Special Insight 1: Wisdom of Emptiness (10 May 2011)

0:00 Thank you. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 0:00 Highlight the passage at 0:00

0:45 You're right, it keeps sliding down. Report an error in the passage at 0:45 Highlight the passage at 0:45

0:58 Yeah, I kept the box, it's still. Report an error in the passage at 0:58 Highlight the passage at 0:58

1:12 Thank you. know how much I'm doing. So the one hand was like, oh, it's gone. Yeah, you used this to like us. Just look at this. Yeah, but, you know, this is a shame. They made it so good. Do you need to get in here? Sorry. That's for tomorrow. I just want to make it. Thank you. know, I, um, Lewis and I really struggle with it. Yeah, yeah, I think, what is the advantage of 30 years as a term? Oh, no. There's so much debt in school. Report an error in the passage at 1:12 Highlight the passage at 1:12

1:45 There you go. Imagine that. I don't know if she wants this. Yeah, or she wants this one. She might have that one. Yeah. Maybe I should put this one first. Report an error in the passage at 1:45 Highlight the passage at 1:45

2:02 So this one goes in there. Yeah, so he's, like, in there. You've got to manage all that stuff. Report an error in the passage at 2:02 Highlight the passage at 2:02

2:11 Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 2:11 Highlight the passage at 2:11

2:15 And I was going to say, also, we have a little hook. You know, we can leave this. Thank you. Thank you. Also, our egos are looking for reasons. It's good for this. Because still, it's really hard. You know, when you work that hard, it's like, it's just hard to have a good practice. Because it really tends to help you. You know, you're the one who's like, smart, which is important every day. And the other man, it's like, it's really hard. You know, it's like, I like that. Report an error in the passage at 2:15 Highlight the passage at 2:15

2:59 So it's hard to be consistent with my studies for the past few years. And my practice basically comes as to school, like, much Report an error in the passage at 2:59 Highlight the passage at 2:59

3:07 Thank you. know, peer motivation, and, like, every, you know, it was a very actionary entry. I was not sitting at all, but I was... Thank you. was toward, you know, like, helping the beings, you know, it was all about, you know, it was all about, like, providing it, you know, help and comfort and aid and emergency services to people and all this stuff. Report an error in the passage at 3:07 Highlight the passage at 3:07

3:40 Yeah. Thank you. you know, you're very comfortable with people dying or, you know, in a sense of I always want to get it, like really get it, you know, people that are just, like, walking like this is a stable day. Do you get a question? Do you get a question? right, well, I wonder how it works. I mean, it's not clear how to make it the rest of the kitchen. Report an error in the passage at 3:40 Highlight the passage at 3:40

4:06 Okay. No. It's not like being a serial killer. Thank Thank you. you. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 4:06 Highlight the passage at 4:06

4:24 I mean, you end it by this side. I mean, you end it by this side. OK. Yeah, depending on which one she does. Report an error in the passage at 4:24 Highlight the passage at 4:24

4:33 I actually get a real reference card. Report an error in the passage at 4:33 Highlight the passage at 4:33

4:44 guys want to prostrate, we can all prostrate together. Report an error in the passage at 4:44 Highlight the passage at 4:44

5:12 I thought I would say that with you. Report an error in the passage at 5:12 Highlight the passage at 5:12

5:19 I think I misled you. Report an error in the passage at 5:19 Highlight the passage at 5:19

· · · silence, 1 minute

6:02 Let's spend a couple of minutes setting our motivation for tonight. Report an error in the passage at 6:02 Highlight the passage at 6:02

· · · silence, 1 minute

6:51 So checking out what our motion. What our motivation was for coming here tonight and Report an error in the passage at 6:51 Highlight the passage at 6:51

7:10 see if we can expand that out. Report an error in the passage at 7:10 Highlight the passage at 7:10

7:40 So remembering that we wouldn't be here without the hard work of countless others. Report an error in the passage at 7:40 Highlight the passage at 7:40

· · · silence, 1 minute

8:32 Also remembering that all sentient beings are trapped in saṃsāra. Report an error in the passage at 8:32 Highlight the passage at 8:32

8:49 Wanted problems and difficulties again and again and again and again Report an error in the passage at 8:49 Highlight the passage at 8:49

9:05 probably. Report an error in the passage at 9:05 Highlight the passage at 9:05

9:29 Because they're in saṃsāra and Report an error in the passage at 9:29 Highlight the passage at 9:29

9:55 developing the wish to free all these beings. Report an error in the passage at 9:55 Highlight the passage at 9:55

10:01 From this cycle of unwanted suffering and Report an error in the passage at 10:01 Highlight the passage at 10:01

10:17 wishing to attain enlightenment, the welfare of all sentient beings. Report an error in the passage at 10:17 Highlight the passage at 10:17

· · · silence, 1 minute

11:23 So we'll start with the praise to Manjushri on the first page of the white book, which we'll recite once. Report an error in the passage at 11:23 Highlight the passage at 11:23

11:42 Obeisance to my guru and protector Manjushri, who holds to his heart a scriptural text symbolic of his seeing all things as they are, whose intelligence shines forth as the sun. Unclouded by delusions or traces of ignorance, who teaches in sixty ways with a loving compassion of a father for his only son. All creatures caught in the prison of saṃsāra, confused in the darkness of their ignorance, overwhelmed by their suffering. Report an error in the passage at 11:42 Highlight the passage at 11:42

12:09 You whose dragon thunder-like proclamation of Dharma arouses us from the stupor of our delusions and frees us from the iron chains of our karma. Who wields the sword of wisdom hewing down suffering wherever its sprouts appear, clearing away the darkness of ignorance. You, whose princely body is adorned with the 112 marks of a Buddha, who has completed the stages achieving the highest perfection of a bodhisattva, who has been pure from the beginning, I bow down to you, O Manjushri. Report an error in the passage at 12:09 Highlight the passage at 12:09

12:42 With Report an error in the passage at 12:42 Highlight the passage at 12:42

12:56 the brilliance of your wisdom, O compassionate one, illuminate the darkness in closing my mind. Omar Rapazanadi, Omar Report an error in the passage at 12:56 Highlight the passage at 12:56

13:02 Enlighten my intelligence and wisdom so that I may gain insight into Buddha's words and the texts that explain them. And then the Heart Sūtra on page 76. Report an error in the passage at 13:02 Highlight the passage at 13:02

13:19 I Report an error in the passage at 13:19 Highlight the passage at 13:19

13:29 prostrate to the Arya Triple Gem. Thus did I hear at one time, the Bhagavan was dwelling on Mass Vultures Mountain in Rajgriya, together with a great community of monks and a great community of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Bhagavan was absorbed in the concentration on the categories of phenomena called profound perception. Report an error in the passage at 13:29 Highlight the passage at 13:29

13:50 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. How should any son of the lineage train who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom? Report an error in the passage at 13:50 Highlight the passage at 13:50

14:17 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 14:17 Highlight the passage at 14:17

14:41 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 14:41 Highlight the passage at 14:41

15:07 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 15:07 Highlight the passage at 15:07

15:44 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. 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. Report an error in the passage at 15:44 Highlight the passage at 15:44

16:19 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 gate gate, paragate, parasam gate, bodhisoha, shariputra, the bodhisattva, mahasattva, should train in the profound perfection of wisdom like that. Report an error in the passage at 16:19 Highlight the passage at 16:19

16:50 Then the Bhagavan arose from that concentration and commended the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalokiteshvara, saying, Well 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 Venable Sharivadiputra, the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalokiteshvara, And 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 16:50 Highlight the passage at 16:50

17:29 Then on page 98 at the bottom is Refuge and Bodhicitta. Report an error in the passage at 17:29 Highlight the passage at 17:29

17:43 I go for refuge until I am enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme Assembly by the merits I create through listening to the Dharma. May I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings. I go for refuge until I'm enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme Assembly. By the merits I create through listening to the Dharma, may I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings. Report an error in the passage at 17:43 Highlight the passage at 17:43

18:08 I go for refuge until I'm enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme Assembly. By the merits I create through listening to the Dharma, may I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings. Report an error in the passage at 18:08 Highlight the passage at 18:08

18:35 So we've been going through the lower schools. The two Hinayana schools overview, the Vibashika and the Sotrantika schools, the Great Exposition school and the Sūtra school. And just as a review, the Vibashikas say everything is made up of partless particles, directionally partless particles and partless moments of consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 18:35 Highlight the passage at 18:35

19:08 And those partless particles. Right. Report an error in the passage at 19:08 Highlight the passage at 19:08

19:12 Then those partless moments of consciousness substantially exist. They really exist. They exist from their own side. Whereas those things are made up, everything else is made up of those partless particles, and those imputedly exist. Those are imputed by the mind. The Vaibachikas say that in order to get liberated from cyclic existence, we need to realize the lack of a self-sufficient person. Report an error in the passage at 19:12 Highlight the passage at 19:12

