understanding selflessness, and according to, actually, all of the schools... Report an error in the passage at 15:56
16:12 The self doesn't exist as a self sufficient, substantially existing entity. And what that means is that there isn't a self that's a controller, like a boss. Report an error in the passage at 16:12
16:32 So if we think about it, we think that there's this self that kind of owns the body and the mind. It kind of directs the body and mind. I have this body, I have this mind, and it seems as if there's this self that exists first, and then it has a body and it has a mind. Report an error in the passage at 16:32
16:59 So first there's a self, and then there's a body. Report an error in the passage at 16:59
17:09 But then, if we think about it, we take away the body and we take away the mind. What is this self? Report an error in the passage at 17:09
17:21 So this Report an error in the passage at 17:21
17:25 controller is the self-sufficient self. And it doesn't actually exist. Report an error in the passage at 17:25
17:37 And the self-sufficient self is something that applies to beings, Report an error in the passage at 17:37
17:47 persons, and it doesn't apply to things like, we don't tend to think that there's a cup first that controls its parts. Report an error in the passage at 17:47
18:02 So His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said in the past, in general when you're trying to understand emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 18:02
18:16 When we're trying to understand emptiness, we're trying to identify the object of negation. And if we want to check to see if our object of negation is subtle enough, we can see if that object of negation applies to all phenomena. The self-sufficient self, that controller, only applies to people, beings, animals, etc. Something that's kind of directing the show. Report an error in the passage at 18:16
18:46 We think there's a self. It's kind of directing the show, directing the mind, directing the body. But then if we turn that idea onto, or that object invasion onto other phenomena, it wouldn't apply. Report an error in the passage at 18:46
19:07 And Report an error in the passage at 19:07
19:10 we'll get into this a lot more in future subjects, into heart suture and penance as well. Report an error in the passage at 19:10
19:25 Is that controller that doesn't exist the same thing? It's meant by free will. Report an error in the passage at 19:25
19:38 Well, is it kind of to assert that free will doesn't exist? Is that kind of included in there? If there's no controller inside the self, would that mean there was no... Well, I had a philosophy teacher once who said that to talk about the free will, having free will is meaningless, so I don't know, maybe that's the answer. I think it's the same. Report an error in the passage at 19:38
20:01 I think those are different. I mean, they're self-sufficient. Substantialism itself or this controller definitely does not exist. But in the Dharma, Report an error in the passage at 20:01
20:17 my interpretation of the Dharma, let's say my interpretation of the Dharma, is that we do have free will. We do have choices. Report an error in the passage at 20:17
20:28 We are subject to our karma, but then we can choose to either create causes for happiness in the future or suffering in the future. So in that sense we have free will. Report an error in the passage at 20:28
20:43 So I would say that those are very different things. Report an error in the passage at 20:43
20:53 I'm trying to think about it, but it would seem that where we lack inherent existence, as identified by our inability to control the applied algorithms. Report an error in the passage at 20:53
21:07 I'm just thinking about that. Because we really can't control our form. I don't know that we really have these. I think it sort of indicates that we can't be inherent in existence if we don't control them. Just like the cup can't be inherent in existence. because it has to be controlling the experts. We don't know if you're controlling our experts. Report an error in the passage at 21:07
21:30 thinking about that. Report an error in the passage at 21:30
21:33 lack a certain element of ultimate control over all our aggregates. That's a very separate point from it. Report an error in the passage at 21:33
21:51 So when I was talking about the control, with regard to the substantially existent self, so the substantially existent self is a grosser level of self than the inherently existent self. So the substantially existing self, all of the Buddhist schools say there is no substantially existing self, in the sense that there isn't this controller or director, maybe, you can say, you know, this directing. Report an error in the passage at 21:51
22:25 And then the inherently existing self is something more subtle. So we can all kind of see that there's nothing in Report an error in the passage at 22:25
22:39 a supervisor or director. But then we generally think, well, but there is... There's a person sitting on this cushion that's not just imputed by the mind, but there's something. Report an error in the passage at 22:39
23:07 There's a findable person. Report an error in the passage at 23:07
23:14 There's something from the side of this thing, whatever it is, that makes it valid to call it a person. There's something from the side of the object that makes it valid to call it that. There's something from the side of this cup suit that makes it valid to call it a cup. Report an error in the passage at 23:14
23:34 That's what we think, right? That's what we tend to think. Because we can't call it a radio. We can't call it a refrigerator. Because there must be something from the side of this thing that makes it a cup. Then we're getting closer to the object integration. Report an error in the passage at 23:34
23:55 There must be something. Well, there isn't. There's nothing from the side of the energy. Report an error in the passage at 23:55
24:05 There's nothing from the side of this person that makes me Emily or person. Report an error in the passage at 24:05
24:20 And when your point about... Not being able to control. I think it's a very separate thing. Report an error in the passage at 24:20
