Special Insight 1: Wisdom of Emptiness (24 May 2011)

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:20 That's easy to do. Report an error in the passage at 1:20 Highlight the passage at 1:20

1:30 That can happen to anyone. Report an error in the passage at 1:30 Highlight the passage at 1:30

1:41 Okay. Well, welcome everyone. Report an error in the passage at 1:41 Highlight the passage at 1:41

1:49 Let's spend a minute and set our motivation for tonight so Report an error in the passage at 1:49 Highlight the passage at 1:49

2:02 we can imagine countless beings around us. Report an error in the passage at 2:02 Highlight the passage at 2:02

2:11 We're just one of countless, all Report an error in the passage at 2:11 Highlight the passage at 2:11

2:30 of whom are trying to be happy and not wanting to suffer, yet Report an error in the passage at 2:30 Highlight the passage at 2:30

2:44 experiencing difficulties again and again due Report an error in the passage at 2:44 Highlight the passage at 2:44

3:17 to being imprisoned by our karma. Report an error in the passage at 3:17 Highlight the passage at 3:17

3:26 And mental afflictions, developing Report an error in the passage at 3:26 Highlight the passage at 3:26

3:56 a wish to attain complete enlightenment. Report an error in the passage at 3:56 Highlight the passage at 3:56

4:10 Countless sentient beings equaling the limits of space. Report an error in the passage at 4:10 Highlight the passage at 4:10

· · · silence, 1 minute

5:18 He will start with the Praise to Manjushri in the White Book on the first page. Report an error in the passage at 5:18 Highlight the passage at 5:18

· · · silence, 1 minute

5:59 Obeisance to my guru and protector, Manjushri, who holds to his heart a scriptural text symbolic of his seeing all things that they are, whose intelligence shines forth as the sun, unclouded by delusions or traces of ignorance, who teaches in sixty ways with the 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 5:59 Highlight the passage at 5:59

6:25 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. Report an error in the passage at 6:25 Highlight the passage at 6:25

6:46 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 6:46 Highlight the passage at 6:46

6:56 With Report an error in the passage at 6:56 Highlight the passage at 6:56

7:12 the brilliance of your wisdom, O compassionate one, illuminate the darkness in closing my mind. 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 in the Gold Book. Report an error in the passage at 7:12 Highlight the passage at 7:12

7:38 I prostrate to the Arya Triple Gem. Thus did I here 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 7:38 Highlight the passage at 7:38

7:59 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 bower of Buddha, the Venable 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 7:59 Highlight the passage at 7:59

8:27 He said that, and the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Avalokitesvara said this to the Venable Sharipucha. Sharipucha, 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 8:27 Highlight the passage at 8:27

8:50 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 8:50 Highlight the passage at 8:50

9:16 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 eye element and so on up to and including no mind element and no mental consciousness element. Report an error in the passage at 9:16 Highlight the passage at 9:16

9:44 There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance and so on up to and including no aging and death and no extinction of aging and death. Similarly, there is no suffering, origination, cessation and path. There is no exalted wisdom, no attainment 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. Report an error in the passage at 9:44 Highlight the passage at 9:44

10:13 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. Therefore, the mantra of the perfection of wisdom, the mantra of great knowledge, the unsurpassed mantra, the mantra equal to the unequal. Report an error in the passage at 10:13 Highlight the passage at 10:13

10:38 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. Thaya ta 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 10:38 Highlight the passage at 10:38

11:01 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. Report an error in the passage at 11:01 Highlight the passage at 11:01

11:21 The Bhagavan having thus spoken, the venerable 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. And then on page 98, the bottom is Refuge and Bodhicitta. Report an error in the passage at 11:21 Highlight the passage at 11:21

11:52 I go for refuge until I'm enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma and 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 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. Report an error in the passage at 11:52 Highlight the passage at 11:52

12:18 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. Report an error in the passage at 12:18 Highlight the passage at 12:18

12:51 Alright, so let's review what we've covered so far. On the basis of... This thing in my hand. Report an error in the passage at 12:51 Highlight the passage at 12:51

13:03 So we've been covering the lower schools of philosophical tenets. So the first school, the Vibashica School, the Great Exposition School, would say that this thing in my hand is composed of partless particles. Report an error in the passage at 13:03 Highlight the passage at 13:03

13:24 It exists as a, well, it's imputed on a collection of particles. Partless particles. But they would say that this thing really, it's substantially established, it's inherently existent, it is a clock. It's imputed as a clock, but it is a clock, right? Report an error in the passage at 13:24 Highlight the passage at 13:24

13:56 Then the next school, the Sautrantica school, the Sūtra school. Oh, okay, and so the Vibashikas, so back to Vibashikas. This is a conventional truth because it's composed of many particles. It's just a conventional truth. Whereas Sartrantikas would say it's an ultimate truth because it's an object of our senses. Report an error in the passage at 13:56 Highlight the passage at 13:56

14:19 It's an object of our direct perception. It would say it exists external to our mind and it's projecting its image to our eye consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 14:19 Highlight the passage at 14:19

14:35 And it exists the way it appears, according to Sartrantika. It functions. It's a clock. It functions and it exists the way it appears. Report an error in the passage at 14:35 Highlight the passage at 14:35

14:57 And our conceptual consciousness takes the sense data and overlays what we actually see with our mental image of a clock. Report an error in the passage at 14:57 Highlight the passage at 14:57

15:16 So we perceive actually just sense data, colors and shapes. Well, with our eye consciousness we perceive... Colors and shapes. But then our conceptual consciousness labels it, right, clock, and overlays this with an image of a whole, right, object. Report an error in the passage at 15:16 Highlight the passage at 15:16

15:42 So the Sotrantikas would say the clock itself, the object of the senses, is an ultimate truth because it functions. Whereas our conceptual consciousness that labels it has an element of mistake in it. Because we mistake the image in our mind for the actual object. Report an error in the passage at 15:42 Highlight the passage at 15:42

16:17 The vibashikas and sotrantikas say basically things, objects of our senses, they exist the way they appear. And so to get liberated, we just have to realize the lack of the self-sufficient, substantially existent person. The person that appears to not depend on the body and mind. That seems to be... Separate from the body and mind. So by realizing the lack of that person we get and familiarizing ourselves with that, we call them abiding a special insight, then we get liberated. Report an error in the passage at 16:17 Highlight the passage at 16:17

17:00 And they don't talk about how to get enlightened. But then we move to the Mahāyāna schools and then it gets radical. So the chita mantras would say this thing that appears in your mind. Report an error in the passage at 17:00 Highlight the passage at 17:00

17:19 Doesn't exist externally to your mind. It exists as an image or as an appearance in your mind. And it appears this way because of a karmic latency ripening. Report an error in the passage at 17:19 Highlight the passage at 17:19

17:40 So the clock that appears to our mind isn't separate from our minds, according to Chita Matra. It ripens. The mind perceiving clock and the clock both arise simultaneously. Due to a karmic seed ripening, according to Chita Mantra. But then Chita Mantras would say, okay, it doesn't exist externally to your mind, but it functions. Report an error in the passage at 17:40 Highlight the passage at 17:40

18:08 The clock, you can tell time as long as the battery is working. So it functions and it exists from its own side. It exists inherently. It's not external to the mind, but it does have... It does function and it has its own mode of being, its own mode of existing. If it didn't, then it wouldn't exist at all, they say. Report an error in the passage at 18:08 Highlight the passage at 18:08

18:46 It must inherently exist because it functions, according Chita Matra. It must inherently exist. It must exist from its own side because it functions. It must be a clock. Because it functions as a cloth. Report an error in the passage at 18:46 Highlight the passage at 18:46

19:15 So that's what the Chita Mantras say. Kind of difficult to get our minds really around that. So Chita Mantras say there are no particles. Report an error in the passage at 19:15 Highlight the passage at 19:15

19:31 There are no partless particles. Because the partless particles as posited by Beshikas can be broken down further and further and further and further. So there is no smallest particle. Because every particle can be broken down further. There are no... There's no material form. Everything is just an appearance to a mind. Report an error in the passage at 19:31 Highlight the passage at 19:31

20:04 Then we move to Madhyamaka. Report an error in the passage at 20:04 Highlight the passage at 20:04

20:11 So the middle way school, Madhyamaka, Report an error in the passage at 20:11 Highlight the passage at 20:11

20:21 says that nothing truly exists. Nothing ultimately exists. Cheetah mantras would say, okay, this clock doesn't exist externally to the mind, but it still exists. It truly exists and it ultimately exists. It has its own mode of being because it functions. Report an error in the passage at 20:21 Highlight the passage at 20:21

20:47 Mariamakas would say doesn't truly exist, doesn't ultimately exist. Report an error in the passage at 20:47 Highlight the passage at 20:47

21:05 It would be a big test to see how well I can explain this. Report an error in the passage at 21:05 Highlight the passage at 21:05

21:15 Oh, green. Report an error in the passage at 21:15 Highlight the passage at 21:15

21:18 It has a blue cap, but it functions to appear as green. So I think this one's also green. Green is hard for you to see, isn't it? It's all right? Okay. Report an error in the passage at 21:18 Highlight the passage at 21:18

21:57 So there was... All right, someone named Nagarjuna, who Report an error in the passage at 21:57 Highlight the passage at 21:57

22:07 is considered the founder charioteer of the middle way school. Sorry, Report an error in the passage at 22:07 Highlight the passage at 22:07

22:19 this is going to be hard for you to read. Report an error in the passage at 22:19 Highlight the passage at 22:19

22:29 So Nagarjuna and his spiritual son Aryadeva. You probably can't read this, can you? Report an error in the passage at 22:29 Highlight the passage at 22:29

22:42 Yeah, you can't, or yeah, you can't. I Report an error in the passage at 22:42 Highlight the passage at 22:42

22:50 think it's okay. It's nice to have it a little high so people can see it. All right, so... So it's said that the Buddha taught the middle way, but Nagarjuna is said to, he lived about 400 years after the Buddha, and it's said that he kind of revealed, rediscovered the perfection of wisdom sutras and brought them from the land of the Nagas, and he clarified the middle way system. Report an error in the passage at 22:50 Highlight the passage at 22:50