19:45 A self-sufficient, substantially existent person. Which is the person that seems to be separate from the body and the mind, separate from the aggregates. Report an error in the passage at 19:45 Highlight the passage at 19:45

19:57 Kind of in control, running the show. Report an error in the passage at 19:57 Highlight the passage at 19:57

20:04 So when we look at people, we don't see just a body and mind. We think that there's a person as well. It's not just a body and mind. There's a real person there. That's the object of negation, object of refutation for the lower schools. Report an error in the passage at 20:04 Highlight the passage at 20:04

20:28 The Sotrantikas also believe that you have to realize the lack of the self-sufficient person in order to get liberated. But they assert the two truths differently from Vibashikas. They say that those things that we can see, hear, touch, taste are real. They inherently exist. They exist from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 20:28 Highlight the passage at 20:28

20:53 They exist, they function. And they exist externally to the mind and they kind of cast their appearance to our consciousness so that we can perceive them. Like the table casts its appearance to our eye consciousness. The cars cast their sounds so that we can hear them. So there are these external objects according to the lower schools. Report an error in the passage at 20:53 Highlight the passage at 20:53

21:28 They cast their appearance. They exist independent of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 21:28 Highlight the passage at 21:28

21:40 And conceptual minds get at their objects through a mental image. Conceptual minds, the labeling minds, the judging minds, the worrying mind, the stressed out mind, the mental afflictions, all get at their objects through an image in their minds. Report an error in the passage at 21:40 Highlight the passage at 21:40

22:03 We don't... Those conceptual minds don't get at their objects directly, but through a mental image. And these mental images also exist, but they exist as mere imputations by the mind. They don't change from moment to moment. They don't function. Report an error in the passage at 22:03 Highlight the passage at 22:03

22:30 So that's a review, a quick review of the two lower schools. Report an error in the passage at 22:30 Highlight the passage at 22:30

22:41 So the conceptual mind, a direct perception. aren't Report an error in the passage at 22:41 Highlight the passage at 22:41

22:46 Directly perceives objects. Conceptual minds perceive their objects or conceive of their objects through a mental image. Conceptual minds get at their objects through a mental image. Therefore, conceptual minds are mistaken. There's an element of mistake in all conceptual minds because our conception Report an error in the passage at 22:46 Highlight the passage at 22:46

23:18 What appears to a conception is a mental image and we mistake that mental image for the actual object. Report an error in the passage at 23:18 Highlight the passage at 23:18

23:29 The conceptual mind gets at its object through a mental image and then we mistake that mental image for the actual object. Report an error in the passage at 23:29 Highlight the passage at 23:29

23:40 So for example, if you look at this body right here, sitting here, your direct perception perceives what? Report an error in the passage at 23:40 Highlight the passage at 23:40

23:57 Shapes and colors. And then immediately... Your conceptual mind overlays what you see with a complete image. Report an error in the passage at 23:57 Highlight the passage at 23:57

24:13 You think there's a back of my head. You don't see the back of my head, but your conceptual mind fills in the back of my head. Report an error in the passage at 24:13 Highlight the passage at 24:13

24:25 So the conceptual mind overlays what you actually perceive almost immediately with the image. And then we think that image is the actual object. Report an error in the passage at 24:25 Highlight the passage at 24:25

24:40 Because you think you see a person sitting here, don't you? Your eye consciousness doesn't see a person. You just, you know, you only see some colors and shapes. But we think we see a person through our conditioning. It's instinctual, right? And that's the basis of all of our mental afflictions. Report an error in the passage at 24:40 Highlight the passage at 24:40

25:20 all con Conceptual consciousnesses are mistaken, but they're not necessarily wrong. Remember when I said that? Conceptual consciousness labeling this a pen is mistaken. It has an element of mistake because it's seeing this pen through a mental image, the conceptual consciousness. But it's a correct consciousness with respect to the pen. It is a pen, conventionally speaking. Report an error in the passage at 25:20 Highlight the passage at 25:20

25:56 So the conceptual consciousness labeling pen is correct and it's mistaken. It's mistaken with respect to its appearance, but it's correct with respect to its object. Report an error in the passage at 25:56 Highlight the passage at 25:56

26:13 Frankly speaking, it's a referent object. Report an error in the passage at 26:13 Highlight the passage at 26:13

26:20 Whereas the conceptual consciousness thinking that there's a self-sufficient person is mistaken and it's wrong. Report an error in the passage at 26:20 Highlight the passage at 26:20

26:36 It's mistaken because what appears is a mental image. Why is it wrong? Because a self-sufficient person doesn't exist at all. Report an error in the passage at 26:36 Highlight the passage at 26:36

26:51 The referent object doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 26:51 Highlight the passage at 26:51

26:57 So conceptual consciousnesses are all mistaken, but some of them are correct and some of them are incorrect. And so this is going to be an important distinction. This is actually one of the important distinctions that Lama Tsongkhapa made when he came along. And this will become even... broader and more important in the higher schools. Report an error in the passage at 26:57 Highlight the passage at 26:57

27:23 Yeah, Peter. Report an error in the passage at 27:23 Highlight the passage at 27:23

27:29 Are there any other cases where it would also be wrong besides in reference to a person? Conceptual consciousness or direct perceiver? The direct perceiving. Sure. Oh, direct perceiver? Yeah. Well, when you're labeling it, when it's wrong in both cases, both conventionally and... In terms of the referent object. Okay, when you're labeling, that's always a conceptual consciousness. So that's not a direct perception. So a conceptual consciousness, I mean, we can imagine anything, right? Report an error in the passage at 27:29 Highlight the passage at 27:29

28:06 We can imagine unicorns and we can imagine Santa Claus and we can imagine things that don't actually exist. We can imagine those. Report an error in the passage at 28:06 Highlight the passage at 28:06

28:21 And, you know, so. Those are wrong consciousnesses, those conceptions believing in Santa Claus. I'm sorry to say. Report an error in the passage at 28:21 Highlight the passage at 28:21

28:38 So there are a lot of wrong consciousnesses. And the big ones, Peter, are anger. Every single instance of anger is wrong consciousness. Every single instance of attachment is wrong consciousness. Every single instance of jealousy is wrong consciousness. Every single, yeah, yeah. The afflictive emotions are wrong consciousnesses because their referent object doesn't actually exist. Report an error in the passage at 28:38 Highlight the passage at 28:38

29:18 This is very juicy. This is so cool, right? So when we have a mental affliction, That is a good clue that the thing that we have an image of in our minds doesn't actually exist. We Report an error in the passage at 29:18 Highlight the passage at 29:18

29:39 so believe that it exists. If we didn't believe it existed, then we wouldn't have a mental affliction. But our mental afflictions, for sure, we're imagining something in our minds that doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 29:39 Highlight the passage at 29:39

30:00 That annoying person from its own side. There is no such thing as an annoying person from its own side, however much we believe that there is. However much we're familiar with that thought, right? There is no such thing as an annoying person from its own side. And similarly, there's no such thing as a wonderful person from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 30:00 Highlight the passage at 30:00

30:30 There's no such thing as anything existing from its own side. But I'm jumping to Prasangika now. So this really kind of shakes our world. Because we have these conceptions all the time. If you're anything like me, you have mental fictions every day, multiple times a day. So we have wrong consciousnesses all the time. But we don't think that they're wrong. Report an error in the passage at 30:30 Highlight the passage at 30:30

30:37 right, but... Report an error in the passage at 30:37 Highlight the passage at 30:37

· · · silence, 1 minute

31:35 I can do it. Report an error in the passage at 31:35 Highlight the passage at 31:35

31:41 does it even have an on-off button? I don't see why. Report an error in the passage at 31:41 Highlight the passage at 31:41

31:49 So, to review, I keep getting ink on my hand because I don't know how this pen works. Alright, so an eye consciousness perceiving blue is a direct perception or a conceptual consciousness? And Report an error in the passage at 31:49 Highlight the passage at 31:49

32:08 its appearing object is... Blue, right? It's the object itself. As direct perceivers, the appearing object is the object itself. Report an error in the passage at 32:08 Highlight the passage at 32:08

32:23 What about a conception labeling table? Well, obviously that's a conceptual consciousness. A little clue, right? So what is the appearing object? It's the mental image of a table. The appearing object of a conceptual consciousness is always a mental image. Sorry, Janet. can't see, but all right. Report an error in the passage at 32:23 Highlight the passage at 32:23

32:54 So this conception is mistaken with respect to its appearing object because it's a mental image, but it's a correct consciousness, assuming that it's correctly labeling a table, right? It's not labeling a chair, right? It's correct with respect to the table, which is called its referent object. Report an error in the passage at 32:54 Highlight the passage at 32:54

33:21 Or conceived object. Report an error in the passage at 33:21 Highlight the passage at 33:21

