← Emily Hsu

Special Insight 1: Wisdom of Emptiness (31 May 2011)

Emily Hsu · 31 May 2011 · 2 h 9 min · Tse Chen Ling via Internet Archive

Download audio

Automated transcript, estimated accuracy about 90% for this source; report an error.

Words the recogniser was unsure of are underlined with dots. Use “Report an error” beside any passage to tell us what the teacher actually says.

Key passages

The teacher's own words, quoted from the transcript below and chosen automatically as representative.

  • 10:41

    How should any son of the lineage train who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom? He said that, and the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara said this to the venerable Shariputra. Shari Putra, 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. 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.

  • 21:22

    So if you have a bowl of salt and a bowl of sugar, what makes one salt and one sugar? How much of it comes from the side of the object? How much of it comes from the side of the mind?

  • 56:29

    Nothing exists by way of its own entity. Like, we think that there are objects from their own side, but it's actually, right, the mind that organizes data into objects. We perceive data and we organize it into objects. We perceive white and blue. We perceive a shape and we organize it in our minds into an object that we call come.

  • 1:29:37

    Okay, so we'll go back to the watch. We'll go back to this thing in my hand. A collection of many parts, right? What actually appears to you? Some colors and some shapes.

  • 1:32:08

    If it doesn't work at all, then we would clearly say it doesn't function as a watch. But then, like, if it's, let's say, 10 minutes off every hour, would we say it functions as a watch? What if it's, like, an hour off every hour? What if it's 10 hours off every hour?

0:15 It's got your name on it. It says, funny. Report an error

0:33 funny. Report an error

0:43 Testing, testing. Report an error

1:10 I'm going to set the question mark by I made a question mark. Question mark. Question mark. That can be a question mark. Sure. Report an error

1:32 I switched the mics because that one's a motor. It seems like that one has a bit louder. Test one, two. Report an error

1:44 Test one, two. Report an error

1:54 you're right there, and you're hearing it's full. I always think when you tap this, you get more of a response. When you tap that, you get less response. I am so close to it. Report an error

2:09 What will happen? It's bad for the condenser. Always speak into the microphone. One, two, three. Thank you. jeez, I knew that it looked pretty good. I Report an error

· · ·

3:55 wasn't sure how many people were going to show up after the big weekend. So let's start with our motivation. There Report an error

4:20 are countless sentient beings that Report an error

4:28 are just like us wanting to be happy, wanting to suffer, Report an error

· · ·

5:11 encountering difficulties and suffering again and again Report an error

5:49 because they're trapped in saṃsāra by Report an error

5:59 their karma and mental afflictions and Report an error

· · ·

6:37 thereby developing compassion for all beings without exception. Report an error

6:47 Complete enlightenment, the Report an error

6:52 welfare of all these beings. Report an error

· · ·

7:51 So we'll start with the praise to Manjushri in the white book on the first page. Is Report an error

8:04 this loud enough? Could you guys hear me? Report an error

8:14 Obeisance to my guru and protector Manjushri, who holds to his heart a scriptural text symbolic of his seeing all things as they are, whose intelligence shines forth as a sun, unclouded by delusions or traces of ignorance, who teaches in sixty ways with the loving compassion of a father for his only son. Report an error

8:33 All creatures caught in the prison of saṃsāra, confused in the darkness of their ignorance, overwhelmed by their suffering. 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. Report an error

8:57 You, whose princely body is adorned with the 112 marks of a Buddha. Who has completed the stages achieving the highest perfection of a bodhisattva. Who has been pure from the beginning. I bow down to you, O Manjushri. With the Report an error

9:30 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. Report an error

9:46 Heart Sūtra, page 76, I believe. Report an error

10:00 I prostrate to the Arya Triple Gem. Thus did I hear at one time, the Bhagavan was dwelling on Mass Vultures Mountain in Rajgriya, together with a great community of monks and a great community of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Bhagavan was absorbed in the concentration on the categories of phenomena called profound perception. Also at that time, the bodhisattva, mahasattva, Arya, Avalokiteshvara, looked upon the very practice of the profound perfection of wisdom. Report an error

10:29 And beheld those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature. Then through the power of Buddha, the venerable Shariputra said this to the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara. How should any son of the lineage train who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom? He said that, and the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara said this to the venerable Shariputra. Report an error

10:56 Shari Putra, 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. 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. Report an error

11:26 Shariputra, likewise, all phenomena are emptiness, without characteristic, unproduced, unceased, stainless, not without stain, not deficient, not fulfilled. Pooja, 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. Report an error

12:01 There is no eye element and so on up to and including no mind element and no mental consciousness element. There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance and so on, up to and including no aging and death and no extinction of aging and death. Similarly, there is no suffering, origination, cessation and path. There is no exalted wisdom, no attainment and also no non-attainment. Report an error