23:27 And so he's considered the... And he wrote many books, including this one called The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. Obviously this is an English translation of it. Report an error in the passage at 23:27 Highlight the passage at 23:27

23:42 Or also called The Treatise on the Middle Way. The Treatise on the Middle Way are the Fundamental Wisdom. So he wrote this, Clarifying the Middle Way, and then subsequently different people... Wrote commentaries explaining the meaning of Nagarjuna's works. Report an error in the passage at 23:42 Highlight the passage at 23:42

24:09 So there was someone, and I'm going to mention this because Lama Tsongkhapa in his text will mention it, is that subsequently someone named Buddha Palita commented on the Treatise of the Middle Way, Fundamental Wisdom. Report an error in the passage at 24:09 Highlight the passage at 24:09

24:34 Buddha Palita, and Report an error in the passage at 24:34 Highlight the passage at 24:34

24:43 this will get a little bit technical, but so Buddha Palita commented on this meaning. Report an error in the passage at 24:43 Highlight the passage at 24:43

24:55 And used a logical reasoning called consequences as opposed to autonomous syllogisms. Report an error in the passage at 24:55 Highlight the passage at 24:55

25:06 So he used, okay, so, Report an error in the passage at 25:06 Highlight the passage at 25:06

25:13 and I don't want to get too lost in that, but these terms come up quite a lot. Report an error in the passage at 25:13 Highlight the passage at 25:13

· · · silence, 2 minutes

27:04 So in debate, there's something called a syllogism, there's something called a consequence. So a syllogism consists of a thesis and a reason. Report an error in the passage at 27:04 Highlight the passage at 27:04

27:23 A thesis and a reason. So the thesis in this example would be the cup inherently exists. That's what I'm trying to prove, right? The cup inherently exists. The reason? Because of being able to function. This is what the lower schools would say. It inherently exists because it's able to function. Report an error in the passage at 27:23 Highlight the passage at 27:23

27:52 So traditionally in debate, there's a lot of syllogisms being used. A thesis and a reason. Report an error in the passage at 27:52 Highlight the passage at 27:52

28:07 Buddha Polita was the first one, well I don't know if he was the first one, the first famous one, who used consequences. Instead of stating his position merely in terms of a syllogism, he would use consequences. Taking the opponent's position and positing or asserting what is... An absurd consequence resulting from that position. So instead of just stating your own position, you're basically using the other person's position and you're stating a consequence of that position. Report an error in the passage at 28:07 Highlight the passage at 28:07

28:56 So in this example, for example, a consequence of this syllogism, the cup inherently exists because of being able to function. A consequence... Could be, well it follows that the cup does not depend on causes and conditions because it is inherently existent. So he's taking the thesis from the previous person that the cup inherently exists and asserting a consequence, an absurd consequence that would hopefully penetrate. Report an error in the passage at 28:56 Highlight the passage at 28:56

29:41 The opponent's position, so it would help the opponent see how absurd his thesis was. So his thesis being the cup inherently exists because it's able to function. Then the Prasangikas could say, oh well then it follows that the cup does not depend on causes and conditions because it inherently exists. Report an error in the passage at 29:41 Highlight the passage at 29:41

30:13 That may or may not work depending on the person. The person might say, oh, well, it doesn't follow that. Anyway, so I don't want to get into this too much, but Buddha Palita commented on Nagarjuna's text, and he used consequences. Report an error in the passage at 30:13 Highlight the passage at 30:13

30:43 Then, subsequently, Report an error in the passage at 30:43 Highlight the passage at 30:43

30:55 Buddha Palita, not Buddha Palita, Bhava Viveka, Report an error in the passage at 30:55 Highlight the passage at 30:55

31:05 He wrote a text criticizing Buddhapalita's use of consequences. He said you have to use syllogisms, autonomous syllogisms, in order to prove something. Report an error in the passage at 31:05 Highlight the passage at 31:05

31:28 An autonomous syllogism meaning that you need to have a commonly appearing, oops, this Report an error in the passage at 31:28 Highlight the passage at 31:28

31:44 is the subject of the syllogism. You need to have a commonly appearing subject or a subject that appears the same to both the opponent, the two debaters, let's say, the two positions. You need to have a syllogism where the subject appears commonly to both parties is what. You need to state your argument in terms of the syllogism. Report an error in the passage at 31:44 Highlight the passage at 31:44

32:17 And an autonomous syllogism means that the subject needs to appear commonly to both parties. And you don't have to get this totally right away, but I just want to give you a bit of history. Report an error in the passage at 32:17 Highlight the passage at 32:17

32:32 So Baba Viveka criticized Buddha Palita on that. Report an error in the passage at 32:32 Highlight the passage at 32:32

32:41 And then later Chandrakirti defended Buddha Palita and criticized Baba Viveka. Report an error in the passage at 32:41 Highlight the passage at 32:41

32:55 And that is how the split between the two Mahdi Mika schools. The Svatantrika school and the Prasangika school. Report an error in the passage at 32:55 Highlight the passage at 32:55

33:18 At the time it seemed that the split between Svatantrika and Prasangika was only a difference in style of debate. Svatantrika insisted that you had to have autonomous syllogisms. Prasangika said you can prove your position just by using consequences. So at the time it seemed like it was just A stylistic difference. Report an error in the passage at 33:18 Highlight the passage at 33:18

33:52 And Baba Vivekan never called himself a Svatantrika. Actually, in Indian treatises, it wasn't asserted that people were Svatantrikas or Prasangikas. This was actually a split made later when later writers, particularly Lama Tsongkhapa, looked back on their writings and said, oh, it's not merely a stylistic difference. Report an error in the passage at 33:52 Highlight the passage at 33:52

34:19 In how to debate, but based on what Baba Viveka is saying, he's asserting something different, coarser than what Prasangikas are stating. Report an error in the passage at 34:19 Highlight the passage at 34:19

34:34 Yeah, yeah, they were all Buddhists. But, so the Svatandrika position, it's actually difficult to really get your finger on, at least. In my opinion and opinions of scholars, there's not that much written on the Svatandrika position. Report an error in the passage at 34:34 Highlight the passage at 34:34

35:03 But Lama Tsongkhapa really studied Baba Viveka's works as well as someone named Shanto Rakshita and gleaned some differences between Svatandrika and Prasangika. Report an error in the passage at 35:03 Highlight the passage at 35:03

35:19 So I want to pop to Prasangika for a minute first and then back up to Svatandrika. Report an error in the passage at 35:19 Highlight the passage at 35:19

35:35 Back to the clock. So the clock, according to Chitamatra. It doesn't exist externally to the mind. Also, the clock, oh sorry, I shouldn't even say the clock, this thing in my hand. Report an error in the passage at 35:35 Highlight the passage at 35:35

35:55 This thing in my hand is not naturally the basis of the name clock. It's not from its own side the basis of the name clock. Report an error in the passage at 35:55 Highlight the passage at 35:55

36:07 The name clock comes from the side of our minds. It appears, right when you look at it, that there's a clock right here. Report an error in the passage at 36:07 Highlight the passage at 36:07

36:17 That's a basis for naming it clock. But Chitamachas say, no, no, no. It's not naturally the basis of the name clock. It has to be named by a mind. Report an error in the passage at 36:17 Highlight the passage at 36:17

36:37 So the Prasangikas would agree with that. The Prasangikas would say that there's nothing from the side of the object that makes it a clock. Report an error in the passage at 36:37 Highlight the passage at 36:37

36:53 There's nothing from the side of the object that makes it a clock. It is merely... Imputed by the mind. It is merely a conceptual, yeah, imputation or label. Report an error in the passage at 36:53 Highlight the passage at 36:53

37:19 It functions as a clock, but there is nothing from the side of the object that is a clock. And if you search for it, if you search for clock among its basis, you won't be able to find, is this part a clock? Report an error in the passage at 37:19 Highlight the passage at 37:19

37:46 Is this? This plastic clear bit, the clock? I don't even know the parts of this. Are the wires the clock? I'm going to show my technical proficiency. Is this part the clock? Is this little gray thing the clock? Report an error in the passage at 37:46 Highlight the passage at 37:46

38:08 If we pick this apart, none of the parts is the clock, right? Is the collection of the parts the clock? Gosh, it's really tempting to say the collection of the parts is the clock, right? Report an error in the passage at 38:08 Highlight the passage at 38:08

38:27 So if I take this clock apart and put the parts in a pile on this table, is that a clock? It's the collection of the parts of the clock, isn't it? Report an error in the passage at 38:27 Highlight the passage at 38:27

38:45 But it's not a clock, right? Report an error in the passage at 38:45 Highlight the passage at 38:45

38:52 Also we could say, you know, the collection of which parts? If I take this part off, is it the collection of all these parts that's a clock? What if I take this part off? Is it still a clock? What if I take this part off? Is it still a clock? Report an error in the passage at 38:52 Highlight the passage at 38:52

39:09 You know, we can do that. You know, when does clock? Report an error in the passage at 39:09 Highlight the passage at 39:09

39:18 So there's nothing from the side of the object that is a clock. Report an error in the passage at 39:18 Highlight the passage at 39:18

39:26 There's nothing from the side of this object that is a piece of plastic either. It's not just a matter of a label. There's nothing from the side of this clock that is attractive or unattractive. Report an error in the passage at 39:26 Highlight the passage at 39:26

39:48 There's nothing from the side of this thing that is a person. Report an error in the passage at 39:48 Highlight the passage at 39:48

39:56 It gets more difficult. Report an error in the passage at 39:56 Highlight the passage at 39:56

40:01 There's nothing from the side of this thing that is a body. Report an error in the passage at 40:01 Highlight the passage at 40:01

40:08 It's merely a conceptual imputation on an appearance. What actually appears? Colors and shapes. Where does body come from? Where does person come from? It's a conceptual consciousness. We learned that when you look at something that's relatively the size and the shape, it's a body. Report an error in the passage at 40:08 Highlight the passage at 40:08