33:29 And then a conception of a self-sufficient person is also conceptual consciousness. Its appearing object is a mental image of a self-sufficient person. Report an error in the passage at 33:29 Highlight the passage at 33:29

33:43 So it's also mistaken because what appears as a mental image. And the referent object is a self-sufficient person. Does a self-sufficient person exist? No. So this is a wrong consciousness. This is not only mistaken, but it's wrong. Report an error in the passage at 33:43 Highlight the passage at 33:43

34:17 So, I'm sorry if I missed this earlier, but so how do you, aside from the self-sufficient person being wrong, I get that, how do you differentiate between right, correct and incorrect consciousnesses otherwise? Like, for example, what else would be an incorrect consciousness other than a self-sufficient person? Report an error in the passage at 34:17 Highlight the passage at 34:17

34:40 Like, okay, so like you said, unicorns or that kind of thing? Mm-hmm. Okay. Okay. But I guess who decides? You know what I mean? At some level, like, those are kind of obvious. Like, unicorns, we don't – or Santa Claus doesn't exist, so we can kind of all as a group agree. Mm-hmm. But there are things that seem like they're in the middle, in a sense, that – If you had a room full of people and they all perceived something, they might have a mental image of that thing and they might actually believe that it was different things if you interviewed them. Report an error in the passage at 34:40 Highlight the passage at 34:40

35:18 Right, or something, you know, or I don't know, like an ambiguous picture of some kind that, you know, people can. So I guess where I'm confused is what's the decision, what are the criteria for being correct or incorrect? Yeah. Well, I can answer from the Prasangika point of view. I'm not sure from the Sotrantika point of view. So whether or not something exists or not, well, there are three criteria. Report an error in the passage at 35:18 Highlight the passage at 35:18

35:51 First of all, it's accepted by worldly convention. Report an error in the passage at 35:51 Highlight the passage at 35:51

36:01 This is a clock, right, because it's conventionally called a clock in this society, right? In this, I mean, in this. Language, right? I mean, in France, this wouldn't be a clock. So in this society, in this time, that's the first criteria. Second criteria, it's not invalidated by what's called a conventional valid cognizer. It's not invalidated by a conventional valid cognizer. Report an error in the passage at 36:01 Highlight the passage at 36:01

36:35 So let's say, for example, an expert, right? Like maybe we all believe that... Well, let's say in the time when everyone believed that the world was flat. It didn't make the world flat. There was a worldly, you know, by worldly renown, everyone believed that it was flat. But then there was a scientist who knew better, right, who saw through, right, his instruments that the world was round. Report an error in the passage at 36:35 Highlight the passage at 36:35

37:06 So that expert would be kind of the conventional valid cognizer, right, someone who knows. And then thirdly, it's not invalidated by what's called an ultimate valid cognizer, a valid cognizer who's realized the ultimate truth, the ultimate reality, which is like a Buddha or someone who's directly perceived emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 37:06 Highlight the passage at 37:06

37:34 So a self-sufficient person doesn't exist because, well, there is a worldly renown and it's not refuted by a conventional valid cognizer, but it is. Refuted by the ultimate valid cognizer, someone who has realized the truth. Report an error in the passage at 37:34 Highlight the passage at 37:34

37:53 Because Report an error in the passage at 37:53 Highlight the passage at 37:53

37:58 everybody else thinks that there are annoying people from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 37:58 Highlight the passage at 37:58

38:24 That's why we need to study. That helps. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 38:24 Highlight the passage at 38:24

38:02 but but the Report an error in the passage at 38:02 Highlight the passage at 38:02

38:17 by an ultimate cognizer unless you have that awareness or some Buddha tells you then you won't know Report an error in the passage at 38:17 Highlight the passage at 38:17

38:29 To hear from the Buddhas, oh, okay, this person I always believed existed doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 38:29 Highlight the passage at 38:29

38:39 So I just have a quick, so the word self-sufficient as applied to person, you don't use that with table, because if you would set a conception labeling as self-sufficient table, you would say that's a wrong consciousness. But why don't you use the self-sufficient terminology with things other than a person? Report an error in the passage at 38:39 Highlight the passage at 38:39

38:58 Oh, okay. Well, this is a very specific type of person, which is a person that we all instinctively believe is independent of the body and the mind, is in control of the body and mind, like the boss of the body and mind. The person we've been talking about that seems to exist first, that possesses the body and mind. We don't have that same sense toward inanimate objects. Report an error in the passage at 38:58 Highlight the passage at 38:58

39:36 We don't think that there's a clock first that then has plastic and all of that. We don't have that same sense about clocks. We have a sense that they're inherently existent, but we haven't gotten there yet. But, like, the sense that there's somebody, like, in the center, kind of in control, right, Mr. Clock. Right. Report an error in the passage at 39:36 Highlight the passage at 39:36

40:05 That, right, that if. This clock doesn't have a sense of mind like people do. People and beings. When I say persons, I don't mean just human beings, but animals and insects and things like that. So a self-sufficient person in that sense. Report an error in the passage at 40:05 Highlight the passage at 40:05

40:26 Yeah, if we have, yeah, anyway. Report an error in the passage at 40:26 Highlight the passage at 40:26

40:32 So those are the two lower schools. Hinayana schools, they don't assert a way to get, to become a Buddha. They just assert a way to get out of saṃsāra, right, to get liberated. And that's to realize the lack of the self-sufficient, substantially consistent person. Report an error in the passage at 40:32 Highlight the passage at 40:32

40:54 So this, you know, this doesn't shake up, these two schools, the view of these two schools doesn't shake up our reality too much. Just a little bit. But then when we move to the Chitamatra school, that shakes up our worldview a lot. Carol, you had a question? Report an error in the passage at 40:54 Highlight the passage at 40:54

41:21 So the Chitamatra school. So as we were saying with the Report an error in the passage at 41:21 Highlight the passage at 41:21

41:28 Chitamatra school, now we're moving to the Mahāyāna system. The Chitamatra or the mind-only school. So we said Vaibhashkas believed that things were made up of these partless particles, these physical... It couldn't be broken down further. Cheetah Matra says there are no such things as, well, there are no objects external to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 41:28 Highlight the passage at 41:28

42:07 And this is based on, so if I bashkists say, okay, well, there are all these seemingly solid objects, but if you look more closely, actually they're made up of all of these atoms, right? Well, they don't talk about atoms, right? These partless particles, right? And things are directionally partless particles. And the material objects are made up of a bunch, right? Report an error in the passage at 42:07 Highlight the passage at 42:07

42:33 They're aggregations of a bunch of these partless particles. But these partless particles are the building blocks upon which all material things are composed. Report an error in the passage at 42:33 Highlight the passage at 42:33

42:48 Then the Chitamachas say, partless particles? You think there are partless particles? Ha! Report an error in the passage at 42:48 Highlight the passage at 42:48

43:01 Nothing is partless. So they say, okay, so Vaibashkas say that there are these, Report an error in the passage at 43:01 Highlight the passage at 43:01

43:17 they're so tiny that they don't have an east side and a west side and a north side and a south side. Report an error in the passage at 43:17 Highlight the passage at 43:17

43:28 Oh, thank you. Avoiding disaster. Report an error in the passage at 43:28 Highlight the passage at 43:28

43:45 won't make it that small. It's going to be rapidly de-conceptualized. So then the Chitomachas say, okay, well these particles, do they, right, they don't have an east side, west side, right, do they touch each other? Report an error in the passage at 43:45 Highlight the passage at 43:45

44:12 If they touch each other, that means that there would be an east side and a west side and a north side and a south side. Because there would be a side that touches one particle but not the other. Or this particle on the left. Would touch the left side of the middle particle, but not the right side. So that means that it must have parts, right, because it has a left side and a left side. Report an error in the passage at 44:12 Highlight the passage at 44:12

44:44 Or, if Report an error in the passage at 44:44 Highlight the passage at 44:44

44:49 there was no left side, then these would actually all be subsumed into one. All five of these particles would lay on top of each other, right, because... If it's indeed partless, it wouldn't have a left side and a right side, so if a particle touched it, it would have to be on top of it. Well, not even on top because that would be parts, but it would all be subsumed into one because all sides would have to touch. Report an error in the passage at 44:49 Highlight the passage at 44:49

45:27 There couldn't be a left side and a right side. So then if all particles were subsumed into one, then you wouldn't have a mass of many particles. And you wouldn't be able to see anything because these are too small to see. Report an error in the passage at 45:27 Highlight the passage at 45:27

45:52 So I'm saying there are no partless particles. Every particle can be divided further, further, and further, and further. So Report an error in the passage at 45:52 Highlight the passage at 45:52

46:06 there is no, no building blocks, no building blocks on which everything is made. Report an error in the passage at 46:06 Highlight the passage at 46:06