12:27 Shariputra, therefore, because there is no attainment, bodhisattvas rely on and dwell in the perfection of wisdom, the mind without obscuration and without fear. Having completely passed beyond error, they reach the end point of nirvāṇa. All the Buddhas who dwell in the three times also manifestly completely awaken to unsurpassable, perfect, complete enlightenment in reliance on the perfection of wisdom. Report an error

12:54 Therefore, the mantra of the perfection of wisdom, the mantra of great knowledge, the unsurpassed mantra, the mantra equal to the unequal, the mantra that thoroughly pacifies all suffering. It should be known as truth, since it is not false. The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is declared. Tayetha, Om, Gathe, Gathe, Paragathe, Parasam Gathe, Bodhisattva. Report an error

13:19 Shariputra, the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva should train in the profound perfection of wisdom. Then the Bhagavan arose from that concentration and commended the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalokiteshvara, Singh. 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. Report an error

13:44 Even the Tathagatas rejoice, the Bhagavan having thus spoken. The venerable Asharivadiputra, the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokitesvara, and those surrounding in their entirety, along with the world of gods, humans, asuras and Gandharvas, were overjoyed and highly praised that spoken by the Bhagavan. Report an error

14:06 And then Refuge and Bodhicitta on page 98. I Report an error

14:19 go for refuge until I am enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme Assembly by the merits I create through listening to the Dharma. May I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings. I go for refuge until I am enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme Assembly. By the merits I create through listening to the Dharma, may I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings. I go for refuge until I am enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme Assembly. Report an error

14:50 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

15:12 So we've been going through the lower schools. Report an error

15:26 And last time we went through the Madhyamaka schools. So remembering the two lower schools, the Vibeshika and the Sotrantaka schools, basically say that things exist the way they appear. For the most part, the objects of the senses. Report an error

15:51 They appear to exist externally to the mind. They appear to exist independent of the mind, and they do, according to the lower schools. They function, and so they must exist from their own side, the lower schools say. Report an error

16:12 Then Chitamatra. Kind of pulled the rug from under us, the mind only school. And Chita Mantra says, okay, there are no partless particles and there are no objects external to the mind. There are no physical objects external to the mind. Whatever we perceive is a result of a karmic imprint being ripening. Report an error

16:39 And it's just an appearance to our mind. And there aren't objects external to the mind. So pretty radical. Then the middle way, the Madhyamakas. Report an error

16:57 So the Madhyamakas say that nothing exists truly, nothing exists inherently. Those are the two objects of negation in common for the Madhyamakas in the middle way school. And so what does that mean? That nothing exists independent of the mind. Most of the Madhyamakas say, well some of the Madhyamakas say that things exist external to the mind but they don't exist independent of the mind that posits it. Report an error

17:39 So they would say, Report an error

17:49 right, this thing in my hand, this thing in my hand, we've talked about cups so much. This thing in my hand, there's something that appears to the mind and the mind imputes cup. Report an error

18:08 The cup doesn't exist to separate Svata Tantra Cup. Report an error

18:24 Well, let's go into Prasangika for a second. So Prasangika would say the cup comes completely from the side of the mind, right? That there are some data that appears to our mind and the mind, based on our learning, Based on our karma and our learning, then we impute cup. There's no cup here from its own side, but cup comes from the side of the mind. Report an error

18:56 There is no cup without a mind imputing cup. We'll all agree with that. And there's nothing from the side of the object that makes it valid to call it a cup. Report an error

19:14 There's nothing from the side of the object that makes it valid to call it a cup. It is merely valid to call it a cup because it's a convention and it's not invalidated by a conventional or an ultimate valid cognizer. Report an error

19:33 So it's not a cup from its own side. It's not. And even the basis of designation doesn't exist from its own side. The function doesn't exist from its own side. The atoms don't exist from their own side. Nothing exists from its own side. It's not just about the label. Report an error

19:59 So the Sva Tantrikas say, yeah, things come into existence independent on being posited by the mind. There's nothing that exists independent of the mind. But the Sva Tantrikas say there must be something coming from the side of the object that makes it valid to call it a cup. Report an error

20:25 There must be some cupness from the side of the object. There must conventionally be some characteristics on the side of the object that Report an error

20:41 make it a cup. Report an error

20:45 Otherwise, you could call anything anything. If there was nothing from the side of the object, like no cupness on the side of the object, then you could call this a car, you could call it a person, you could call it anything. according to Svetantricus. Are you guys following me? Report an error

21:10 So I'll give you the example of salt and sugar last time. Report an error

21:22 So if you have a bowl of salt and a bowl of sugar, Report an error

21:28 what makes one salt and one sugar? How much of it comes from the side of the object? How much of it comes from the side of the mind? Report an error

21:53 And once you taste it? Report an error

22:01 But mustn't it have some saltness or sugarness from its own side to make one valid to be called salt and the other one to be called sugar? Report an error

22:23 So there's nothing from the side of the object that makes it valid to call one salt and one sugar. Report an error

22:38 There's a mic around here somewhere, right? Report an error

22:49 From the Prasanghaka viewpoint, there's nothing from the object itself that is salty or sweet. It's labeled by the mind. Based on the convention that we have of what we label salty, what we label sweet. Report an error