40:41 And there's nothing from the side of this that is annoying or, you know, any adjective at all. Report an error in the passage at 40:41 Highlight the passage at 40:41

40:57 I love that one, you know, because we tend to really believe that people are annoying from their own side. So there is nothing from the side of an object, any object that is annoying, that is beautiful, that is ugly. Report an error in the passage at 40:57 Highlight the passage at 40:57

41:23 And there's nothing from the side of the object that is the object itself, Report an error in the passage at 41:23 Highlight the passage at 41:23

41:34 according to Prasambika. Report an error in the passage at 41:34 Highlight the passage at 41:34

41:41 But things appear as if they exist from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 41:41 Highlight the passage at 41:41

41:47 So Report an error in the passage at 41:47 Highlight the passage at 41:47

· · · silence, 1 minute

42:21 this thing, Report an error in the passage at 42:21 Highlight the passage at 42:21

42:26 if you look at this thing, it appears as if there's an A right here. An A from the side of this piece of paper. This is an A. An A kind of casting its appearance to you. But is it an A from its own side? Report an error in the passage at 42:26 Highlight the passage at 42:26

42:47 We learned, right, somewhere along the line, we learned that this is an A. Report an error in the passage at 42:47 Highlight the passage at 42:47

42:56 To a baby, this isn't an A. To a French person, this is an ah. It's not an A, right? But to us, this is an A. But we can see, but, you know, there's nothing from the side of this that is an A. It's just a convention that we learned. Report an error in the passage at 42:56 Highlight the passage at 42:56

43:21 Would we all agree with that? And that's similar to every other object. There's nothing from the side of this that is a pen. It's just a convention that we learned. There's nothing from the side of this that is a person. It's just a convention that we learned. Report an error in the passage at 43:21 Highlight the passage at 43:21

43:44 Nothing from the side of the object that is. Report an error in the passage at 43:44 Highlight the passage at 43:44

43:55 So here, we see this and it seems like there's this A popping out from the piece of paper because we learned that. And what's this? Report an error in the passage at 43:55 Highlight the passage at 43:55

44:11 Five lines, right? Report an error in the passage at 44:11 Highlight the passage at 44:11

44:15 For someone who's learned Tibetan, that's a ka. Report an error in the passage at 44:15 Highlight the passage at 44:15

44:20 For someone who hasn't learned Tibetan, that doesn't have any meaning. Similar to someone who hasn't learned the Roman alphabet, this has no meaning, it's just three lines. Report an error in the passage at 44:20 Highlight the passage at 44:20

44:33 But it appears as if there's an A coming out from here. And well, maybe now it appears that there's a ka coming out from here, but only because somebody taught you that. Report an error in the passage at 44:33 Highlight the passage at 44:33

44:51 So prosangicus would say everything is just nominally imputed. And things seem to exist from their own side. It seems that there's a clock here, right, in my hand. It seems to be a person right here. Report an error in the passage at 44:51 Highlight the passage at 44:51

45:08 Okay. So then we back up to Svatantrika. Report an error in the passage at 45:08 Highlight the passage at 45:08

45:17 So the Prasangika would say the A comes from the mind, right? The A comes from the conceptual imputation, right? It comes completely from the side of the mind. There was no A on that piece of paper at all. Report an error in the passage at 45:17 Highlight the passage at 45:17

45:38 The A completely came from the side of the mind. Are we okay with that? Report an error in the passage at 45:38 Highlight the passage at 45:38

45:49 Well, maybe. But that's the Prasangika position, right? The A came completely from the side of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 45:49 Highlight the passage at 45:49

46:09 And we'll spend a lot more time on Prasangika. But I just wanted to lay that out and then go back to Svatantrika and contrast Svatantrika with Prasangika. Report an error in the passage at 46:09 Highlight the passage at 46:09

46:21 I guess I have a little bit of a disconnect. goes, Report an error in the passage at 46:21 Highlight the passage at 46:21

· · · silence, 1 minute

46:24 It feels like that reasoning made a jump from the previous schools because this seems like it's talking about labels or conceptions. I understand that there's no A there if I don't understand what an A is, but my eyes would still see three black lines on a white field. Report an error in the passage at 46:24 Highlight the passage at 46:24

46:45 So when I think about the suture school, they would say, well, what you see, that sensory input is real. The label is your conception. I don't know how this is different. Is this saying that the black and white image comes from the mind, or is it just the label of a human being? Report an error in the passage at 46:45 Highlight the passage at 46:45

47:05 It's not just about the label in Prasangika. Oftentimes it seems like they're just talking about the label. I mean, Chita Mantra was talking more about the label, that things aren't naturally the basis of the name. Report an error in the passage at 47:05 Highlight the passage at 47:05

47:44 How should I say that? Report an error in the passage at 47:44 Highlight the passage at 47:44

47:53 So there's nothing from the side of this object that is a pen. There's nothing from the side of the object that is a writing instrument. And I don't mean just the label. Report an error in the passage at 47:53 Highlight the passage at 47:53

48:06 There is nothing from the side of the object. Okay, so if we look for pen here, we won't be able to find pen. If we look for a collection of atoms, or we look for atoms, we won't be able to find atoms. Report an error in the passage at 48:06 Highlight the passage at 48:06

48:25 We look for subatomic particles, we won't be able to find subatomic particles. Report an error in the passage at 48:25 Highlight the passage at 48:25

48:31 Anything that we search for, we won't be able to find on the basis of designation. Report an error in the passage at 48:31 Highlight the passage at 48:31

48:42 The mind actually, I mean something appears to the mind, and it appears mistakenly because it appears to exist from its own side, but it doesn't exist that way. Report an error in the passage at 48:42 Highlight the passage at 48:42

48:57 It appears as if it's an Report an error in the passage at 48:57 Highlight the passage at 48:57

49:03 object from its own side, an object. This is the basis of designation. Report an error in the passage at 49:03 Highlight the passage at 49:03

49:06 Out here, right, from its own side, projecting its image to your mind. Report an error in the passage at 49:06 Highlight the passage at 49:06

49:17 And the Sartranticus would say that appearance is correct. It is an object from its own side, projecting its image to your mind. Prosangicus would say, no, it's not. There is no object from its own side. There is an appearance to your mind, but it's a mistaken appearance. Report an error in the passage at 49:17 Highlight the passage at 49:17

49:41 It appears to be a solid whole object covering its parts. Report an error in the passage at 49:41 Highlight the passage at 49:41

49:53 Seems to be a solid whole object covering its parts. So Tronticus would say it is a solid whole object covering its parts. Report an error in the passage at 49:53 Highlight the passage at 49:53

50:03 Prasangicus would say there is no solid whole object covering its parts. It seems as if there's a pen covering this group of atoms. Report an error in the passage at 50:03 Highlight the passage at 50:03

50:19 Like spreading butter, like a spread, you know, called pen, right? That's covering the parts. Report an error in the passage at 50:19 Highlight the passage at 50:19

50:31 And the person used to say, there is no object covering its parts. Report an error in the passage at 50:31 Highlight the passage at 50:31

50:42 The conceptual mind imputes, kind of like organizes parts into holes. Report an error in the passage at 50:42 Highlight the passage at 50:42

51:01 Afflictions of the mind. Well, it's, it's the, and it's through our karma and it's through Prasankicus would say it's through the latencies of ignorance. Things appear mistakenly through the latencies of ignorance. So another example would be a forest. Report an error in the passage at 51:01 Highlight the passage at 51:01

51:23 Seems to be one thing, right? Forest. Report an error in the passage at 51:23 Highlight the passage at 51:23

51:30 But forest is just imputed to a group of trees. There's no forest from its own side. It's the mind organizing, right, these trees. And creating forest, right? So conceptually, it's a forest through the force of our conceptual mind. Report an error in the passage at 51:30 Highlight the passage at 51:30

51:57 Organizing information and grouping that into one object. And it's the same with this thing. It's a collection of parts. There's a collection of parts. And the conceptual mind organizes that into a single object. Report an error in the passage at 51:57 Highlight the passage at 51:57

52:23 Did that answer your question? Sort of. We're going to spend a lot more time on Prasangika. The main point of Prasangika is there's nothing from the side of this object that is a pen. Report an error in the passage at 52:23 Highlight the passage at 52:23

52:41 There's nothing from the side of the object that makes it valid to call it a pen. Nothing. Report an error in the passage at 52:41 Highlight the passage at 52:41

52:54 There's nothing from the side of this object that makes it valid to call it a person. Report an error in the passage at 52:54 Highlight the passage at 52:54

53:01 It's uncomfortable, yeah? Report an error in the passage at 53:01 Highlight the passage at 53:01

53:10 Is it also... That there's nothing from the side of the object to call it an object? And there's nothing from the side of the object to call it an object. An object, okay. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 53:10 Highlight the passage at 53:10

53:22 And that's, you know, that's, I think when we get that, then that starts to undermine more and more because then it's not just about a label. You know, it's not just about the name. But there's nothing from the side of this. Makes it valid to call it an object. Report an error in the passage at 53:22 Highlight the passage at 53:22

53:45 Peter. Let's pass the... Report an error in the passage at 53:45 Highlight the passage at 53:45

53:54 Pema Chodron's title of her book about this subject is Comfortable with Uncertainty, which I really like because at first I did have some resistance to this, but over time it's starting to become more comfortable, but it really is kind of a razor's edge. And you have to kind of learn how to live on that, balancing on that, between our normal perception and how things actually exist. And we're constantly falling back into... Report an error in the passage at 53:54 Highlight the passage at 53:54

54:20 Lower school or worse views of reality. Yeah. You know, we have such an inclination to do it. But if you can actually manage to balance on this edge, it's really interesting how things start shifting. Report an error in the passage at 54:20 Highlight the passage at 54:20

54:36 So similar to the A, there's no A on the piece of paper. A came from the mind. Report an error in the passage at 54:36 Highlight the passage at 54:36