24:34 I mean, on some level we are able to, depending on our level of practice, we are able to control the minds. Report an error in the passage at 24:34
24:44 And as we progress along the path, we're able to control. But that doesn't mean that we become any less inherently existent. Report an error in the passage at 24:44
24:56 And Buddhas can completely control their minds, but they're also not even existent. So those are two separate points. Report an error in the passage at 24:56
25:08 Did I understand your question? Report an error in the passage at 25:08
25:14 don't think I'm thinking about it. It would seem that Report an error in the passage at 25:14
25:21 no control of the parts. I do think Report an error in the passage at 25:21
25:32 that there is an issue that we believe that we're inheriting the existence because we think we can control our aggregates and I don't think that we can. Report an error in the passage at 25:32
25:46 they too are confused, you know, Christians. Can I add something to that? Report an error in the passage at 25:46
25:53 It seems to me that a Buddha is able to control his mind and his aggregates and his parts, or however you want to put it, because he knows they're not inherently existing. It seems to me that that's one of the key things there. So it's almost the exact opposite of what you're saying, I think. But that's why a Buddha is able to control. Report an error in the passage at 25:53
26:16 his mind so well or so I would guess. You know what I mean? That seems to me some very simple way of saying it. Simply because he has learned the nature of those things. Report an error in the passage at 26:16
26:43 The next line, like a bubble, a lifetime has no inner core. So this is similar to it. So a bubble is so fragile it can burst at any moment. Report an error in the passage at 26:43
26:56 Not only our lives are like that, our lives are so fragile they can end at any moment. there's this non-green how things will keep us alive. Report an error in the passage at 26:56
27:13 few and the things that kill us are many. Report an error in the passage at 27:13
27:28 Then Report an error in the passage at 27:28
27:40 like a mist, it dissipates upon close examination. So if we think about mist, so if we're looking at mist from a distance, it looks like something hot solid. It's a heavy, big thing. But when we get close to it, it seems to just kind of be insubstantial. We can see it's just like water droplets. And that's exactly like, this looks to be some solidly existing thing. Report an error in the passage at 27:40
28:18 And as soon as we start to examine it, as soon as we start to search for the cup, then it disappears. Report an error in the passage at 28:18
28:39 So if you search for the hand, that is just the cup. Report an error in the passage at 28:39
28:51 So Report an error in the passage at 28:51
29:03 if it really inherently existed, if it existed the way it appeared, the more we searched for it, the more clear it would become. But since it doesn't exist, the more we search for it, the more we realize it. Report an error in the passage at 29:03
29:32 So we can say the cup exists conventionally. There is a cup in my hand. It functions like a drink out of it. but as soon as you and so We can posit a cup conventionally without analyzing, without analysis. But as soon as we analyze, we discover that the cup doesn't inherently. Okay, Report an error in the passage at 29:32
30:02 Jay. Well, I was just going to make an observation about my own life. My father-in-law is visiting and he's 80 and he's the greatest guy. He's so sweet and really nice and everything. But he's starting to look kind of tired and everything. You know, he's 80 and so there's this whole new experience I'm having of him. Report an error in the passage at 30:02
30:20 but it seems to me that, um, it's, uh, As I read this and I think about how life has no inner core and I could lose my own life so quick, but even my concept of my life, it seems to me, is fixed on various people and beings being there, fixed in this place. Like my father-in-law, that's somehow some aspect of my life. And it dawns on me that he is going to die at some point. But my point is that I have a real fixed idea about that. Report an error in the passage at 30:20
30:50 Like that's sort of the scenery of my life. And yet it's such a weird illusion that it seems to me that I have about all of the fixed people and events and all of the things that I sort of count on being there. Or not even count on being there, I don't mean that. It's different than that. It's just that they seem to make up what I consider to be the scenery of my life and I never seem to consider them. Report an error in the passage at 30:50
31:09 That when they go, this whole concept of life I have will be just gone. It's just like this weird framework I've created in my mind of the things I need. So it's just, I don't know, it's just very interesting to think about that. Report an error in the passage at 31:09
31:24 everybody feel cheery there. Since Report an error in the passage at 31:24
31:42 we've been talking about the cup and trying to deconstruct the whole thing, why can't you just say the cup depends on its parts? Without the parts, there's no cup. Report an error in the passage at 31:42
31:53 Wouldn't that be, you know, either simpler or more direct analysis of that? Well, you can't say that there's a, right, the cup depends on its parts, right? That's true, right? That's the second level of dependent horizon. So we can say that. Report an error in the passage at 31:53
32:14 I guess my other question too, why do we speak of levels? Well, there's different levels of subtlety of dependent arising and understanding emptiness. Because that's the way our minds work. I mean, our minds are so habituated to ignorance, so habituated to believing in these false appearances. Report an error in the passage at 32:14
32:38 You know, we've believed in that since beginning this time. And we base our whole reality on it. We base all of our assumptions, all of our judgments, all of our likes, dislikes, everything, on that. And so then we have to chip away at it kind of gradually and slowly. And so there's these four main schools of tenets, philosophical tenets. Report an error in the passage at 32:38