46:28 So vaibachikas are still holding on to some solidity, right? A partless particle. Report an error in the passage at 46:28 Highlight the passage at 46:28

46:35 But then chitamachas are saying, hmm, but we can break that down further and that down further and that down further and that down further until nothing, Report an error in the passage at 46:35 Highlight the passage at 46:35

46:48 no solidity. Report an error in the passage at 46:48 Highlight the passage at 46:48

46:58 Oh, and let me just finish this in terms of the five particles. Even if we said that the particles didn't touch each other, there would still be one side that's closer to the left. particle once that is closer to the right So there would still be parts, right, because there would still be a right side and a left side. Report an error in the passage at 46:58 Highlight the passage at 46:58

47:27 So we think that there are solid objects, but if we investigate, there is no solidity at all. Everything can be broken down into parts, into parts, into parts, into parts, into parts, into parts, until no solidity, right? Report an error in the passage at 47:27 Highlight the passage at 47:27

47:44 So chitta mantras, there's no material form, there are no... Particles external to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 47:44 Highlight the passage at 47:44

47:59 So this is pretty mind-blowing. So everything that all of the objects that we perceive are just a ripening of karmic imprints in our minds. Report an error in the passage at 47:59 Highlight the passage at 47:59

48:20 They don't exist external to the mind. Everything that we're perceiving is just a ripening of karmic imprints. Report an error in the passage at 48:20 Highlight the passage at 48:20

48:37 In some sense, it's similar to a dream. It's like a movie in the mind or a dream. We can have all of these images coming to our mind without something external to the mind, without the object being external to the mind. Things can appear vividly real without there being something external to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 48:37 Highlight the passage at 48:37

49:04 So the Chita Matras say that the object... And the consciousness perceiving the object arise at the same time from a karmic seed. Report an error in the passage at 49:04 Highlight the passage at 49:04

49:20 The object and the consciousness perceiving that object arise at the same time from Report an error in the passage at 49:20 Highlight the passage at 49:20

49:34 the same karmic seed. Report an error in the passage at 49:34 Highlight the passage at 49:34

49:46 So the lower schools would say, or the other schools would say, there is this thing external to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 49:46 Highlight the passage at 49:46

50:02 That projects its image to your eye consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 50:02 Highlight the passage at 50:02

50:11 Chita Matras would say, nope. Your perception of this object and the object itself arose at the same time from a karmic seed and there is no pen external to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 50:11 Highlight the passage at 50:11

50:33 Kind of like the matrix. I understood the matrix correctly. Report an error in the passage at 50:33 Highlight the passage at 50:33

50:48 Sorry, this is completely different from the way we actually perceive things, the way we think things exist. Like a movie in the mind, so that these objects do not exist separately from the mind. Report an error in the passage at 50:48 Highlight the passage at 50:48

51:18 Okay, Peter, you had a question? Report an error in the passage at 51:18 Highlight the passage at 51:18

51:27 So could this be how yogis manifest cities, you know, like being able to float or making Sai Baba used to make Rolexes appear out of thin air? Is that because it only exists in the mind? Yeah, so I mean, so with this Chita Matra view, I mean, it explains, right, it's, right, it provides an easy explanation why we can, the yogis can manifest things and walk through walls and things because they're not really solid objects that are external to the mind, right, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 51:27 Highlight the passage at 51:27

52:06 Yeah, and the Chita Matra school is said to... Well, there's one theory that arose from the experience of yogis, right? This is not something that we normal people would actually, you know, just come up with. Oh, yeah, things are probably just appearances, right? They're just, right, they don't exist external to the mind, right? It's not our experience, right? Report an error in the passage at 52:06 Highlight the passage at 52:06

52:31 But for a yogi, right, it said right when we achieve calm abiding, is that the... Subject and object, the duality between the subject and object disappears, like water poured into water, so that there is no appearance of subject versus object in meditation. Report an error in the passage at 52:31 Highlight the passage at 52:31

52:57 So this is very similar to the experience of yogis. So this is a difficult position to understand. Report an error in the passage at 52:57 Highlight the passage at 52:57

53:13 And it brings up a lot of questions, but it's also a position that we can't just easily dismiss or we shouldn't just easily dismiss because this is something that highly realized yogis have realized. Report an error in the passage at 53:13 Highlight the passage at 53:13

53:29 This is their experience. Report an error in the passage at 53:29 Highlight the passage at 53:29

53:39 So that means everything that we perceive is a ripening of our karmic imprints. This room that we perceive is a ripening of our karmic imprints. It doesn't exist external to our mind. The lights, the carpet, the Buddha statues, they don't exist external to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 53:39 Highlight the passage at 53:39

54:06 So why do we perceive common objects? We all perceive a room, and Report an error in the passage at 54:06 Highlight the passage at 54:06

54:16 that's due to what's called collective karma. We all have a collective karma to perceive a room. Report an error in the passage at 54:16 Highlight the passage at 54:16

54:30 But actually the room that each of us sees is different. None of us sees the exact same room. We think that we do, but nobody perceives the exact same room. They'll perceive it through our lens, our lens of our prior experiences, our likes and dislikes, etc. Report an error in the passage at 54:30 Highlight the passage at 54:30

55:03 And we all perceive it from a different angle. Let Report an error in the passage at 55:03 Highlight the passage at 55:03

55:19 me just give an example. Report an error in the passage at 55:19 Highlight the passage at 55:19

55:37 What is that? Report an error in the passage at 55:37 Highlight the passage at 55:37

55:43 What did you say? Report an error in the passage at 55:43 Highlight the passage at 55:43

55:54 A hangman? Report an error in the passage at 55:54 Highlight the passage at 55:54

55:59 So one person sees a hangman. What do other people see? Carol, I'm sorry. Carol sees a Tibetan letter called Ka. Report an error in the passage at 55:59 Highlight the passage at 55:59

56:27 So we all see something different depending on our prior conditioning, our prior learning. And that's just one, two, three. Right. Report an error in the passage at 56:27 Highlight the passage at 56:27

56:45 Some of us perceive blue and maybe none of us even perceive blue in the same way. Who really knows? Report an error in the passage at 56:45 Highlight the passage at 56:45

56:56 So it is with everything. We all have unique perceptions. We think that we see the same thing as others. But none of us see things the same way. Okay, Emily, you've just gotten into something that I realize we're now talking about chitta mantras and not the lower schools. But we were talking about direct perception versus conceptual. So how does that come into this? Because now it sounds like it doesn't matter. Report an error in the passage at 56:56 Highlight the passage at 56:56

57:29 Because even the yogis, what they're perceiving is... The ripening of their own consciousnesses, right? In conjunction with that object. So in this school, are we saying direct perception doesn't apply? Report an error in the passage at 57:29 Highlight the passage at 57:29

57:53 All right. I haven't seen a lot written on it from the chitamatra point of view. So you know how we said from chitamatra, right? Direct perception is generally correct. I mean, yeah, generally correct, whereas a conceptual consciousness is always mistaken. Chittimattras and Prasangikas, and Madimikas also, well, Prasangikas, would say direct perception for ordinary beings, mistaken. Report an error in the passage at 57:53 Highlight the passage at 57:53

58:30 How we said conceptual consciousnesses were mistaken, according to Sotrantaka, all conceptual consciousnesses were mistaken. Because their appearing object was a mental image. Here, chitamachas are saying, for ordinary beings, direct perception is always mistaken. Because things appear external to the mind where they aren't. So for ordinary beings, direct perception is mistaken because they appear, objects appear as being external to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 58:30 Highlight the passage at 58:30

59:19 But it could be a correct direct perception because there's still worldly renown and all of that. Report an error in the passage at 59:19 Highlight the passage at 59:19

59:31 So even for chitamatras, in my understanding, in this place and time, if chitamatras said that what you're holding in your hand is a piece of cake, that would still be wrong. Conventionally, that would still be wrong. Report an error in the passage at 59:31 Highlight the passage at 59:31

59:59 Conventionally speaking. Because they're still worldly renown. They're still conventional valid cognition. I believe in chitta mantra. Because it doesn't function. So things, even though they don't exist externally to the mind, they still function. Report an error in the passage at 59:59 Highlight the passage at 59:59

1:00:24 They still, right, still you plant a seed and things grow. If you don't plant, A seed, nothing's going to grow. Well, if there's no seed there, right? Still, and this is what's really hard to get with cheetah mantra, is that nothing is external to the mind, but they arise from causes and conditions. You still need to plant seeds in order for the plant to grow and water them and fertilize them. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:24 Highlight the passage at 1:00:24

1:01:06 So we have to think about how that works. How could you have worldly renown except through yogis who could really, who wouldn't be having this ordinary perception? Report an error in the passage at 1:01:06 Highlight the passage at 1:01:06