54:47 There's no pen in my hand. Pen comes from my mind. There's no object in my hand. Object, an object comes from my mind. Report an error in the passage at 54:47 Highlight the passage at 54:47

55:07 So existence can only be asserted in relationship to a mind, a mind imputing, a mind that imputes. Existence can only be asserted in relationship to a mind. Nothing exists from its own side independent of a mind imputing it. Report an error in the passage at 55:07 Highlight the passage at 55:07

55:34 Nothing exists from its own side. Independent of a mind imputing it. Report an error in the passage at 55:34 Highlight the passage at 55:34

55:43 Nothing for Prasangikas. Which, you know, when we hear that, then we start understanding why it's very dangerous to fall into nihilism when we're studying Prasangikas. Oh, that means nothing exists at all. But things do exist and they function. Still, even though it's not a pen... Even though it's not a writing instrument from its own side. It will still function that if I do this, it writes. Report an error in the passage at 55:43 Highlight the passage at 55:43

56:20 It still functions. So we need to find that balance of negating the invalid ways of existing and still remembering that things function. Report an error in the passage at 56:20 Highlight the passage at 56:20

56:34 They don't function from their own side, but they do function. Report an error in the passage at 56:34 Highlight the passage at 56:34

56:41 So existence. In order for something to exist, it needs to be imputed by a mind. Report an error in the passage at 56:41 Highlight the passage at 56:41

56:58 So, you know, we don't have to agree with that right now, but that's the Prasangika position. Similarly to this, Report an error in the passage at 56:58 Highlight the passage at 56:58

57:11 is it an A from its own side? Report an error in the passage at 57:11 Highlight the passage at 57:11

57:17 Yeah. Is it a step ladder? So, would we agree that there's no A without a mind imputing A? Report an error in the passage at 57:17 Highlight the passage at 57:17

57:33 There's no A from the side of the object. It needs a mind to impute it as an A. Report an error in the passage at 57:33 Highlight the passage at 57:33

57:42 That one's easy because we don't have mental afflictions about A's. Well, I don't know what we do. So Report an error in the passage at 57:42 Highlight the passage at 57:42

57:57 everything else is like that. This, Report an error in the passage at 57:57 Highlight the passage at 57:57

58:04 in order for pen to exist, needs a mind to impute it. There is no pen here. There is no A from the side of the object. There is no pen from the side of the object. A mind imputes it, right? Because, right, somebody, all right, so if we go back to, all right, so those of us in the room, right, we have similar conditioning, right, we grew up in a similar culture. Report an error in the passage at 58:04 Highlight the passage at 58:04

58:45 So we learned that this thing is a pen, right, or a marker. We learned that. What about a caveman? Report an error in the passage at 58:45 Highlight the passage at 58:45

59:02 Would a caveman see a pen? And I'm not talking about just the label, but even a writing instrument. He probably wouldn't even know what to do with it, right? Wouldn't even know to take off the cap and try to write with it, right? Because there's no, right? Yeah, maybe, right? Report an error in the passage at 59:02 Highlight the passage at 59:02

59:28 All right, all right, all right. Okay, what about a dog? Report an error in the passage at 59:28 Highlight the passage at 59:28

59:37 Right? A dog wouldn't see this. Chewy toy. Report an error in the passage at 59:37 Highlight the passage at 59:37

59:40 As a pen at all, right? Or a writing instrument at all. No pen from its own side. It was something completely learned, right? Report an error in the passage at 59:40 Highlight the passage at 59:40

59:52 And then the classic example, right? Cup of liquid. We humans. Okay, so this is, this will be a slight deviation from classic example. Tea. Our humans, right, would see a cup of tea here, right? Due to our karma, right? And our conditioning. Report an error in the passage at 59:52 Highlight the passage at 59:52

1:00:22 A god, a desire realm god, it's said, would see this as blissful nectar. A Report an error in the passage at 1:00:22 Highlight the passage at 1:00:22

1:00:37 hungry ghost would see it as pus and blood. You were cringing, you were waiting for me to say that. Not something, it wouldn't be something that would quench their thirst. For us, it functions as something to quench our thirst. But hungry ghosts would see the... Same basis as being pus and blood through their karma and drinking it would not quench their thirst. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:37 Highlight the passage at 1:00:37

1:01:15 So even the function of quenching your thirst Report an error in the passage at 1:01:15 Highlight the passage at 1:01:15

1:01:24 are karma. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:24 Highlight the passage at 1:01:24

1:01:31 So what is it really? Is it really a tea or is it really nectar or is it really pus and blood? Report an error in the passage at 1:01:31 Highlight the passage at 1:01:31

1:01:48 I mean from its own side. It's none of them. Conventionally, it's all of them, depending on who's looking at it, right? I mean, if it's conventionally, it is validly conventionally pus and blood for a hungry ghost. And it's validly a cup of tea for a human being. And it's validly nectar, right, for our desire of God. But what is it from its own side? Report an error in the passage at 1:01:48 Highlight the passage at 1:01:48

1:02:20 Nothing. No thing. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:20 Highlight the passage at 1:02:20

1:02:26 And it's not even a collection of parts from its own side. Because what is a collection of parts? A Report an error in the passage at 1:02:26 Highlight the passage at 1:02:26

1:02:38 collection of parts is just imputed by the mind. There's no collection from its own side. It's the mind organizing it. Yeah, don't we? Report an error in the passage at 1:02:38 Highlight the passage at 1:02:38

1:02:57 So, Report an error in the passage at 1:02:57 Highlight the passage at 1:02:57

1:03:02 everything exists that way. It's not existing from its own side. Merely imputed by the mind. Merely imputed by the mind, as opposed to just imputed by the mind. The lower schools would say, things are imputed by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:02 Highlight the passage at 1:03:02

1:03:24 Vibashikas would say, yeah, the cup is imputed by the mind, but this is a cup. Vibashikas would say, this is a cup. But the Prasangikas would say... Report an error in the passage at 1:03:24 Highlight the passage at 1:03:24

1:03:37 This is merely imputed to my mind. It's imputed by the conceptual consciousness. Cup is imputed by the conceptual consciousness, and there's nothing within the basis that is a cup. There's nothing within the basis that is a cup. It's imputed as a cup, but there's nothing within the basis that is a cup. So there's a big difference, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:03:37 Highlight the passage at 1:03:37

1:03:58 All of the lower schools would say there's something among the basis that is the object. Because if there wasn't, then you could just as validly call this a car. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:58 Highlight the passage at 1:03:58

1:04:22 Things are only imputed by the mind. It's Report an error in the passage at 1:04:22 Highlight the passage at 1:04:22

1:04:29 just as valid to call it a car as a cup. There's nothing from the side of the object that makes it a cup. This is what Svatandrikas say. There must be something. Right back to Svatandrika. There must be something from the side of the object. Okay, they say okay. You do need a mind to posit its existence. You do need a mind to posit the existence of cup, but there must be something from the side of the object that makes it valid to call it a cup and not a car. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:29 Highlight the passage at 1:04:29

1:05:05 The mind so much kind of likes this position, right? Like, yeah, there must be something from the side of the object that makes it valid to call it a cup, right, and not a car. Otherwise, you could call anything anything. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:05 Highlight the passage at 1:05:05

1:05:21 That's what the Svatantrikas would say. I think at lower schools would say those Prasangikas, they went too far. There must be something from the side of the object that is the object itself. Otherwise you could call anything anything and things couldn't function. I Report an error in the passage at 1:05:21 Highlight the passage at 1:05:21

1:05:46 liked the Svatantrika position for a long time. There must be something from the side of... That annoying person that is annoying, right? I wouldn't just label them annoying if there was nothing from the side of the person that is annoying, right? There must be something, right? Prasangikas would say, no, annoying completely comes from the side of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:46 Highlight the passage at 1:05:46

1:06:27 The Prasangikas really, yeah, it does make sense if we really cook it for a while, right? At first glance, I think, I mean, when we first hear it or the first... A few years we hear it, or like, or first few lifetimes we hear it. You know, it doesn't make sense. It seems too radical that existence, 100%, well, okay, there's no cupness from the side of the object. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:27 Highlight the passage at 1:06:27

1:06:58 Cup comes completely from the side of the mind, according to Bersangika. Svatantrika says there is cupness. There's some sort of cupness there. It's not a cup unless the mind posits it. It needs to appear to the mind for it to be a cup, but there's some cupness that comes from the side. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:58 Highlight the passage at 1:06:58

1:07:23 Cup casts its appearance to your mind, according to Tantra. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:23 Highlight the passage at 1:07:23

1:07:34 Okay, maybe we'll take a break here, and then we'll continue with Tantra. This Report an error in the passage at 1:07:34 Highlight the passage at 1:07:34

1:07:46 is so fun. It is radical. If we really believed it, we wouldn't have mental afflictions, would we? Report an error in the passage at 1:07:46 Highlight the passage at 1:07:46

1:08:15 Yeah, Report an error in the passage at 1:08:15 Highlight the passage at 1:08:15

1:08:19 well, conventionally for the hungry ghosts, it would be cuss in blood. Oh, that looks good. me. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:19 Highlight the passage at 1:08:19

1:08:13 decker, the key, and the puss and the blood. conventionally all of the above. Yeah, well. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:13 Highlight the passage at 1:08:13

1:08:33 I could. I could use it. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:33 Highlight the passage at 1:08:33

1:08:38 poisonous. Yep. Even if the hearts continue on the same way, it can be done. Yep. And you can call anything. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. it a car and they call it a scary alley. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:38 Highlight the passage at 1:08:38

1:08:58 but we do and you just lose that there's something another point about the language unless there's you know mutually agreed upon language nothing exists in all The language is awesome. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:58 Highlight the passage at 1:08:58

1:09:22 Even without language, even without language, like dogs, well, I mean, you know, maybe they do have a language, but, you know. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:22 Highlight the passage at 1:09:22