33:13 And oftentimes people say, well, let's just jump to the highest level. Why do I have to learn on the lower levels? But the reason is because each of these levels of tenets are chipping away at things that we actually believe. And so gradually, it's hard to jump to the subtlest level. Most of us need to go at it gradually. Report an error in the passage at 33:13
33:42 So we can all... Understand to some level that things are dependent on causes and conditions. That things are dependent on parts. And maybe even dependent on imputation to some level. But then our minds still really believe that that guy is really annoying from his own side. It doesn't matter if he's dependent on his body. Report an error in the passage at 33:42
34:12 It doesn't matter if he's dependent on his mind. He's still annoying from his own side. And that's the way our minds work. And the lower schools, some of the lower schools would agree with dependent arising. And the lower schools would say, oh yeah, things are dependent on their causes and conditions, for example. Report an error in the passage at 34:12
34:33 And that proves that things are inherently existent. So they're taking the same reasoning and coming up with the opposite conclusion. Report an error in the passage at 34:33
34:44 So that's why we need to... to meet you. Report an error in the passage at 34:44
34:47 Actually, when we study emptiness, we need to look at it from a lot of different angles. We may kind of understand it from one angle, but our ignorance is so kind of tricky and so like hidden in a lot of different ways. And so it pops up again and again. We can understand intellectually again and again, but as soon as somebody insults me, you know, I'll get a bit. Report an error in the passage at 34:47
35:18 it. Report an error in the passage at 35:18
35:21 So that means I haven't really understood emptiness yet. Report an error in the passage at 35:21
35:35 Like a mirage, it is beautiful from afar. So a mirage, like if we're in the desert and we see a mirage of water. So that image of water is the coming together of different conditions, like the sand and the reflection of the sun off of the sand. So it's just an image that we see. Dependent on the coming together of some conditions. And it's the same thing with Report an error in the passage at 35:35
36:10 just as arriving from a combination of causes and conditions. Report an error in the passage at 36:10
36:21 So do we believe that? Is this just an image? There's a solid cup in my hand, right? Report an error in the passage at 36:21
36:33 It's just an appearance. Report an error in the passage at 36:33
36:56 And then it says it's beautiful from afar. So when we think of things as being beautiful or ugly, we think that they're beautiful from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 36:56
37:08 The ocean is beautiful. San Francisco is a beautiful city from its own side. It's not just my mind. Tibet, a beautiful country from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 37:08
37:23 But beauty is so subjective, right? Nothing's beautiful from its own side. We see some shapes and we see some colors. We hear some sounds and then we impute beauty. Yeah, and due to our karma, we find it pleasant or unpleasant. And then we think, oh yeah, that's beautiful. That food, that restaurant has really good food. And if you don't think their food is good, then there's something wrong with you. Report an error in the passage at 37:23
37:59 That's the way we think, right? You know, this is a great artist. His paintings are so amazing. And if you don't think so, then you don't have any taste. Report an error in the passage at 37:59
38:12 Because they must be beautiful from their own thoughts. Report an error in the passage at 38:12
38:20 But they're not, right? They're a complete, beauty is completely the subject. Report an error in the passage at 38:20
38:31 And like a reflection in a mirror, It seems as if it were really true. Okay, so we already talked about that, how you look at your reflection in the mirror and it seems as if you are in the mirror. And Report an error in the passage at 38:31
38:51 similarly, but it's not really true, right? And similarly, the cup, it seems like there's a cup out here, but Report an error in the passage at 38:51
39:02 there's not. Report an error in the passage at 39:02
39:14 And like clouds and fog, it seems if it were really stable. So clouds and fog, you know, if we just look at them, they look, Quite solid, as if they were going to be around for a while. But our minds, you know, we know better, because we see the clouds, we Report an error in the passage at 39:14
39:42 see the fog coming. Report an error in the passage at 39:42
39:46 And similarly, like this cup seems like it's really stable, it's really there, or the person, you know, really here. Report an error in the passage at 39:46
40:15 Well, you can say a life, or you can say the self, the person. Report an error in the passage at 40:15
40:24 And in this text, I mean, in this... The text is specifically talking about the self-grasping ignorance, right? So it would be the self. So we could say, like clouds and fog, the self seems as if we were really stable. Report an error in the passage at 40:24
40:47 I mean, the first two lines of this verse are talking specifically about light, but I think more relevantly, it's referring, this whole verse is referring to the self. Report an error in the passage at 40:47
41:01 That's what we're really grasping onto, solidly. Report an error in the passage at 41:01
41:10 So, you know, most of us would say that the self that existed last Friday during class is the same self as today. Is the body the same as it was last week? It could Report an error in the passage at 41:10
41:33 be fatter or thinner or further or older. More good skin. More good skin. Report an error in the passage at 41:33
41:46 More gray hair. More new skin. Moods are like weather. So our bodies are definitely, our minds are constantly tired and frustrated. Report an error in the passage at 41:46