1:01:23 I mean, how could you say something was correct except for that which would be perceived by a yogic mind or a yogic perceiver? Report an error in the passage at 1:01:23 Highlight the passage at 1:01:23

1:01:36 Well, you know, I mean, I'm speculating here because I haven't... Heard of a presentation of valid cognition and all of that, according to Chita Matra? Because I don't think that they wrote anything about valid cognition, which means that they accept what the other schools say about valid cognition. Usually, if a school hasn't written something specifically on that, that means that they accepted the assertions of lots of schools. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:36 Highlight the passage at 1:01:36

1:02:02 Because actually, this Chita Matra view is not so different from Prasangika. At first it seems like it's quite different, but everything that we perceive is a ripening of karmic imprints. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:02 Highlight the passage at 1:02:02

1:02:21 True for Prasangika too. Everything that we perceive is a ripening of karmic imprints. So chitta matras look for these partless particles and they find nothing. but for Report an error in the passage at 1:02:21 Highlight the passage at 1:02:21

1:02:38 And their conclusion is that that means nothing exists externally to the mind. Prasanghikas would have a different conclusion from that. Prasanghikas would say nothing exists inherently. Conventionally things exist externally to the mind, but nothing exists inherently. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:38 Highlight the passage at 1:02:38

1:02:59 But what we perceive is a result of our karma, according to Prasanghikas too. And so it's similar in that respect. And there is conventional valid cognition. In Prasangika as well and that's as I described it right those three there's the worldly renown and all of it. So even in Chita Matra you know without analysis we can say we're all looking at the same object but if you analyze there is no same object that we're all looking at. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:59 Highlight the passage at 1:02:59

1:03:31 We are all looking at our own object in our own mind. Were the Chita Matrans a large group? I mean how widely held was that? Do you know anything about that? I don't know the history, but Asanga had a lot of followers. Asanga was considered the founder, the charioteer of the Chitamatra school. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:31 Highlight the passage at 1:03:31

1:04:00 This is a very popular assertion for certain beings who have that particular karmic disposition. I personally haven't had a huge connection with it, but some people I find have a huge connection with it. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:00 Highlight the passage at 1:04:00

1:04:22 So let me, I mean, who said it all got worked out? Report an error in the passage at 1:04:22 Highlight the passage at 1:04:22

1:04:31 I mean, there's still, so it's said, right, to practice Tantra, we need to have at a minimum a chitta mantra point of view, right? A chitta mantra or a madimika, right? We can get pretty far on the path with a chitta mantra view, Report an error in the passage at 1:04:31 Highlight the passage at 1:04:31

1:04:59 right? So... right. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:59 Highlight the passage at 1:04:59

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:05:02 Objects don't exist separately from the mind that perceives it. They arise simultaneously with the mind that perceives it due to the ripening of a karmic imprint. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:02 Highlight the passage at 1:05:02

1:05:17 So there's no material form external to the mind. But that doesn't mean that everything is merely a perception of my mind. There are separate beings. That doesn't mean that... My mind is the only mind that exists and you guys are all just appearances to my mind. There are infinite separate mind streams. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:17 Highlight the passage at 1:05:17

1:05:47 The objects that you perceive are not separate from your mind and the objects that I perceive are not separate from mine. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:47 Highlight the passage at 1:05:47

1:05:58 So the usefulness of this is that we can't blame anyone else for anything. Right? Right? Everything Everything that arises in our experience is a ripening of our karmic imprint, something that we've created. So all of our experiences are a reflection of our own minds. So this is very, very useful. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:58 Highlight the passage at 1:05:58

1:06:37 As soon as that guy was rude to me. That's a ripening of my karmic imprint. Wow, she's really selfish. Oh, that's a ripening of my karmic imprint. Oh, that guy cut me off. That's a ripening of my karmic imprint. We can't say, oh, that guy is such a jerk. Oh, that's a ripening of my karmic imprint. Right. So very interesting to. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:37 Highlight the passage at 1:06:37

1:07:13 To experiment with this view and try to perceive things in this way. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:13 Highlight the passage at 1:07:13

1:07:24 So I want to do, yeah, let's do an exercise. So we did an exercise in the Vibashik, when we were covering Vibashikas, where we took an object of mental affliction, like an object of attachment, of strong attachment, or object of aversion. Irritation. So imagine that object. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:24 Highlight the passage at 1:07:24

1:08:16 So notice that object seems to be singular, one thing and solid. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:16 Highlight the passage at 1:08:16

1:08:53 So now imagine going deeper and breaking that down into partless particles, losing Report an error in the passage at 1:08:53 Highlight the passage at 1:08:53

1:09:10 the sense of wholeness, it being one thing. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:10 Highlight the passage at 1:09:10

1:09:44 So this should reduce the mental affliction. If we can hold on to the image of the particles, then Report an error in the passage at 1:09:44 Highlight the passage at 1:09:44

1:10:10 break that down further. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:10 Highlight the passage at 1:10:10

1:10:15 Those particles have parts which have parts Report an error in the passage at 1:10:15 Highlight the passage at 1:10:15

1:10:23 which have parts. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:23 Highlight the passage at 1:10:23

1:10:34 There's no solidity there. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:34 Highlight the passage at 1:10:34

1:10:54 On to that. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:54 Highlight the passage at 1:10:54

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:12:18 And then allow that whole to appear to your mind again. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:18 Highlight the passage at 1:12:18

1:12:26 Understanding that that whole is just an appearance to the mind. It doesn't exist externally to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:26 Highlight the passage at 1:12:26

1:12:46 Just an appearance due Report an error in the passage at 1:12:46 Highlight the passage at 1:12:46

1:12:53 to a ripening of my karma. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:53 Highlight the passage at 1:12:53

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:13:47 And then spread that out and think about the people in our lives, our homes, the situations in our lives. I Report an error in the passage at 1:13:47 Highlight the passage at 1:13:47

1:14:03 think these are all appearances to my mind due Report an error in the passage at 1:14:03 Highlight the passage at 1:14:03

1:14:14 to a ripening of my karma. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:14 Highlight the passage at 1:14:14

1:14:35 They don't exist external to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:35 Highlight the passage at 1:14:35

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:15:35 Eyes and look around us. All of these are just... And everything in this room, all the people in the room don't exist external to my mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:35 Highlight the passage at 1:15:35

1:15:58 Appearance is a ripening of my karmic imprints. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:58 Highlight the passage at 1:15:58

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:17:23 See how that totally changes the way we see things. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:23 Highlight the passage at 1:17:23

1:17:31 So that's the homework for this week is to try to step into the chita mantra, person's shoes, and try to see things that way this week. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:31 Highlight the passage at 1:17:31

1:17:49 Don't think it's a waste of time because this isn't the highest school. This will help us get to the Prasangika school. Not believing so strongly in appearances. The Sotrantikas said all these external, the things that we perceive with our senses exist the way they appear. Chita matras, Prasangikas, nope. Nothing exists the way it appears for an ordinary being. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:49 Highlight the passage at 1:17:49

1:18:24 So actually I want to try to understand better how karma relates to the mind only because when we were doing that exercise it kind of came up that if everything is a ripening, when are the imprints being made? Like how, if I'm going to pretend to be a practitioner of the mind only school, am I going to create that experience? Report an error in the passage at 1:18:24 Highlight the passage at 1:18:24

1:18:50 Or like how does that even happen? I mean how do they explain that basically? So karmic imprints are created in every moment of our mind through the mental factor of intention. So the mind that's, let's say, focused on generating loving kindness for somebody else is planting an imprint to receive loving kindness from somebody else. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:50 Highlight the passage at 1:18:50

1:19:21 The mind that... Cut somebody else off, right? You know, cutting somebody else off on the highway is planting an imprint, right, to be cut off in the future, for example. So in each moment, our mind is determining what karma, depending on to what our mind is directed. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:21 Highlight the passage at 1:19:21

1:19:49 The mental factor of intention is the mental factor that directs the mind to and off. And it's said that... Karma is the mental factor of intention, this mental factor, this function of the mind that directs the mind to an object, Report an error in the passage at 1:19:49 Highlight the passage at 1:19:49

1:20:11 as well as the actions of body and speech that are motivated by that intention. So if I think about cutting a person off and then I cut them off, the mental aspect as well as the physical are creating karma. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:11 Highlight the passage at 1:20:11

1:20:37 Or the mind that wants to say something sarcastic to that person. As well as the speech that comes out. Both of those are creating karma. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:37 Highlight the passage at 1:20:37

1:20:53 Karma is one of those things that's considered an extremely subtle thing. So we want to understand completely how it works until we're bodhis. Yeah, because I'm starting to think about, what is it, 64 units per second or something. I think I had sort of a similar question. I was kind of wondering if that's the case. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:53 Highlight the passage at 1:20:53