1:09:38 Fish, do they have a language? Well, they certainly wouldn't label this a granola bar, right? But animals see... They have mental images, they have conceptual consciousnesses, but not language in the same way that we do. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:38 Highlight the passage at 1:09:38

1:10:05 But still their minds organize things into objects and see that they function. I used to see the phenomenon with children, how quickly even labels are applied to thing. It's like… What? Report an error in the passage at 1:10:05 Highlight the passage at 1:10:05

1:10:27 What? either have a tumor before I'm pregnant when I'm 16 years old, and they said, you and there was this, in real life, it just happened like that, right? I know, it happened, but all the labeling that goes, you know, that, you know, boys cry, the same cry in a baby boy or a baby girl, oh, it's lust. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:27 Highlight the passage at 1:10:27

1:10:49 Oh, it's lust. Right. Right. Oh, no, how cute. Oh, how awful. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:49 Highlight the passage at 1:10:49

1:11:01 Right now? Thank you. Thank you. Keep it looking nice. Excellent. Yeah. But they're invested. What do you think? What was your story? There's a decision. Oh, really? But, you know, I think it's that they weren't. I think it's not really crap. You were what? Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, yeah. Oh, really? Oh. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:01 Highlight the passage at 1:11:01

1:12:07 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:07 Highlight the passage at 1:12:07

1:12:49 In this doctor, it's because I realize that no matter how much work I do. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:49 Highlight the passage at 1:12:49

1:13:04 And then everything comes down to this. Yeah, I got my master's degree, so I've just been doing this the Your master's of what? I've been in. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:04 Highlight the passage at 1:13:04

1:13:18 Thank you. I knew I knew, I don't want to do the PhD path. You know, I'm actually, you know, Report an error in the passage at 1:13:18 Highlight the passage at 1:13:18

1:13:48 everything worked out. you last year there were a date, and so Sarah is saying to get to her there. And Sarah wants her to dance, Sarah, in October. And that's why I have here. Here's her now. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:48 Highlight the passage at 1:13:48

1:13:50 what is it, the world's, so the PhD, especially at Harvard State, my program, one of the programs getting ready to apply PhD programs in religious studies and all these things. It's just a game that I had no interest in playing. The last few years kind of showed that. I'd love to see more chances for the pain to continue setting the cancer in Spain. What is it? That'd be great. But kind of on context. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:50 Highlight the passage at 1:13:50

1:14:18 It's so helpful. Point on your mouth, you're like, it's like perfect. I can't get in that pipeline. I'm pretty excited. showing the place, and the landlord already picked something. And you just took a room for a while ago, yeah? That's great. That's great. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:18 Highlight the passage at 1:14:18

1:14:40 That's why I'm happy to talk to you a lot. Yeah, and Charles was just saying, he's like, so maybe you want to take a room for you to hear? And I was like, ha, ha. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:40 Highlight the passage at 1:14:40

1:14:51 Yeah, I mean, I think, I live by the piece of Quetzal vows every day anyway, but it would be, there's a lot of, you can imagine, Dharma Center, Dharma Center, that's the way they work. Thank you. to at this point and then I can live there for a few more months before I move to the center, think would put obstacles in that. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:51 Highlight the passage at 1:14:51

1:15:38 I'm kind of hoping he doesn't, because if Rinpoche suggests that, then I don't have an option. He's like, well, yeah, but if Rinpoche says I want to ordain you. you this week inside of the three months, not three years. It would be great if it happened for each of that and be part of the ceremony and see it. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:38 Highlight the passage at 1:15:38

1:16:06 And I don't know if it will happen. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:06 Highlight the passage at 1:16:06

1:16:11 Well, the good thing is, I mean, I don't know if they have to repeat the whole ceremony or not. Like, I was talking to Donovan Antonio Tsongkhapa. He was at our center just last week. He's really amazing. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:11 Highlight the passage at 1:16:11

1:16:24 His big thing is Vipassanā meditation. He studied for a while in Burma and Theravāda and doing it as a Tibetan Buddhist and saying, look, you know, this is part of our teachings. We just need to change the aim that the Dermese use, but it's really important. In any case, he's gone, but I was talking to him and he was saying, you know, of your ordination balance, of the whole ceremony. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:24 Highlight the passage at 1:16:24

1:16:47 The first 40 minutes of it are just a robbing ceremony, and then 10 minutes longer for the Gitzel baths. Basically, all you do is they repeat the Gitzel baths, too, and you repeat them. And that's it. The rest of it is the robbing ceremony. Though I wasn't aware there. I think it's technically the ordinary issue that they do to eight-year-olds. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:47 Highlight the passage at 1:16:47

1:17:14 No, that's robbing the baths. Maybe it says a different name for Robin Rouse. that's rough and fast. They give them, well, yeah. Lama's up and it's making a big deal for me to get it. Really? Yeah. I've never heard of it before. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:14 Highlight the passage at 1:17:14

1:17:31 Lama's up and it's dead. I wouldn't I wouldn't be surprised. I mean, it's so exciting. I almost came out. Who was talking about? Oh, Claire. I mean, Holly, rather, was in touch with me before he gave you that badge. She was like, I'm not sure there's any badge in California. You should come out for it sometime. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:31 Highlight the passage at 1:17:31

1:17:51 And I was like, well, they get so wrong with him. She's like, I don't know. I'll let you know. And then she's like, like, they were 20 days away. She was like, they're wrong with your badge. And I was like, uh, no. don't know. I'm going to go all the way to the top 20. I almost did them. And it was almost going to be a Getselhaus. Yeah, that's why I wasn't. Because I was looking, it was like, Mom is over to me, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:17:51 Highlight the passage at 1:17:51

1:18:11 She said, take Getselhaus now. And he said, and take, um. And Holly came in the room about 20 minutes later and I said, Holly, he just said to do this. She said, he did not say that. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:11 Highlight the passage at 1:18:11

1:18:27 I said, no, what I heard with my ears was this. there's no way Report an error in the passage at 1:18:27 Highlight the passage at 1:18:27

1:18:38 There's a reason for it. Yeah, exactly. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:38 Highlight the passage at 1:18:38

1:18:48 Thank you. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:48 Highlight the passage at 1:18:48

1:19:37 We'll be right back. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:37 Highlight the passage at 1:19:37

1:19:47 How's that you've been quick in the way? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I tried to be similar. No one's having to do it. I know I've listened to them earlier. But if you want to do that, I'll be fine. That means great. I need to get a QR. I need to get a QR. Thank Thank you. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:47 Highlight the passage at 1:19:47

1:20:27 I just need a piece of floor, so they're like, oh, we just need a book story. So they're like, oh, we just need a book story tonight. So they're like, oh, my book story. Oh, so they're going to be all in the arm. So we all need to be I'll put the thing out. What are you thinking? Just a little bit. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:27 Highlight the passage at 1:20:27

1:20:48 You know, some sweet rice. Would you like a little bit? Thanks. I have this and that's all I need. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:48 Highlight the passage at 1:20:48

1:21:07 Thank you. So it's a little difficult. And I feel like I was from home, from the computer, so it makes it easy to be exploited to do a full 10 hours. And so this is my vacation. I'm actually, I edit for, well, I'm into a smartphone, and I edit a coupon course to go online. And so, like, I'm so excited to come to San Francisco or I've never been, and my plan is to set my laptop and, like, not go out, but just sit and edit a coupon course. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:07 Highlight the passage at 1:21:07

1:21:36 Because that's, like, my vacation. I'm like, okay, it's great. I might go with a little bit around the city, but... Report an error in the passage at 1:21:36 Highlight the passage at 1:21:36

1:22:02 Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:02 Highlight the passage at 1:22:02

1:22:21 Thank you. Thank you. How long have you been here? She has it all in tape. Oh, really? She can do it. How long? Where are you doing? I like it. I like it. Ding, ding. ding, ding, ding. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:21 Highlight the passage at 1:22:21

1:23:08 All Report an error in the passage at 1:23:08 Highlight the passage at 1:23:08

1:23:22 right. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:22 Highlight the passage at 1:23:22

1:23:43 So prasangikas say existence, Report an error in the passage at 1:23:43 Highlight the passage at 1:23:43

1:23:52 there's no existence from the side of its object at all. And it's only imputed by the mind. Independence on conventions, right? It's not that it's just as valid to call this a pen as a car. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:52 Highlight the passage at 1:23:52

1:24:13 Prasangikas wouldn't say it's just as valid to call this a pen as a car because in order for it to be a valid imputation, conventionally existent as a pen, it needs to have three characteristics. It needs to accord with worldly convention. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:13 Highlight the passage at 1:24:13

1:24:40 It is not a convention to call this a car. I don't know, maybe it is somewhere, but not in this place and time. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:40 Highlight the passage at 1:24:40

1:24:55 And also it's not invalidated by a conventional valid cognizer. We talked about this a couple of classes ago. It's also not invalidated by a valid cognizer realizing the ultimate. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:55 Highlight the passage at 1:24:55

1:25:18 So rich, all come from the side of the mind, right? Worldly convention. It comes from the side of the mind, right? Not from the side of the object. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:18 Highlight the passage at 1:25:18

1:25:33 Not invalid by a conventional valid cognizer. Not invalidated by an ultimate valid cognizer. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:33 Highlight the passage at 1:25:33

1:25:46 That's why it's valid to call it a... Not because it's a pen from its own side. Not because it's a writing instrument from its own side. But because those three conditions are present. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:46 Highlight the passage at 1:25:46

1:26:08 So if I take that mug... And use it to trap a cockroach. Is it valid to call it a prison instead of a cup? It functions, right? As a cockroach cutter, a catcher. A prison for the cockroach, so why not? Report an error in the passage at 1:26:08 Highlight the passage at 1:26:08

1:26:34 Why not? Right, it wouldn't be valid to call this a car, though, right? Because I can't get inside it and drive it home, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:26:34 Highlight the passage at 1:26:34

1:26:48 So like certain things are multifunctional, right? This can be a cup. It could be a bowl. It could be a vase, right? It could be a cockroach catcher or prison, right? It could be a swimming pool or a, you know, death trap, right? Or a piggy bank. Yeah. So there are many things it can be. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:48 Highlight the passage at 1:26:48