42:16 So the body is different and the mind is different. Report an error in the passage at 42:16
42:26 Well that's what we think, right? We think, oh yeah, that's David, that's David, he was here last week. Report an error in the passage at 42:26
42:36 But everything's changed, changed, everything in the adult life has changed. Report an error in the passage at 42:36
42:45 It would be horrible if we had to introduce ourselves there a week, that wouldn't happen. We'd have got like nothing done. If you are... Report an error in the passage at 42:45
42:55 If you didn't remember Eddie saying the material Remember we'd all talk about empties? would be on the same roof Wait a second, that does sound like that Report an error in the passage at 42:55
43:11 We all know we Report an error in the passage at 43:11
43:25 live like that. Report an error in the passage at 43:25
43:30 If we did live like that, but Report an error in the passage at 43:30
43:36 understood impermanence, it wouldn't surprise us. Report an error in the passage at 43:36
43:52 Like we're going to have class next week, right? We don't think we're going to have class next week. We don't think we're going to be here yet. But we may not be around next week. Except you might be here next week. A Report an error in the passage at 43:52
44:17 different realm next week. A dog. Report an error in the passage at 44:17
44:33 This butcher, the enemy ego. Why don't we take a break and then we'll come back. So wonderful. It was just a little memoir. My only control over that is to let the whole thing go. That's what I was trying to say. The only control I have is the cessation, which is so let it all go and through that now. Let it all go. Report an error in the passage at 44:33
44:54 Let what go? Any concept that I can control while I haven't opened up, there isn't that. What isn't beautiful? What is ugly? What is beautiful? Report an error in the passage at 44:54
45:09 I don't have control because it doesn't exist from its own. You see, I'm not getting that link that we don't have control because they don't exist from its own. Because we can't learn to control our minds. I don't determine beauty. Yeah. That's a determination that comes from, because it doesn't exist inherently, so I can't define a beautiful picture or a beautiful person. Report an error in the passage at 45:09
45:43 I think it's like an equanimity thing is what you're talking about, I think. Okay. Report an error in the passage at 45:43
45:54 And we'll get into this more in the next class, but about... Conventional existence. Things do exist conventionally, but they just don't exist inherently or ultimately. Report an error in the passage at 45:54
46:38 Okay, then verse 106. This butcher, the enemy ego, is just the same. It seems as if it really exists, but it has never really existed. It seems as if it were really true, but it has never been really true anywhere. It seems as if it is vividly appearing, but it is beyond the realm of affirmation or denial. Another translation is the enemy, the self, and the executioner are also like that. Report an error in the passage at 46:38
47:09 They seem to really exist, yet have never been experienced to exist. They seem to be really true, yet are never experienced to be true at all. They seem to really appear, yet have passed beyond being objects of superimposition and deprecation. Report an error in the passage at 47:09
47:28 So the first line is, butcher the enemy ego is just the same. So this first line is talking about the two inner enemies. The butcher, which is the self-cherishing, and the enemy ego, which is, actually this, according to commentaries, is talking about three things. So the self-cherishing, the self-grasping ignorance, and then the self, that is the basis of those two. Report an error in the passage at 47:28
47:57 So the self-cherishing, the self-crashing ignorance, and the self. All of those are just the same. It seems as if they really exist. It seems as if they solidly exist or inherently exist, but they've never really existed. So it's not as if they were inherently existent and then when we realize emptiness, then they become non-inherently existent. Report an error in the passage at 47:57
48:30 They've never been inherently existent, never in the past, will never inherently exist in the future and in the present. Report an error in the passage at 48:30
48:44 And then it seems as if they're really true but has never been really true anywhere, so it doesn't matter where we're talking about. So none of these are inherently existent anywhere. Report an error in the passage at 48:44
49:01 Neither in time nor space have things ever existed from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 49:01
49:13 They're just false. Report an error in the passage at 49:13
49:20 on our trauma our ignorance. Report an error in the passage at 49:20
49:27 seems as if it is vividly appearing, or they seem as if they're vividly appearing, but they're beyond the realm of affirmation or denial or superimposition or deprecation. So this is referring to finding the middle way between the two extremes. Report an error in the passage at 49:27
49:51 The two extremes are superimposing for Report an error in the passage at 49:51
49:59 The extreme of affirmation or superimposition is superimposing inherent existence onto phenomena or superimposing existence from their own side. The other extreme is the extreme of deprecation or denial. Report an error in the passage at 49:59
50:22 So that's thinking if things do not exist from their own side, then they can't exist at all. Report an error in the passage at 50:22
50:31 So this is what the lower schools would say of Prasambhika's position. If they don't exist from their own side, then they can't exist. Report an error in the passage at 50:31
50:45 So if there's no from its own side, if there's nothing from the side of this object that makes it a cup, the Report an error in the passage at 50:45
51:07 lower schools would say if there's nothing that makes it a cup from its own side, then I could just call it a table. I could call it a TV. I could call it anything I want and that would be just as equally valid. Report an error in the passage at 51:07