1:21:19 These karmic seeds are ripening. You said, when did they get created? I was wondering, well, how did the first one get created? What first? Exactly. So that's what I was going to ask you. Do they sort of refute the notion of time or beginnings and ends? They refute the notion of a beginning of time. What about the moment before that? What about the moment before that? What about the moment before that? Our minds so want to assert a beginning. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:19 Highlight the passage at 1:21:19

1:21:52 Sorry, you know, according to Buddhism, no beginning. I have to say there are aspects of this, like the thing you drew up here on the board and this time thing that remind me very strongly of this book that was written called Biocentrism by, I think his name is Robert Lanza. And I think he's a biologist and he co-wrote it with a physicist. But there's a small and very controversial school of science right now, this sort of cutting edge that says that both space... Report an error in the passage at 1:21:52 Highlight the passage at 1:21:52

1:22:22 And time don't exist in the external world. They're simply projections of the human consciousness. And this is very, there are aspects of this that are almost identical to what these scientists are proposing. They say we can't go out there and measure space. There's no way to, we don't have any instruments to show it. We don't, we can't measure time except as physical objects change. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:22 Highlight the passage at 1:22:22

1:22:44 So they think that they're projections of the human consciousness that allow us to make sense of reality. That they don't, there's no such thing as space and time. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:44 Highlight the passage at 1:22:44

1:22:53 I don't know, it's kind of cool to see how this comes together. Yeah, there are a lot of similarities between science now as well as Buddhism. A lot of consistency. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:53 Highlight the passage at 1:22:53

1:23:13 So I didn't have us take a break, so why don't we take a break and then we'll resume with Chita Macho. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:13 Highlight the passage at 1:23:13

1:23:37 Do you want me to take it down? No, I'm going to leave it, but if you are, then I'm going to take it off of this so that you can actually leave on this and not slip. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:37 Highlight the passage at 1:23:37

1:23:50 Oh, that's sweet. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:50 Highlight the passage at 1:23:50

1:23:58 Okay, thank you. Yeah, I haven't decided yet if I can use it. Okay, there you have the options. All right, thanks. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:58 Highlight the passage at 1:23:58

1:24:22 Why don't you take a break and I can fill up my water. don't mind, it's fine. Seriously, do you want not You're on the go all day long. It's okay. Okay, hot water. All right. Thanks. Just hot water. I'll use the same tea bag. Okay. Thanks. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:22 Highlight the passage at 1:24:22

1:24:53 see, I would say, like, I would think, but it's probably because it just didn't exist at the time in schools. a merely label case. Well, then that's a true crime. That's correct. Yeah. We're not there yet. Yeah. No, I know, but it's like you could, I mean, because they probably just weren't thinking with these terms, and so you're using terms that... Report an error in the passage at 1:24:53 Highlight the passage at 1:24:53

1:25:13 No, they were, though. I mean, weren't they? I mean, is there a timeline here? Did the Vajrasivas, you know, did the Marikas kind of grow out of... basics of the lower schools later. I mean, yeah, I mean, sort of, sort of. I mean, all of these schools are said to have been taught by the Buddha, right? But some, right, some, but the school, right, the followers, right, that then formed the schools, right, then said, okay, well, this was the real teaching of the Buddha, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:25:13 Highlight the passage at 1:25:13

1:25:48 So then the Vibashkas formed when, well, they kind of... A lot of it under Vasubandhu. You know, when he wrote the Abhidharma Kosha, it was from the Vaibhashika point of view. And so these schools were generally formed when some great scholar wrote some great text to clarify the Buddha's intention. And then a school formed as a result. So the Madhyamika was formed when... Report an error in the passage at 1:25:48 Highlight the passage at 1:25:48

1:26:22 Nagarjuna interpreted the Buddha and wrote his fundamental wisdom. And then later on, there were some schools, Svatandrika and Prasangika, because then certain people interpreted Nagarjuna in one way and others interpreted him in another way, and so then subsequently there were the two offshoots of Madhyamika. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:22 Highlight the passage at 1:26:22

1:26:50 mean, I find it very impressive that the Vaibashi does the bottom part was perfect. All of these schools are really impressive. When we really get into them, they're all very profound. And even the Vaibashkas would say, this table is imputed by the mind. You know, that's made up of partless particles and it's imputed by the mind. They just wouldn't say it's merely imputed by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:50 Highlight the passage at 1:26:50

1:27:32 Because they would say it's Report an error in the passage at 1:27:32 Highlight the passage at 1:27:32

1:27:38 partless particles. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:38 Highlight the passage at 1:27:38

1:27:45 Right. And even though they would say, you know, there's an entity here that exists from its own side that we call a table. Because you could say not a, what do you say, self-sufficient person. it's Report an error in the passage at 1:27:45 Highlight the passage at 1:27:45

1:28:00 Is it wrong? Because that doesn't exist. Uh-huh. But you could say a merely labeled person wouldn't be. It's like if your mind could impute a merely labeled person, but those in that school didn't use those terms. Because they're thinking in another arena. Yeah. Well, they did. I mean, it's not that they didn't use those terms, but the Babashkas and Sotrantis would say a person is labeled on the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:00 Highlight the passage at 1:28:00

1:28:37 It's labeled on the aggregates. But if you search for the person, you'll find something. And the Vibashkas would say, oh, you find the continuum of the five aggregates. There's something that you can point to as being the person. There isn't a person that's separate from the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:37 Highlight the passage at 1:28:37

1:29:04 And the person is... The person is imputed on the body and mind. But they would say, but there's something you can point to that is the person. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:04 Highlight the passage at 1:29:04

1:29:19 Whereas Prasangikas would say, the same thing, the person is imputed on the body and mind, except, and it doesn't substantially exist, except the Prasangikas would say, there's nothing you can point to that is the person. So it's a subtle difference, right? Even the Vaibeshikas were very profound. You know, they're all, you know, they were thinkers, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:29:19 Highlight the passage at 1:29:19

1:29:46 They were thinkers, they were meditators, right? They weren't slackers, right? Exactly. I mean, I notice in my mind, you know, there's always this tendency, oh, that's a lower school, right? Oh, that's a lower school. But... It's extremely profound, right? Their assertions are more profound than the average person who's never thought about this stuff, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:29:46 Highlight the passage at 1:29:46

1:30:11 Who hasn't thought about it deeply, right? Who hasn't meditated on it. or even like, know, if you're studying physics, you know, Report an error in the passage at 1:30:11 Highlight the passage at 1:30:11

1:30:35 understand sort of the reasoning and the mechanics involved in it. Yeah. As well as eliminating your habitual misconceptions about things. Because scientists, even though they know that there aren't, let's say, partless particles intellectually, still they still have a strong conception and a belief in me that that intellectual knowledge hasn't dispelled. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:35 Highlight the passage at 1:30:35

1:31:07 Merely intellectual knowledge cannot dispel this habitual belief in a solid self. We have to meditate on it. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:07 Highlight the passage at 1:31:07

1:31:28 know, the particles actually self-existent, but are kind of like vibrations, potentialities, and that in the infinite beginning of this universe, you know, that you have, just like you can show them with a card, so many times that eventually it's going to be changed, and you have these parallel universes, which in to itself has a lot of implications in kind of like reincarnation and different worlds rules and and stuff. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:28 Highlight the passage at 1:31:28

1:31:55 stuff. Thank you. of self become sort of part of that conversation because there's still that very strong sense of self that's looking at this. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:55 Highlight the passage at 1:31:55

1:32:12 thing that's refuting the existence of things being inherently, you know, and singly existing. So, just that whole precedent, you know, it's like as the watchers, like, disintegrating stuff, you know, you get appreciation of the dissolution of dualities. I doubt dualities, however you want to put it. I doubt it. It's funny, because even when I try to do that, Settle suddenly, in this while... place, and we're kind of like it. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:12 Highlight the passage at 1:32:12

1:32:40 Yeah, got your true blues. Vibrational potential. Vibrationality as opposed to something existing. Dependent on that relationship of measuring something. It's a great save. It's like getting that position of momentum, getting that ball, and whatever you measure it at that moment, it becomes that. It's the same kind of thing. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:40 Highlight the passage at 1:32:40

1:33:01 It's at the moment where you decide to look at you. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:01 Highlight the passage at 1:33:01

1:33:26 It's all so interesting. I haven't read it, it's an impressive book that's called Buddhism, and the whole thing is on quantum physics and Buddhism. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:26 Highlight the passage at 1:33:26

1:33:40 Which one? Oh, you know, I just got it, I forget right now, it's a whole school of interdisciplinary research going on now. It's kind of scientific and philosophical. interesting. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:40 Highlight the passage at 1:33:40

1:34:01 I guess you want to make it. Would it be okay? rather than at the end, would it be too distracting? I don't mind. It's alright. I told Tim he could make an announcement now. Where did the ka come from? The pen. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:01 Highlight the passage at 1:34:01