1:27:21 But it can't be a car in this culture. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:21 Highlight the passage at 1:27:21

1:27:33 But if it existed from its own side, it could only be one thing. If it existed as a cup from its own side, it could only be a cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:33 Highlight the passage at 1:27:33

1:27:47 It couldn't be a cup and a bowl and a piggy bank and something else. It needs to be... Something from its own side, right? And the fact that it can be many different things shows that its existence comes from the side of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:47 Highlight the passage at 1:27:47

1:28:07 Functions also come from the side of the mind because it can function as a piggy bank or it can function as a cup or it can function as a cockroach prison. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:07 Highlight the passage at 1:28:07

1:28:29 So sometimes that's where we get caught up, I think. Where people get caught up is they think, okay, well, the label, you know, cup doesn't exist from its own side. The function exists from its own side, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:28:29 Highlight the passage at 1:28:29

1:28:46 You know, the cup is just a label, right, coming from the side of the mind, but the function, like the function is where a lot of times we hang on, right? Oh, but it functions, right? So it's valid to call, you know, call it a cup because it functions, which is kind of Svatantrika, something from the side of the object that makes it valid to call it that. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:46 Highlight the passage at 1:28:46

1:29:13 I think a lot of times we fall into Svatantrika, right? That, like, we negate not enough. We just negate the label, but we don't negate the function from its own side. The function also doesn't exist from its own. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:13 Highlight the passage at 1:29:13

1:29:36 Nothing exists. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:36 Highlight the passage at 1:29:36

1:29:42 Will I freak you out if I say that ten times? Nothing exists from its own side. Nothing exists. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:42 Highlight the passage at 1:29:42

1:29:51 You sound like Lama Zopa. I know. At all. At all. Yeah, I like saying it that way. So would it be a good exercise to go through various objects and think of all the different ways in which you could make them function in order to refute that tantric of you? Sure. That'd be good. You know, get us out of that stuck mode. Yeah. All the different ways you can label it. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:51 Highlight the passage at 1:29:51

1:30:19 All the different ways it can function. Including a person. You know, all the different ways a person can function. Right. Yeah. And like similarly, Like an example of tea, nectar, pus and blood, right? Those are all examples of something maybe you can consume or not. Or not, right? But then from a totally different standpoint, right? A fish would see it as home. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:19 Highlight the passage at 1:30:19

1:30:56 Well, maybe not tea, but if it was water, right? A fish would see it as their abode. Not even something that you can maybe put in your mouth and eat, or not eat, but it would be their home, a totally different way of looking at it. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:56 Highlight the passage at 1:30:56

1:31:30 So Svatantrikas say, okay, yeah, it needs to be posited by the mind for it to exist. It needs to appear. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:30 Highlight the passage at 1:31:30

1:31:41 I'll give you the technical measure of true existence or ultimate existence according to Svatantrika. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:41 Highlight the passage at 1:31:41

1:31:51 According to Kamala Shila, Lama Tsongkhapa quotes Kamala Shila. And what does ultimate or true existence mean for Svatantrika? Report an error in the passage at 1:31:51 Highlight the passage at 1:31:51

1:32:11 So if it ultimately or truly existed, it would have to exist by way of its objective mode of subsistence without being posited through the force of appearing to a non-defective awareness. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:11 Highlight the passage at 1:32:11

1:32:30 So what does that mean? That which exists by way of its... objective mode of subsistence without being posited through the force of So there are two aspects to this. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:30 Highlight the passage at 1:32:30

1:32:58 So according to Svatantrika, in order for something to exist, Report an error in the passage at 1:32:58 Highlight the passage at 1:32:58

1:33:11 something needs to come from the side of the object and something needs to come from the side of the mind. It's the meeting of... Something from the side of the object and something from the side of the mind. For Prasangikas, it just comes from the side of the mind. For Svatantrikas, something from the side of the object, something from the side of the mind. So, first of all, from the side of the object, it needs to have an objective mode of subsistence. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:11 Highlight the passage at 1:33:11

1:33:44 What does that mean? It needs to have a mode of being from the side of the object. Like a pen-ness. There needs to be a pen. Penness from the side of the object for it to be valid to call it a pen. There must be something from the side of the object. That's the objective mode of subsistence. There must be a personness here on the side of the object. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:44 Highlight the passage at 1:33:44

1:34:14 But then it also needs to be posited through the force of appearing to a non-defective awareness. There needs to be something from the side of the mind to posit it. So penness appears. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:14 Highlight the passage at 1:34:14

1:34:31 The penness appears right from the side of the object, but it needs to appear to a mind for it to become a pen. Something from both sides for it to be a pen, according to Sfatantra. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:31 Highlight the passage at 1:34:31

1:34:46 It needs to be a penness plus a non-defective awareness to which it appears and is positive. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:46 Highlight the passage at 1:34:46

1:35:01 So if it ultimately or truly existed... It would have to have its own objective mode of subsistence, but would not need the side of the mind. So they say there is an objective mode of subsistence, but it doesn't exist from its own side as a pen without appearing and being posited by a mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:01 Highlight the passage at 1:35:01

1:35:30 So Tronticas would say it's a pen from its own side. You don't need the mind. But Svatantrikas would say, okay, well there's like 50%, well, Kenzari Yeshe Tupdin says, you know, his own theory is like 50 % of the existence of a pen comes from the side of the object and 50 % comes from the side of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:30 Highlight the passage at 1:35:30

1:35:55 It's not just a pen from its own side. Without a mind positing it, part of the existence comes from the side of the object, part of the existence comes from the side of the mind, according to Svatantrikas. Well, according to Lama Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Svatantrika. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:55 Highlight the passage at 1:35:55

1:36:19 Baba Viveka himself didn't think that his position differed from Buddhapalita or Nagarjuna, but later on Tsongkhapa analyzed what he was writing because Baba Viveka said, oh, it's true things don't inherently exist ultimately. They don't inherently exist ultimately. They don't exist from their side ultimately, but conventionally they do. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:19 Highlight the passage at 1:36:19

1:36:48 Whereas Prasangis, what does it say, they don't exist from their own side, ultimately or conventionally. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:48 Highlight the passage at 1:36:48

1:37:05 Louis has a question. Wait. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:05 Highlight the passage at 1:37:05

1:37:11 So 50 % of the object comes from the, let's say the cupness is one part of it. The other part is the mind perceiving the cup. Is the mind a direct perceiver or is this through a meaning generality? It could be either. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:11 Highlight the passage at 1:37:11

1:37:30 According to Svatantrikas, it could be... This non-defective awareness could be a conceptual or a non-conceptual mind for Svatantrikas. For Prasangikas it needs to be a conceptual mind, but for Svatantrikas it could be non-conceptual or conceptual. Because according to Donald Lopez who wrote a book called The Study of Svatantrika, which is the most detailed exposition on Svatantrika in English that I know of, Report an error in the passage at 1:37:30 Highlight the passage at 1:37:30

1:38:08 He says, right, for Prasangikas, the imputing mind is very active, right? The Prasangikas, pen comes from the side of the imputing mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:08 Highlight the passage at 1:38:08

1:38:22 The conceptual mind that imputes pen actively imputes it as a pen. Whereas with Svatantrika, penness appears to the mind. And the mind just validates its appearance. It's not that pen comes from the side of the mind. Penness comes from the side of the object. And the mind just validates. Oh yeah, that's a pen. Not exactly like that. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:22 Highlight the passage at 1:38:22

1:39:00 But penness comes from the side of the object, according to Sphantandrka, and the mind posits or validates it, according to Sphantandrka. So this could be conceptual or non-conceptual. So is there something... Casting from the pen? Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:00 Highlight the passage at 1:39:00

1:39:23 Casting. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:23 Highlight the passage at 1:39:23

1:39:30 Yeah. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:30 Highlight the passage at 1:39:30

1:39:36 Yeah. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:36 Highlight the passage at 1:39:36

1:39:40 Right. So this is, so, so with Svatantrika, it's, right, the pen is posited through the force of appearing to a non-defective awareness, right? The pen appears, penness appears to the awareness and then yeah, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:40 Highlight the passage at 1:39:40

1:40:00 The awareness posits it, which is more passive than in Prasangika where the Prasangika imputes it as a pen. Prasangika labels it a pen. Penness comes from the side of the object for Svatandrika and then the mind validates its existence as a pen. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:00 Highlight the passage at 1:40:00

1:40:25 So if there's no mind to perceive the appearance, does it appear? How can you posit appearance without a mind? Report an error in the passage at 1:40:25 Highlight the passage at 1:40:25

1:40:38 That's my question. It's the penance, but I don't want to go there. Yeah, yeah. So let me give you the classic analogy of the Svatandrika point of view. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:38 Highlight the passage at 1:40:38

1:40:55 It's an Indian analogy. So there's this, let's say there's this magician, and he has this audience. And there's a pebble. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:55 Highlight the passage at 1:40:55

1:41:08 And what he does is he rubs the pebble with a salve and then he casts a mantra over all of the audience members. Such that the pebble appears as a horse. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:08 Highlight the passage at 1:41:08

1:41:31 So the audience members see that pebble as a horse and believe it, it's a horse. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:31 Highlight the passage at 1:41:31

1:41:47 Due to the force of the salve plus the mantra. So the salve affecting the pebble itself and the mantra affecting the eyes of the people there. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:47 Highlight the passage at 1:41:47

1:42:03 So the people who are there during all of this, they see the pebble as a horse. I said horse, right? Sometimes it's talked about in terms of an elephant. So horse, right? So as it said, Because the salve is put on the pebble, the pebble appears as a horse. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:03 Highlight the passage at 1:42:03

1:42:32 But it only appears as a horse to the people whose mantra, you know, who were there when the mantra was cast. So it affects the pebble and affects the minds or the eye consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:32 Highlight the passage at 1:42:32