51:31 I mean, my mind, I mean, my... like so people there must be something the object that makes it okay it's not just convention, but it is, it's just a convention. And Report an error in the passage at 51:31
52:00 as for the wheel of actions, or the wheel of karma, it is just the same. So action is the English word for karma. Though it lacks an inherent nature, yet it appears like a reflection of the moon and water. Actions and their consequences are a variegated multitude of falsehoods. Even though they are just appearances, I urge you to embrace virtue and avoid sin. Report an error in the passage at 52:00
52:32 So as for the wheel of actions, so the wheel of karma. So this is talking about the process of cyclic existence. How from ignorance, all of the other afflictions arise, the angry attachments. Report an error in the passage at 52:32
52:56 Those afflictions, we create karma and Report an error in the passage at 52:56
53:03 nourish that karma at the time of death and we create causes to be reborn in cyclic existence again and again. Report an error in the passage at 53:03
53:15 So actually we're constantly creating, due to our ignorance, we're constantly creating karma to be reborn in cyclic existence again and again and again and again. So that whole process is the same as empty of inherent existence. Report an error in the passage at 53:15
53:36 It doesn't exist from its own. Report an error in the passage at 53:36
53:41 And if it did exist from its own side, then we'd never be able to get out of saṃsāra. We wouldn't be able to change it. But because it lacks inherent existence, we can create the causes to get out of saṃsāra. So Report an error in the passage at 53:41
54:08 it lacks an inherent nature, and yet it appears like the reflection of the moon in the water. Report an error in the passage at 54:08
54:19 Yet things appear, everything appears. Their false appearance is like a reflection of moon and water. So in water it looks as if the moon is in the water on a clear night, Report an error in the passage at 54:19
54:36 but it's an illusion. It's an illusory appearance. Report an error in the passage at 54:36
54:49 I don't know. I'm just wondering if you've ever heard maybe the patent answer for this one. So it's kind of a technical question. I'm not trying to steer us off, but I am curious about it. It says it lacks inherent nature. The wheel is the wheel of actions. So I think that this must come up sometimes, which is to say, Report an error in the passage at 54:49
55:09 How many samsaras are there? If my own actions determine this sort of reality I'm living in, do you see where I'm going with that? And so what I mean is, but yet we're all here together, and I'm just curious about that, how the Lama's answer that. What is the answer to the fact that, I mean, is it just a group karma thing that makes that so? Report an error in the passage at 55:09
55:33 I don't know if that makes any sense, my question, but just to say that it's, if the wheel of actions, lacks inherent existence, how is it that we've all found ourselves, there's an implication that it's an objective reality if we're all here at the same time, like we all wandered into the same delusion. Report an error in the passage at 55:33
55:50 It's a collective karma that we're together. That's a good answer. I just wasn't sure if I can live with that. Because we all have our individual karmas and then we have this collective karma so that we can experience things together. Report an error in the passage at 55:50
56:29 As I said, I'm not trying to steer us off. It's just that it seems very important to this text to me at that point. I'm just curious. Because it's something that I can't sometimes make sense of. Report an error in the passage at 56:29
56:40 Yeah, I mean, it seems like when we study emptiness... It seems like it's repeating, you know, these verses are repeating themselves again and again. You know, that lacks inherent nature, that lacks inherent nature, that lacks inherent nature. Report an error in the passage at 56:40
56:57 But our minds need that, you know. We tend to think, okay, well maybe the self doesn't exist inherently, maybe the hormones don't exist inherently, but karma must exist inherently. Karma exists from its outside, right? Report an error in the passage at 56:57
57:12 But now even karma doesn't exist from its own side. It functions, right? Nothing exists from their own side. Yet they function. Report an error in the passage at 57:12
57:24 And even the function doesn't exist from its own side. The function is merely included. And so our minds kind of keep getting stuck and looking for something that kind of exists solidly from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 57:24
57:46 Objectively. It's not all of it. imputed. functions, right? So it can't be really But it's Report an error in the passage at 57:46
58:03 all Report an error in the passage at 58:03
58:32 happening in one place or one interconnected bunch of places that everybody's all in the same. And that's something I think we need to think about again. Report an error in the passage at 58:32
· · · silence, 1 minute
58:43 You know, interconnected bunch of places. There may be different realms, but beings go, all beings eventually have access theoretically to all realms and there isn't some other unconnected place, you know, or some private unconnected place that it's all. Is that what you meant by one saṃsāra? That my karma can't create a universe that isn't connected to all the other karmas or something else? Report an error in the passage at 58:43
59:16 I'll, this side, I mean, it's actually three. The only thing I mean by that is that if my environment is dependent upon my own previous actions and that kind of thing, there's a bit of a wall to jump over there, I think, a little bit, because the implication is that we all, like the Buddha can... Report an error in the passage at 59:16
59:41 can appear to my mind. You know what I mean? He can sort of enter that saṃsāra. I guess I don't know how to say it since he kind of got me spun around there except to say that the implication is that we each have our own little individual saṃsāra. How many samsaras are there? Actually, I had this conversation Venerable Dream any one time and it was about as productive as and me. Report an error in the passage at 59:41