1:34:19 I don't know. Is it a ka or is it a hangman? It looks like a ka. Did you do that? Were you illustrating a Tibetan syllabi? Report an error in the passage at 1:34:19 Highlight the passage at 1:34:19

1:34:33 Are these particles? Particles? That's an illustration of the lack of heartless particles. I guess I would have known had I not. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:33 Highlight the passage at 1:34:33

1:34:52 Where's everyone? Who are all these people right here? Report an error in the passage at 1:34:52 Highlight the passage at 1:34:52

1:35:01 So I think everyone in here might be familiar, but I just wanted to make a couple of announcements. Tomorrow, Geshe-la is starting the ninth chapter of Shantideva, which is, as I'm sure Emily has told you or will tell you or can tell you, it's going to be an amazing class. Very, very rare to... Connie? Well, they look similar. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:01 Highlight the passage at 1:35:01

1:35:17 get these teachings, especially from someone like Geshe-la. And the ninth chapter is very, very difficult, but think we need to understand it to get enlightenment. So it's pretty that it's going to be tomorrow. So tomorrow is the first class, and we're going to be giving everyone copies of the text. So everyone can come to that. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:17 Highlight the passage at 1:35:17

1:35:36 And I just wanted to, if people have questions about the upcoming Hevazra initiation, you guys can ask me. We're having... Chudan Rinpoche will be here on the 28th and 29th of the month. And he is offering this highest yoga tantra initiation. The only commitments are six session guru yoga commitment, which basically if you've never taken highest yoga tantra, you always get this commitment if you take highest yoga tantra. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:36 Highlight the passage at 1:35:36

1:36:01 But other than that, there's no other commitments besides taking bodhisattva and tantric vows. And Geshe-la won't be, he'll be teaching this Sunday, starting with Songs of Experience, which is a lamrim text. So it's great to kind of, if you want a teaching that can kind of contextualize where all of the teachings fit, that's a good class to come to. And then the following Sunday, Geshe-la will be at the Land of Medicine Buddha for the Medicine Buddha Festival. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:01 Highlight the passage at 1:36:01

1:36:34 Oh, and Venerable Tim is leading pujas Monday through Friday for now. He does guru puja in the mornings from 8 to... Do you want to do this? Report an error in the passage at 1:36:34 Highlight the passage at 1:36:34

1:36:50 The morning practice includes Guru Puja and White Tara meditation with the mantras that were recommended for Lama Zopa Rinpoche's long life and health. At the moment, we're doing Medicine Buddha Puja to follow that, so somewhere between 9 and 10, depending on if people show up. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:50 Highlight the passage at 1:36:50

1:37:14 Please, everybody, continue to do practices for Rinpoche. A few days ago, Roger sent out. An announcement, right, that it seems that Rinpoche had a second stroke, right? And so, you know, there was a setback, right? And then Rinpoche had to rest for some days, and now he's starting his physical therapy again, right? So it's not like, phew, everything is right, everything is fine, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:37:14 Highlight the passage at 1:37:14

1:37:48 It's, you know, they say, right, there's a high... There's a high chance of having a second stroke after having a first stroke, something like 50%. He's not in the clear at this point. There was a lot of energy behind doing practices right at the beginning after his first stroke, but there seems to be a dissipation of that energy, but we need to keep doing those practices if we want him. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:48 Highlight the passage at 1:37:48

1:38:21 To continue to manifest in our lives and teach. And Tim has another announcement. If anyone wants to participate in the morning sessions, I think on the website you can just email me and let me know that you're interested if you want to come some mornings so I'll make sure to wait until you're here. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:21 Highlight the passage at 1:38:21

1:38:40 Or if you want to make offerings, you can make an offering to the center for the pujas and we'll make sure that that gets included at some point in the weekly offerings. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:40 Highlight the passage at 1:38:40

1:38:51 I'm going to be attending an animal liberation ceremony tomorrow down in Aptos, and if anybody wants to make any contributions to liberate worms or crickets or sentient beings like that, I would be happy to get them on the way down and liberate them tomorrow. You could just see me after if you wanted to do that. Thanks. Thank you. I also just wanted to mention that if... Report an error in the passage at 1:38:51 Highlight the passage at 1:38:51

1:39:16 If you're not planning on coming to the initiation but would like to connect with Rinpoche, Chudan Rinpoche, he'll be leading Lama Tsupa, which is Guru Puja Tsok, on Friday the 27th. If you've never been to a Lama Tsupa Tsok, it's kind of like a long offering, very, very beautiful offering ceremony that includes the entire lamrim practice. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:16 Highlight the passage at 1:39:16

1:39:40 And we're also going to try to organize a dinner with Rinpoche. It hasn't been confirmed yet, but we're going to try to organize a dinner with Chodron Rinpoche, Geshe Dakpa, Geshe Nurbu, and all the Lamas here in San Francisco. We're going to try to do it on Sunday, but we'll see if it's possible. And if it is, we'll let everyone know. Sorry. Sunday after the initiation, you mean? Report an error in the passage at 1:39:40 Highlight the passage at 1:39:40

1:40:04 Sunday of the initiation. That might not be possible. And if not, we might try to do it maybe on a Thursday. But we are going to try to do some sort of dinner that the community can take part of. And if you volunteer, we're going to try to have a volunteer gathering with Rinpoche while he's here, like a tea or kind of like a volunteer chat. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:04 Highlight the passage at 1:40:04

1:40:29 You can connect with Rinpoche upstairs and we can all talk to him. And if you'd like to meet with him, you can email me and I can coordinate that if you have questions. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:29 Highlight the passage at 1:40:29

1:40:41 Emptiness question. Carol, you had your hand up. Did you have something you want to say? No. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:41 Highlight the passage at 1:40:41

1:40:51 I'm going to take this opportunity to hand out some charts and visuals. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:51 Highlight the passage at 1:40:51

1:41:01 There are two different ones. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:01 Highlight the passage at 1:41:01

1:41:07 Maybe one person can hand out one of the charts and another person can hand out the other so everybody has both. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:07 Highlight the passage at 1:41:07

1:41:40 that's it. Huh? Is there on the other street? Haha. Oh, that's it. It's like it's coming. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:40 Highlight the passage at 1:41:40

1:41:50 get those together. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:50 Highlight the passage at 1:41:50

1:42:01 the line. Uh-uh. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:01 Highlight the passage at 1:42:01

1:42:06 The 9th. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:06 Highlight the passage at 1:42:06

1:42:10 I didn't see that at all. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:10 Highlight the passage at 1:42:10

1:42:18 I'd have to have a Netflix cube. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:18 Highlight the passage at 1:42:18

1:42:27 Does everybody have a two-truths chart? Because I have only one selflessness chart and three two-truths charts left. I don't know if I printed the same amount of each. Mine don't need to go. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:27 Highlight the passage at 1:42:27

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:42:39 But anyway, so the. Anyway, so I want to go through this selflessness according to the four schools chart. You guys have that? Report an error in the passage at 1:42:39 Highlight the passage at 1:42:39

1:43:03 So the column that says selflessness of persons or the two columns. You see that? Report an error in the passage at 1:43:03 Highlight the passage at 1:43:03

1:43:14 So you can see that all of the schools up to the Marimika Prasangika school, the highest school, assert that this, the non-existence of a self. Sufficient, substantially existent person is the subtlest selflessness of persons. So in other words, the self-sufficient, substantially existent person, that is the person that doesn't exist according to all of the schools. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:14 Highlight the passage at 1:43:14

1:43:48 And that's the subtlest level of the person that doesn't exist according to all of the schools before Prasangika, the one that we've been talking about. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:48 Highlight the passage at 1:43:48

1:44:02 So even Chita Matra says, okay, well, what we need to realize is the lack of the self-sufficient person in order to get liberated from cyclic existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:02 Highlight the passage at 1:44:02

1:44:17 But then if we look across at Chita Matra, they also have a selflessness of phenomena, so phenomena other than persons, beings. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:17 Highlight the passage at 1:44:17

1:44:27 Vibhashaka and Sotrantaka don't assert a selflessness of phenomena. They just talk about how the person lacks self-sufficiency. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:27 Highlight the passage at 1:44:27

1:44:37 But chitta matra negates two things about phenomena. First of all, subject and object as being different entities, which is what we've been talking about, that the object is not a different entity from the mind. It arises simultaneously with the mind. I'm in the column that says selflessness of phenomena under the chitta matra school. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:37 Highlight the passage at 1:44:37

1:45:06 Get it? Where it says non-existence of subject and object as different entities. Are you following me? Report an error in the passage at 1:45:06 Highlight the passage at 1:45:06

1:45:18 The fifth column. Are you on the selflessness according to the four schools? Okay. The fifth column where it says selflessness of phenomena, subtle, and then go down a couple squares where it says non-existence, where it's chita mantra going across. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:18 Highlight the passage at 1:45:18