1:42:48 Then somebody walks in after all of this, you know, the mantra and stuff, and they see... Not a horse, right? They see a pebble. Because their eyes weren't affected by the mantra. So there's an appearance of horse to the people who, well, yeah. So the pebble is projecting its appearance as a horse to the people whose eyes were affected. But the people whose eyes were not affected by the mantra still see it as a pebble. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:48 Highlight the passage at 1:42:48

1:43:34 So this analogy... Like the analogy of the people who are sitting in the audience who are affected by the salve and the mantra. That's an analogy of we ordinary beings who see things as Report an error in the passage at 1:43:34 Highlight the passage at 1:43:34

1:43:57 existing a particular way and believe in that appearance. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:57 Highlight the passage at 1:43:57

1:44:05 Because the audience members see a horse and they believe that there is a horse there. Then the magician sees the horse but knows it's not a horse. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:05 Highlight the passage at 1:44:05

1:44:19 So that's like someone who has directly realized emptiness but hasn't become a Buddha yet. They still see inherent existence, but Report an error in the passage at 1:44:19 Highlight the passage at 1:44:19

1:44:34 they don't believe in it anymore. Everything still appears the same, but they don't believe it anymore. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:34 Highlight the passage at 1:44:34

1:44:46 Whereas a Buddha would be like the latecomer who doesn't see the horse and doesn't believe in it. Like a Buddha doesn't see inherent existence. And doesn't believe in inherent existence. I mean a Buddha would see inherent existence through the force of their omniscience, right? Through the force of the minds of other sentient beings. But from the side of the Buddha, right? They wouldn't see inherent existence through the force of their ignorance, which is the way what we see, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:44:46 Highlight the passage at 1:44:46

1:45:27 They would only see it through the force of their omniscience. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:27 Highlight the passage at 1:45:27

1:45:35 So this analogy is supposed to... Give us an idea of this phatatric position. Something from the side of the object, something from the side of the mind, both needing to come together for it to be posited as validly existing. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:35 Highlight the passage at 1:45:35

1:46:21 Lower schools, Vibhashaka Sotrantikas, this exists the way it appears, it's cup. Chita Matras doesn't exist separate from the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:21 Highlight the passage at 1:46:21

1:46:33 The appearance of cup is a result of our karma ripening. What we are actually seeing is, An appearance to the mind, not something external to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:33 Highlight the passage at 1:46:33

1:46:50 Svatantrikas, okay, Svatantrikas, then there are two sub-schools. There's the Sautrantika Svatantrika and there's the Yogacara Svatantrikas. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:50 Highlight the passage at 1:46:50

1:47:06 I'll just go through that quickly. So Svatantrikas in general, right, they would say something comes from the side of the object, something comes from the side of the mind, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:47:06 Highlight the passage at 1:47:06

1:47:21 But Baba Viveka would say, well actually, okay, the... The Yogacara Svatantrikas would say they would agree with chitta matra in that there is no external object. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:21 Highlight the passage at 1:47:21

1:47:35 It's just an appearance to the mind. But then they go a step further and say, but the mind that the chitta matras say inherently and truly exists, it doesn't truly exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:35 Highlight the passage at 1:47:35

1:47:52 So Yogacara Svatantrikas would take the chitta matra position and say they haven't gone far enough. They were still reifying the nature of the mind, thinking that the mind truly exists and ultimately exists. So the Svatantrika, Yogacara Svatantrikas would say, and even the mind doesn't truly exist and doesn't ultimately. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:52 Highlight the passage at 1:47:52

1:48:25 Whereas the Sotrantaka Svatantrikas, led by Bhavavika, would say, oh, those chitta mantras, they made all of that, no external object. stuff up right the Buddha didn't actually teach that that was just you know a gross misrepresentation of what the Buddha taught and the object does exist external to the mind right it doesn't truly exist it doesn't ultimately exist exists partly from the side of the object partly from the side of the mind Am I losing people now? Report an error in the passage at 1:48:25 Highlight the passage at 1:48:25

1:49:23 I wonder how they came to that conclusion because when you go back to like the Peli Canon and stuff, you hear over and over again how form doesn't exist. And so how did they? How did Baba Viveka? I just was wondering how they, when it was something that went back as far as they could go, you know, he was saying form doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:23 Highlight the passage at 1:49:23

1:49:46 So I'm supposing that Baba Viveka would say the Buddha meant that it doesn't exist. Truly exist. Because in those sutras, they're very subject to interpretation. On one hand, the Buddha says, oh, it doesn't exist. But on the other hand, it does exist. The Buddha didn't qualify his words by using inherently or truly. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:46 Highlight the passage at 1:49:46

1:50:16 He just said, oh, you know, well, does this pen exist? No, it doesn't exist at all. And... Because it doesn't exist at all, it exists. And you're like, that's why we need commentaries, right? So all of these commentators interpret what the Buddha said. Oh, well, when he said it doesn't exist, oh, you know, some couple would say, oh, he meant it doesn't exist inherently. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:16 Highlight the passage at 1:50:16

1:50:46 And somebody would say, oh, he meant that it didn't, Chita Mantra would say, he meant it didn't exist external to the mind, right? So, different interpretations. Yeah. Yeah. But all four schools would interpret his words, right, in different ways. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:46 Highlight the passage at 1:50:46

1:51:10 All right. So, svatantrakas, they negate true existence and ultimate existence. They negate existence from Report an error in the passage at 1:51:10 Highlight the passage at 1:51:10

1:51:24 the side of the object without being posited by the mind, by the force of appearing to the mind. True existence and ultimate existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:51:24 Highlight the passage at 1:51:24

1:51:44 So they negate true existence and ultimate existence conventionally and ultimately. Theodists don't exist at all. Report an error in the passage at 1:51:44 Highlight the passage at 1:51:44

1:51:55 But they say conventionally things do exist inherently by way of their own character from their own side. Conventionally things do exist inherently by way of their own character from their own side. There is a penness from the side of the object. Report an error in the passage at 1:51:55 Highlight the passage at 1:51:55

1:52:19 So conventionally things do exist inherently in these ways. Ultimately they don't exist that way, because nothing ultimately exists. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:19 Highlight the passage at 1:52:19

1:52:34 But conventionally things do exist inherently, etc. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:34 Highlight the passage at 1:52:34

1:52:50 Please, let's just do the microphone. And this is my understanding, right? Don't take this as being the final word on things, but this is my understanding from... My studies of Svatantrika, but many contemporary Western scholars say, oh, we still don't understand the Svatantrika position. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:50 Highlight the passage at 1:52:50

1:53:18 So they negate true existence because nothing exists without the mind. And they negate ultimate existence because there's nothing that exists without being posited by. There is nothing that exists. Without being posited by the mind. That's how they come up with those two? Yeah. Yeah, so Svatantrikas would say these two are synonymous, true existence and ultimate existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:18 Highlight the passage at 1:53:18

1:53:52 And actually, I didn't cover this, but there are actually two different ways that Svatantrikas would posit ultimate existence, if it existed. So, right, so the one without being posited through the force, right, appearing. And the other one by, and that was, that came from Kamala Shila's writings. Baba Viveka talked about ultimate existence as being, if it ultimately existed, it would be findable by a reasoning consciousness analyzing the ultimate. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:52 Highlight the passage at 1:53:52

1:54:28 So if it ultimately existed, when I search for the pen in ultimate analysis, I would find that its final mode of being is Pen. I wouldn't find that his final mode of being was the emptiness of the pen. I would find that the final mode of being is the pen. Report an error in the passage at 1:54:28 Highlight the passage at 1:54:28

1:54:51 So things don't ultimately exist because the final mode of being of that thing that just fell on the floor is not a pen. That's a conventional mode of being. Penness is a conventional mode of being. But his ultimate mode of being is emptiness of true existence of it. If we search for it, we won't be able to find it. Sorry, a lot of words, a lot of technical words. But if we search for pen, an ultimate analysis, we won't be able to find it. Report an error in the passage at 1:54:51 Highlight the passage at 1:54:51

1:55:25 Then with that second definition of ultimate existence, how can they posit the lack of true existence? Because what they're saying is it does exist. The mind needs to be there to impute it, but there's something from the side of the pen that exists. So that seems like... There's something from the side of the pen, but it's not findable. But it's not findable. It's not findable. Report an error in the passage at 1:55:25 Highlight the passage at 1:55:25

1:55:55 I mean, it's hard to get the mind around that. Well, there's something that exists from the side of the pen. There's a penness, but it's not findable. Report an error in the passage at 1:55:55 Highlight the passage at 1:55:55

1:56:06 Conventionally, there's a penness. But in ultimate analysis, you won't be able to find pen. Report an error in the passage at 1:56:06 Highlight the passage at 1:56:06

1:56:16 And I don't know. I didn't write the source down. Somewhere I got this where it's not findable, but there's something. There's a penness that's indistinguishable from its parts. There's a penness that's indistinguishable from its parts. It's not findable, but it's indistinguishable from its parts. There's a penness conventionally, but if you search for it analytically, you won't be able to find Report an error in the passage at 1:56:16 Highlight the passage at 1:56:16

1:56:49 it. It seems like then it would. That would, it could declare ultimate existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:56:49 Highlight the passage at 1:56:49

1:56:59 Well, if it ultimately existed, it would be findable. If it truly existed, it would be findable. It's not findable, so it doesn't ultimately and truly exist. So those are two very different ways of positive, true existence and ultimate existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:56:59 Highlight the passage at 1:56:59

1:57:31 Well, see, the thing is, I mean, when you really analyze, I mean, you come to appreciate Prasangika, right? Because it's, you know, it seems to, all together. Which part? The object of negation. Report an error in the passage at 1:57:31 Highlight the passage at 1:57:31

1:57:52 Repeat the object of negation. The two different measures of the object of negation. Okay. So the one by Kamala Sheila, right? It was the one I had written down before. Oops. Report an error in the passage at 1:57:52 Highlight the passage at 1:57:52