1:00:13 What you added makes a lot of sense. I think the group karma thing answers that question. I follow what you're saying there. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:13
1:00:41 It's just what you said, though. My mind wants to sometimes go to this inherent existence. If my own karmic actions create my next lifetime, and it was just what I said before, then you're sort of born into this realm where all of these other beings are there, too, as if there were this inherently existent tube that we can all enter at any given time, you know what I mean, or ball or whatever it is, who knows. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:41
1:01:03 But the group karma creates that situation, and I understand that. I can make sense of that. So that is like a really good, solid answer. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:03
1:01:16 I mean, it's not as if, right, there's just our own mind streams and then there's just appearances in our own mind streams and there's nothing else existing. You know, in prasadhika there is, there are what they call external objects, right? There are other beings, there are other phenomena. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:16
1:01:42 That are produced from our karma. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:42
1:01:49 Janet. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:49
1:01:54 Oh no. Well, look at the time. But I'm just thinking about it during this big conversation. Saṃsāra is as much a label as cup. And so my... The view of saṃsāra is completely different than everybody else's. And so we might as well be speaking in three different languages. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:54
1:02:28 In a way, because it is a different view. We all have different perceptions. So there's a collective karma that causes all of us to be in this room together. But we all have our own individual experiences of being in this room. Some of you might think this is the one boring class ever. Other humans might think that it's an okay class. So we all have our individual perceptions. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:28
1:02:59 And it seems that something like the nature of just a mental image or mental picture without even having visible parts like a cup versus saṃsāra. That we have even a greater variation of experiences when we use the word saṃsāra as opposed to maybe cup. Maybe not because the mind is so vast and different, but it's like in one case you have something that you can actually point to and most people see it relatively the same. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:59
1:03:46 In the other one you have... got nothing to talk to Yeah. Yeah, and the whole term saṃsāra, you know, what does that mean to people? Report an error in the passage at 1:03:46
1:04:05 Saṃsāra. I mean, you see that... Let me just say I don't sound like a complete psycho. The reason that question arises is just because of the fact that... It's this phrase here, though it lacks inherent nature. The fact that my surroundings lack inherent nature and that I'm imputing all of these things from my own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:05
1:04:35 So what I'm saying is that there's eventually some sort of bizarre existential question there where I'm saying, what are you all doing inside of this thing which I'm imputing? You know what I mean? That's it. And so it's a little, maybe it's thinking too hard, but I don't know. I don't know. That's why the group karma thing is a helpful explanation. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:35
1:04:52 Because we are all, able to Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:52
1:05:22 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. that's England, you know, I see it and it's England, and you think it's England, and we'll agree that it's England, you know, not somehow beyond a convention, in a way, or at least our delusion goes beyond that convention. So that's all I'm saying, you know. So when I say an individual saṃsāra, it's implication that if I'm imputing things, then it is, know, that there's this sort of world that I live in. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:22
1:05:18 it's weird that you all managed somehow to get into it. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:18
1:05:30 dream. It could be, yeah, exactly, yeah, yeah. hence the group karma thing really explains that well. It's so difficult to find the middle way. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:30
1:05:50 We think that everything is just an appearance and there's no conventional reality. There's no commonly accepted conventional reality. Because nothing exists from its own side, so nothing's really valid. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:50
1:06:09 And so that would be falling to one extreme. And the other extreme is the extreme that most of us are in, which must be something. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:09
1:06:26 I had a question on the last verse. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:26
1:06:31 No, the last verse. Avoid virtue. Avoid embrace virtue. Oh, I haven't even covered that yet. Okay. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:31
1:06:48 So actions and their consequences are a variegated multitude of falsehoods. Even though they are just appearances, I urge you to embrace virtue and avoid sin. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:48
1:07:02 Right, so, you know, sometimes when people study emptiness, you can fall into this extreme of deprecation or annihilation or nihilism, whatever you want to call it, this extreme of thinking, oh, if nothing exists from its own side, then there are no virtuous actions. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:02
1:07:26 My actions don't matter. I can do anything that I want because nothing exists from its own side. And that's the danger of these teachings is misunderstanding them. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:26
1:07:39 So because Report an error in the passage at 1:07:39