1:45:45 Just below the dark black line. Can someone point that out? Oh, okay, okay. I mean, Report an error in the passage at 1:45:45 Highlight the passage at 1:45:45

1:46:01 there's a lot of terms we have to get used to, right? Non-existence of subject and object as different entities means that the object doesn't exist external to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:01 Highlight the passage at 1:46:01

1:46:19 They're the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:19 Highlight the passage at 1:46:19

1:46:30 Yeah, it takes a while to get used to the terminology. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:30 Highlight the passage at 1:46:30

1:46:38 Well, that's what we have to realize is the non-existence of the, according to them. The non-existence of subject and object as different entities. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:38 Highlight the passage at 1:46:38

1:46:49 So they say, right, the subject being the mind. So the mind and the object that the mind is perceiving are the same entity in the sense that they arise from the same karmic imprint. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:49 Highlight the passage at 1:46:49

1:47:07 The object cannot... Exist without the mind and the mind perceiving the object can't exist without the object. So the two come into existence, they arise, they abide and they cease simultaneously. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:07 Highlight the passage at 1:47:07

1:47:26 They arise, they abide and they cease simultaneously. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:26 Highlight the passage at 1:47:26

1:47:51 So we haven't talked about the non-existence of phenomena as naturally bases of names, but maybe we'll wait until next time to talk about that one. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:51 Highlight the passage at 1:47:51

1:48:13 Natural basis of names. They aren't the basis of names naturally from their own side. Natural basis of names. Well, we'll talk about it and then see. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, okay, well, actually, let's start talking about that a little bit. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:13 Highlight the passage at 1:48:13

1:48:42 Okay, so we talked about how this cup doesn't exist externally to the mind perceiving it, right, according to Chita Matra. So there's this other thing that they negate that's related to the subject and object as different entities, whereas this thing in my hand seems to be, to naturally be the basis of the name cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:42 Highlight the passage at 1:48:42

1:49:18 It seems to be that cup is coming from the side of the object. It's naturally... It seems that I didn't have to label it a cup. It seems to naturally be the basis of the name cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:18 Highlight the passage at 1:49:18

1:49:45 So the way this happens in actuality is that you see some shapes and colors. You see white and blue in a particular shape. Our conceptual consciousness that labels it cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:45 Highlight the passage at 1:49:45

1:50:10 And then it appears back as being a cup from its own thigh. It appears to be naturally. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:10 Highlight the passage at 1:50:10

1:50:25 And it appears, even to the eye consciousness, it appears as if there's a cup kind of reflecting its image back to you. It appears that this thing in my hand is naturally a cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:25 Highlight the passage at 1:50:25

1:50:46 That it doesn't have to be named cup. It's naturally a cup. That's the way it appears. So that is the other object of refutation for chitta mantra, that things are not naturally a basis of the name. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:46 Highlight the passage at 1:50:46

1:51:08 It needs a mind imputing it for it to be. So this is not naturally the basis of the name cup. This is not naturally the basis of the name table. Report an error in the passage at 1:51:08 Highlight the passage at 1:51:08

1:51:29 This is not naturally the basis of the name pen. It needs to be named by a conceptual consciousness. Things need to be named. They're not naturally. Report an error in the passage at 1:51:29 Highlight the passage at 1:51:29

1:51:50 Well, B-A-S-I-S if we're talking about one phenomenon and B-A-S-E-S if we're talking about plural phenomena. Yeah, yeah. So it depends on if we're talking about one or many. Report an error in the passage at 1:51:50 Highlight the passage at 1:51:50

1:52:08 This isn't naturally, by Report an error in the passage at 1:52:08 Highlight the passage at 1:52:08

1:52:14 way of its own character, a pen. It's not naturally the basis of the name pen. It needs to be named. It needs to be imputed by conceptual consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:14 Highlight the passage at 1:52:14

1:52:31 We're getting closer and closer to Prasangi kind of thing. So, you know, this is not naturally a person from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:31 Highlight the passage at 1:52:31

1:52:49 So, Hopkins in his book, Emptiness in the Mind Only School talks about how this refers to, right, entities and attributes are not naturally the basis of a name. So entity meaning cup, this is not naturally the basis of the name cup, as well as it's not naturally, from its own side, by way of its own character, beautiful or ugly. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:49 Highlight the passage at 1:52:49

1:53:25 So people, similarly, are not naturally, from their own side, wonderful, terrible, annoying. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:25 Highlight the passage at 1:53:25

1:53:39 They're not naturally. So the entity, which is the object itself, as well as the attributes or the adjectives, objects are not naturally the basis of a name. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:39 Highlight the passage at 1:53:39

1:53:57 So we can see how this also cuts down. Mental afflictions, right? There is no, once again, there is no person, annoying person by way of its own characteristics. Annoying person comes from our conceptual mind. It's an imputation. What appears to the direct perception, right? Shapes and colors, sounds, odors, etc. Conceptual consciousness, labels. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:57 Highlight the passage at 1:53:57

1:54:35 Person, conceptual consciousness labels annoying person. Report an error in the passage at 1:54:35 Highlight the passage at 1:54:35

1:54:43 There's nothing that is naturally the basis of the name annoying person. There's nothing naturally the basis of the label annoying person. Report an error in the passage at 1:54:43 Highlight the passage at 1:54:43

1:55:09 Appear to be so. Report an error in the passage at 1:55:09 Highlight the passage at 1:55:09

1:55:23 So I look around and I see different people in the room and I have different impressions of different folks. Those impressions are all coming from my... Report an error in the passage at 1:55:23 Highlight the passage at 1:55:23

1:55:36 And yet there are other... And your conceptual mind, yeah. And yet there are other minds here, they would say. Is that right? And if it's true that... Report an error in the passage at 1:55:36 Highlight the passage at 1:55:36

1:55:50 I mean, is it true in this school that your previous karma sort of determines how you appear in this life? If you're beautiful, you were kind in a previous life or something, you know, that sort of thing. Report an error in the passage at 1:55:50 Highlight the passage at 1:55:50

1:56:01 So does the way other people appear to me depend on their karma or only on my karma? The way other people appear to you is your karma. The way they appear to themselves is their karma. Oh, how interesting. Report an error in the passage at 1:56:01 Highlight the passage at 1:56:01

1:56:19 The way you appear to yourself and the way others appear to you is a ripening of your karma. So if I see a beautiful woman, that's all my karma. That is your karma. It has nothing to do with how she was in a previous life. How interesting. Report an error in the passage at 1:56:19 Highlight the passage at 1:56:19

1:56:39 I think you could say that. I mean, there is no beautiful person from their own side. right you know Many people would look at the painting of Mona Lisa and think, beautiful, and others would think, not so beautiful. It all depends on your previous conditioning and your karma. I guess what was kind of puzzling to me is if I'm a... Report an error in the passage at 1:56:39 Highlight the passage at 1:56:39

1:57:18 Beautiful person that makes my life better. If other people find me beautiful, I have an easier life. I'm better loved among people and stuff. And that sort of seems like it would be an appropriate ripening of good karma in the past. And that's your. Yeah. And that's a ripening of your karma. If others. Yeah. If others view you as beautiful and and treat you with, you know, more pleasantly. Report an error in the passage at 1:57:18 Highlight the passage at 1:57:18

1:57:46 Right. So every moment of. The pleasure that we experience is a ripening of our previous karma. Report an error in the passage at 1:57:46 Highlight the passage at 1:57:46

1:57:58 Somebody else might view someone as beautiful and get jealous and treat them badly. So when others treat us well and we feel happy, that's a ripening of our virtuous karma. If others see us as beautiful and treat us badly, That's a ripening, right? And we feel bad about that, right? That's a ripening of our non-virtuous karma. Report an error in the passage at 1:57:58 Highlight the passage at 1:57:58

1:58:31 Because there are plenty of people who are beautiful and miserable, right? Plenty of people who are perceived as being beautiful, right? But they're miserable. Report an error in the passage at 1:58:31 Highlight the passage at 1:58:31

1:58:48 So, yeah, anyway. Report an error in the passage at 1:58:48 Highlight the passage at 1:58:48

1:58:55 It is apparently better to feel beautiful than to appear beautiful. Feel beautiful you Report an error in the passage at 1:58:55 Highlight the passage at 1:58:55

1:59:13 So, any other questions? Have I totally confused people? Report an error in the passage at 1:59:13 Highlight the passage at 1:59:13

1:59:30 Yeah, okay. Yeah. I mean, it takes a while for this stuff to sink in, right? Yeah. What was she talking about? Yeah. Yeah, so... Okay. Report an error in the passage at 1:59:30 Highlight the passage at 1:59:30

1:59:51 And, you know, and if people can read the Chita Matra chapter in Appearance and Reality, that really helps. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Report an error in the passage at 1:59:51 Highlight the passage at 1:59:51