1:58:15 That which exists by way of its objective mode of subsistence without being posited through the force of appearing to a non-defective awareness. So if it ultimately or truly existed, it would have its own mode of subsistence without needing to be posited through the force of appearing to a mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:58:15 Highlight the passage at 1:58:15

1:58:41 The other way is that if it ultimately or truly existed, bhava veika. It would be findable on ultimate analysis. So when we search, I mean this is a big topic, right, which we'll talk about later. It's like what is ultimate analysis, right? You search for the pen, is it the cap, is it the, right, all of that. Is it the collection of the parts? Report an error in the passage at 1:58:41 Highlight the passage at 1:58:41

1:59:09 Oh, well, it's so tempting to call it the collection of the parts, but... For various reasons, it's not the collection of parts. The collection of parts actually doesn't exist from its own side, right? It comes from the side of mine. Report an error in the passage at 1:59:09 Highlight the passage at 1:59:09

1:59:26 All right, well, that's kind of a lot to cover in one class. I think I've discouraged some of you. Report an error in the passage at 1:59:26 Highlight the passage at 1:59:26

1:59:40 But if you are discouraged, you know, I mean, it's a slowly, slowly thing. anyway. Report an error in the passage at 1:59:40 Highlight the passage at 1:59:40

1:59:48 I mean, I studied Abhisamaya Lamkara for two years, eight classes a week for two years. And that was, the commentary was written from the point of view of Sfatantrika. And my mind's still like, what? What are they? What are they? You know, it's hard to, it's hard to really understand. And it kind of, I mean, it kind of falls apart, you know, if we analyze it too much, you know. Report an error in the passage at 1:59:48 Highlight the passage at 1:59:48

2:00:23 I mean, on the surface, it seems to kind of make sense, right? There's something from the side of this that makes it valid to call it a pen. Otherwise, you could call it a car. Report an error in the passage at 2:00:23 Highlight the passage at 2:00:23

2:00:33 But then if you really analyze, well, what is it? What is it, really, from the side of the object that makes it a pen? Well, you know, hard to put your finger on it. Is it the cap? Is it the felt? Is it the ink? Report an error in the passage at 2:00:33 Highlight the passage at 2:00:33

2:00:53 Is it the felt in the ink? Report an error in the passage at 2:00:53 Highlight the passage at 2:00:53

2:01:02 All right. I mean, we just covered this in two hours, so we can't expect to get it 100%. All right. Yeah. But Svatantrika and Chita Mantra, for me, are the hardest to really get. Everybody is different, but maybe those two. Report an error in the passage at 2:01:02 Highlight the passage at 2:01:02

2:01:29 Emily, could you sort of let us know, you know, I'm not going to be here beyond the next few weeks, but are we going to stay with this? The tenants for another few weeks and then go into Special Insights. What is your plan for the next few weeks? So my plan is to go into the text. I mean, we'll maybe get into the text even next week because I wanted to give the background of the tenants so that once we got into the text and Lama Tsongkhapa says, oh, well, Baba Viveka, he didn't, well, okay, he didn't say he didn't know. Report an error in the passage at 2:01:29 Highlight the passage at 2:01:29

2:02:06 I don't know what he's talking about, right? But when he refutes Baba Viveka, right, we know what he's refuting, right? So I'm hoping to get into the actual text next week. I mean, I want to review, right, so we have a little bit of repetition, so we have it like the lower schools kind of set, but then, yeah, I would like to get. Report an error in the passage at 2:02:06 Highlight the passage at 2:02:06

2:02:34 And a reminder, two weeks from now we won't have class. Next week we'll have class. Two weeks from now we'll be at Vajrapani for the Shine retreat. But then after that we'll have class through the end of June. Report an error in the passage at 2:02:34 Highlight the passage at 2:02:34

2:02:59 Okay. Thank you. All right. So let's dedicate. Report an error in the passage at 2:02:59 Highlight the passage at 2:02:59

2:03:19 Let's do page two. Pages 240 and 241. Report an error in the passage at 2:03:19 Highlight the passage at 2:03:19

2:03:40 Due to the merits accumulated over the three times by myself and all the Buddhas and bodhisattvas which are empty from their own side, may I, who is empty from its own side, achieve the state of enlightenment which is empty from its own side and lead all sentient beings who are empty from their own side to that state as quickly as possible by myself alone. Report an error in the passage at 2:03:40 Highlight the passage at 2:03:40

2:04:03 Because of these merits may my actions never cause even the slightest harm to any sentient being. Instead may they bring only the greatest of benefit. Whatever suffering or happy life I experience may it be only of the greatest benefit to others causing them to achieve enlightenment as quickly as possible. Report an error in the passage at 2:04:03 Highlight the passage at 2:04:03

2:04:22 Like Lama Tsongkhapa, may I be able to offer extensive benefits equaling the limitless sky to all sentient beings and the teachings of Buddha from now on in all future lives by having all the qualities of Lama Tsongkhapa within me. Because of the past, present and future merit created by me and by the Buddhas, bodhisattvas and sentient beings, may I, my family, disciples and all sentient beings be able to actualize completely in this very lifetime Lama Tsongkhapa's path of unified sūtra and tantra, which is pure like refined gold. Report an error in the passage at 2:04:22 Highlight the passage at 2:04:22

2:04:57 May this pure teaching of Lama Tsongkhapa spread in all directions and flourish forever. Because of all the merits of the three times created by me and all the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and other sentient beings, may there be no wars, famines, disease, quarreling, fighting or unhappy minds. May there be great prosperity and may everything needed be easily obtained. May all the human beings in the world be guided by spiritual leaders teaching only Dharma and may everyone enjoy the happiness of Dharma. Report an error in the passage at 2:04:57 Highlight the passage at 2:04:57

2:05:29 May everyone have perfect conditions and have only compassion and love for each other in their mind streams, and may they only benefit and never harm each other. May I and all others be able to live lives of pure moral conduct like Lama Tsongkhapa himself, train the mind and bodhicitta, and live in pure view and conduct. Report an error in the passage at 2:05:29 Highlight the passage at 2:05:29

2:05:49 In this way, may we be able to complete our lives without corrupting the pure wisdom of the second Buddha's teachings. Due to the merits of the three times created by myself and others and by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, may I, my family members, all the students and benefiters of the organization, and all sentient beings be able to meet perfectly qualified Mahāyāna virtuous friends in all our future lives. Report an error in the passage at 2:05:49 Highlight the passage at 2:05:49

2:06:15 From our side, may we always see them as enlightened and always perform only actions most pleasing to their holy minds. May we always fulfill their holy wishes instantly. And then let's do the long life prayer, the short long life prayer for Lama Zopa Rinpoche on page 244 and also First Holiness the Dalai Lama. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:15 Highlight the passage at 2:06:15

2:06:39 You who uphold the subduers more away, who serve as the bountiful bearer of all, sustaining, preserving and spreading Manjunas victorious doctrine, who masterfully accomplish magnificent prayers honoring the three jewels, savior of myself and others, your disciples, please, please live long. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:39 Highlight the passage at 2:06:39

2:07:16 And then also for His Holiness the Dalai Lama. We'll do it in Tibetan. Gangri-ra-we-kor-we-shin-kam-dir Pendang-de-wa-malu-jung-we-ne-ri-zig-wong-ten-tsin-gya-tsu-yi Sha-pe-si-te-m-ba-du-ten-gyu-shi Report an error in the passage at 2:07:16 Highlight the passage at 2:07:16

· · · silence, 1 minute

2:08:12 So I'll, yeah. So I'll send you the homework. I didn't get it together to send it out or to print it out and send it yet, but I'll send you the homework. And then for practice, let's try to, well, try to see things from a Vatantraka point of view, right? Well, actually, from a Prasangika point of view. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:12 Highlight the passage at 2:08:12

2:08:38 Try to see things from a Prasangika point of view that nothing... right? Good things. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:38 Highlight the passage at 2:08:38

2:08:43 It doesn't exist from the side of the object, not even the annoying person, right? That it comes completely from the side of the mind, the mind imputing it. And then we can think, oh, well, swatagikas say that there is something from the side. But prosagikas, nothing from the side of the object. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:43 Highlight the passage at 2:08:43

2:09:07 So there's one release today, though it's dated tomorrow, so it's actually an update from the future. But he is doing Korwa around the relics for 30 minutes every day. And that tires him out. He gets still fatigued very easily. But he's moving a lot. They put a brace on his leg. And he's able to move short distances without any help. Long distances, he's still using wheelchair. And then after one of his therapies, he said he had a dream where he had a vision of, was it Tsongkhapa? Report an error in the passage at 2:09:07 Highlight the passage at 2:09:07

2:09:38 No, His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Dalai Lama, that's right. And he was able to move three of his fingers if he had it on his right hand. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:38 Highlight the passage at 2:09:38

2:09:46 Yeah, so progress. And he's not in the hospital anymore. He was released from the hospital, what, a week ago or something like that, right? Still in Australia? Still in Australia. Yeah, so they're planning. Yeah, so Roger was saying today that this is going to be the routine for the next month or two, right, going to physical therapy, et cetera, and staying put. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:46 Highlight the passage at 2:09:46

2:10:12 Does he have an Aussie accent yet? that's what you mean. Oh, and he said his recitations were getting more clear as well. So we need to keep doing our practices for Rinpoche to create the causes. Report an error in the passage at 2:10:12 Highlight the passage at 2:10:12

2:10:42 He's here right now. Right above our heads. Does everybody know Shonen Red Cliche is here in this movie? Yeah, I was just going Report an error in the passage at 2:10:42 Highlight the passage at 2:10:42

2:10:48 Thinking, oh, she made a mistake there. Let's go down and correct her. But yeah, he's doing the Hivadra empowerment. What is it, Saturday, Sunday or Friday, Saturday, Sunday? Just Saturday, Sunday. Okay, that's right. Report an error in the passage at 2:10:48 Highlight the passage at 2:10:48

2:11:32 Because it's going to be done here, right? So it'll be crowded. air. Report an error in the passage at 2:11:32 Highlight the passage at 2:11:32