1:07:47 we understand emptiness, then it's even more important to practice virtue and to avoid non-virtue. Because everything that we experience... Every experience a result of our karma. Every happy experience that we is a result of the virtuous karma that we've created. Every suffering experience Report an error in the passage at 1:07:47
1:08:22 emptiness does not negate. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:22
1:08:27 The more we understand the emptiness, the more we understand the love and karma, the more we understand that things must be empty. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:27
1:08:44 Reinforce each other. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:44
1:09:06 So on the ultimate level, we can say, oh yeah, there is no virtue from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:06
1:09:16 Virtue and non-virtue are equally empty and they function. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:16
1:09:28 Virtue functions to bring about happiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:28
1:09:36 They function and they're not, Report an error in the passage at 1:09:36
1:09:50 and we don't have to believe in the law of karma for it to function. It's still functioning, Report an error in the passage at 1:09:50
1:10:02 but it's still functioning. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:02
1:10:10 Okay, so this is such an important one. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:10
1:10:38 Just read something from one of the oral commentaries by Gishi Chukhi. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:38
1:10:47 He says, Report an error in the passage at 1:10:47
1:10:53 so just as the reflection of the moon in water does not exist truly, in the same way cause and effect do not truly exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:53
1:11:03 As they do not exist truly, they exist as mere appearances, like the reflection of the moon on the surface of the water. Just as we cannot stop the moon from being reflected in the pool of water due to the coming together of relevant conditions, In the same way, we cannot stop the workings of cause and effect. Although cause and effect do not exist inherently, when there is a cause, there will be an effect. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:03
1:11:33 This is how they function. Cause and effect exist as mere appearances and they exist conventionally. We are not saying that karma does not exist. Things function because they are mere appearances and exist conventionally. And because they do not exist inherently. Things function because they are mere appearances and exist conventionally. And because they do not exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:33
1:12:06 When our understanding of this fact is clear and correct, this will lead to an ascertainment that karma, for example, is infallible. Although karma does not exist inherently, it is mere appearance, existing conventionally, and because of that, it is infallible. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:06
1:12:42 You partly answered my question by that statement, but where is the energy that drives the functionality of these things? It sounds so mechanical, right? Karma is also empty, but our actions somehow move something, and that's why things function. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:42
1:13:11 So where does the energy come from? To make these things function, if they're empty and if they're not inherently existent. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:11
1:13:35 I guess it's akin to the practice of Tantra, where we're actually creating our present state. But where does that come? What makes that move? What makes that movement? Report an error in the passage at 1:13:35
1:14:02 Yeah, what makes us go from one level to the next? Report an error in the passage at 1:14:02
1:14:11 Well, I mean, the nature of phenomena, or at least of objects, are that they are constantly changing. It's in their nature to change. Everything is constantly changing, space and things like this. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:11
1:14:33 So it's in their very nature that they are changing. And because they are changing... We can train our mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:33
1:14:46 I don't know if I'm quite getting my question. The change, I guess maybe that's where I'm confused. The change, what makes that change happen? What energizes that change? How does that change come about? Report an error in the passage at 1:14:46
1:15:06 We're used to having things in our world, right? And in our experience. Things change because there's like an energy force. Like you're saying, the nature of these objects are to change. So, yeah, where does that change? How does that change function? You know, it seems what pops into my mind when you talk is it seems like what you're saying is that things would naturally not stay the same. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:06
1:15:40 You know, things are naturally... Static, unless there's something that causes it to change. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:40
1:15:50 And that's the way we normally think, right? Oh, that person changed. Used to be so nice, and now, you know, as if we're all supposed to be static and then something caused it to change. But it's in the nature of everything to be constant. So it's not that you need something from the outside necessarily to cause it. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:50
1:16:16 What changes the conventional phenomena? All impermanent phenomena. I can't say all phenomena are constantly changing. There's mental construction constructs and things like that that don't change from moment to moment. But all phenomena we normally interact with, all phenomena responses, are constantly changing from moment to moment. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:16
1:16:45 If you look at the atomic level, atoms are always changing. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:45
1:16:53 Aren't those the conventional reality, things of conventional reality? Well, everything that exists, everything exists. If it exists, it exists conventionally. Nothing exists. Even emptiness doesn't exist, fortunately. Emptiness, Report an error in the passage at 1:16:53
1:17:18 everything that exists, exists conventionally. So maybe hold on to that thought until we've studied emptiness longer. When we talk about conventional truth and ultimate truth more, then it might make sense. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:18
1:17:45 I don't know if you want to go into this, but a question that I think comes up for me, I'll let that get a little hint of, but I don't fully understand it. I think it relates to what you were saying. It's kind of, how do you cross that gap from what appears to be one, or... You know I mean? basically Report an error in the passage at 1:17:45
1:18:21 I Report an error in the passage at 1:18:21
1:18:24 think in texts they talk about, you know, things can't be more than one. That's where it gets, you know, it's like I almost, I think it relates to images. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:24
1:18:47 It's hard to see how, okay, you know, I today somehow influence the eye of tomorrow, and yet supposedly two different eyes. Where does that little happen? Where does that change happen? But otherwise, if one, there's no change, and if they're different... Report an error in the passage at 1:18:47
1:19:17 the concept. When I think of waves or energy, like you were talking about energy, Sort of gives you a feeling for it. And I guess it's only when you look up the constructs then it seems like, oh, okay. It only makes sense if you just really blow out everything you thought before. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:17
1:19:43 Anyway, I'm talking about something. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:43
1:19:53 I mean, you're saying the I of today is different from the I. And conventionally we would say that it's the same person. And it's valid to say that the Hillary I saw last week was the same. As soon as we start analyzing, though. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:53
1:20:21 That is different. But the label is the same. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:21
1:20:28 And it's valid to say that. There's a mental continuum. A continuum of cause and effect. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:28
1:20:39 Body now is the substantial cause. It's the body. And it's Report an error in the passage at 1:20:39
1:20:52 the same with the mind. The mind is a Report an error in the passage at 1:20:52
1:21:05 continuum of cause and effect that doesn't exist from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:05
1:21:15 And that very much relates to this verse, right? Because it's talking about cause and effect. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:15
1:21:22 I don't know if that's... That's related to your question. But it's just obviously a point that I have to work on because sometimes it seems clear and then at other times it's like, wait a minute, where's the connection between those two? It almost seems like something to go back to actually seeing there's a self at times to me. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:22
1:21:55 Obviously I don't understand. Well, there is a self. There is a conventionally existent self and there's not an inherent existent self. The conventionally existent self is merely imputed. Merely imputed in dependence on the four or five aggregates. So there's a self that exists and there's a self that doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:55
1:22:24 That exists is merely imputed. The self that doesn't exist is the self that exists from its own side. That exists inherently or truly. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:24
1:22:40 So I think it's a very natural process where sometimes it feels like, oh yeah, I can't hear it. And other times, like the mind is completely foggy and it doesn't make sense. It's really unclear. And that's just the nature of not having this merit yet. Put a lot of effort in and create merit and purify and study and meditate. But I find that very much with this subject. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:40
1:23:13 It really goes in waves. A fog in clarity. A fog in clarity. So Report an error in the passage at 1:23:13
1:23:34 when in a dream a peat fire blazes, we are terrified by the heat, although it is without substance. In the same way, although the hell realms and such are without substance, we fear the smelter's fire and other tortures. As that is so, we shall forsake evil actions. So when we're dreaming, you know, there's a big fire. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:34
1:23:59 We're terrified. But it's just a dream. The fire doesn't actually exist. But we're terrified. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:59
1:24:11 And so similarly, although the hell realms don't exist from our inside, we still have fear and terror and we experience suffering. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:11
1:24:31 Any of our suffering, the objects of our suffering, yet we still have fear and we still experience the suffering. And because of that, we need to let go and stop creating the causes of suffering. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:31
1:25:06 Fire doesn't exist from what's inside, but we experience the heat, we experience the burning. We Report an error in the passage at 1:25:06
1:25:28 experience it because of the negative karma that we've created. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:28
· · · silence, 1 minute
1:26:09 Stop there. Stop there on a happy note. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:09
1:26:39 Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:39
Related talks
Talk by Emily Hsu, recorded 7 September 2007. Original at Tse Chen Ling Center for Tibetan Buddhist Studies via Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/EH_Maha_Mind_Transformation_200705. Licensed CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 US. Transcript generated automatically and may contain errors; the audio is the authoritative version.
Recorded at Tse Chen Ling Center, San Francisco, and archived by the center on Internet Archive. More from Tse Chen Ling