23:05 There are Report an error

23:13 chemical reactions that salt will, there are ways that salt will interact with other substances that sugar won't. So there's a difference that's inherent there between the two, it seems like. Report an error

23:31 But so, okay, in order for that to be proven as such, it's dependent upon the, you know, maybe scientists' minds. minds apprehending it as interacting like there's still minds that are interacting with it determining it to be this or that I don't see how it could be any label without a mind apprehending it. Whatever the label is, it seems contingent on the mind streams. Report an error

24:04 then so i mean i guess i could maybe experience salt as sugar if like my My karma was flip-flopped or abnormal. So if I taste salt and it tastes sweet to me, does that make it valid to call it sugar? Report an error

24:32 But is it just taste? I mean, what in the salt? What in the sugar? What's in the sugar that makes it sweet? So that it proclaims itself as sugar. What's in the salt that makes it salty so that it proclaims itself as salt? So if you break down the atoms into their most basic parts, are you going to always have something that's going to react to salty if you break it apart to its smallest element? Report an error

25:02 What's there that will be from its own side salty or sweet? What's there from its own side that imputes itself basically? You would have to have a mind imputing it in order for it to be salty or sweet because it's a label. But when you break down the salt or when you break down the sugar, those little tiny components, will it always be salt? Report an error

25:28 Sodium chloride, if you take out just the sodium, is it going to be salty? Both of them are carbons. If you burn them into carbon, Report an error

25:43 well, never mind, it doesn't matter. So where is I still say it's all from the mind. No, that's what I say. I say it's all from the mind. All from the mind. All from the mind. So that means that if salt tastes sweet to me, it's just as valid to call it sugar? Report an error

26:04 If it's all from the mind, I can call it anything, anything? No, because if there's something wrong with taste buds and it's not... If you're a valid cognizer of salt or if you're a valid cognizer of sugar, that would have to be the point. Report an error

26:23 Okay, let's go back to John. Report an error

26:34 Yeah, so, oh, geez, this is loud. Report an error

26:39 So, what I was thinking, you know, not having had any of this class so far, just dropping in, is that the difference between salt and sugar that I see, it's kind of along the lines of what Joe was getting at, that, you know. The salt is made of sodium chloride. The sugar is made of carbons and hydrogens and oxygen and whatever. So on the atomic level, yeah, they are different. Report an error

27:12 However, what I was thinking more along the lines of is, well, even if you have screwed up taste buds and you think that salt is sugary or sugar is salty, when you get down to it, In relation to other things that salt and sugar can interact with, they function differently. So if you examine how this particular entity, this particular phenomenon functions in relation to all other phenomenon, then you can determine whether you are dealing with salt or sugar. Report an error

27:57 Because you have a functional relationship with all these other things, eventually, yes, you can define what this phenomenon is in terms of function. But eventually, you're going to have to go and find that self-consistent functionality is dependent upon a consensus of... Report an error

28:23 minds all the minds having a consensus that oh this thing functions in this consistent way across everything it still comes down to the mind but I think it's kind of subtle I don't know that made any sense at all Report an error

28:48 Some of what I heard sounds like Svatantrika and some of what I heard sounds like Prasangika. And some of them. Report an error

29:06 So the Prasangika viewpoint is that there's nothing from the side of salt and sugar that makes it valid to call it salt or sugar. Nothing from the side of the object. And it functions. And there are conventional characteristics. Report an error

29:35 Even if salt tasted sweet to me, It wouldn't make it valid to call it sugar because it doesn't satisfy the conventional characteristics of sugar. Because conventionally, there are different chemical components. Do the chemical components exist from their own side? The Report an error

30:10 chemical components are also merely imputed by the mind. Report an error

30:19 Does carbon exist from its own side? Does sodium exist from its own sign? I mean, they have conventional characteristics, and they function, but even they are merely labeled by the mind. Report an error

30:37 And what does it mean that it functions? Is functionality the measure of whether or not it exists validly? I'll Report an error

30:56 give you a hint. If this watch doesn't work, does it make it not a watch? Report an error

31:05 If I drop it on the floor, and it doesn't... shatter, it stops. Report an error

31:16 hands stop moving. Is it still a watch? Is functionality the measure of whether or not something exists validly conventionally or not? Report an error

31:34 What if this watch is five minutes slow every hour? Is it still a watch? Does it still function? Report an error

31:51 Functionality is also... Merely imputed by the mind. So it's tricky, right? You can't call anything anything. Report an error

32:05 Things don't exist from their own side. But you can't call anything anything. Not everything is a valid base for a label. Report an error

32:18 But what makes something a valid base? Report an error

32:27 Is it something from the side of the object? Or is it from the side of the mind? Report an error

32:39 When you mentioned... Validly existing. I think that sounds like a new term. Have we defined what that means? Well, in order for something to be conventionally existent or validly conventionally existent. Well, if it's validly existent, it means it's conventionally existent. So that was the three characteristics, right? Report an error

33:06 Being by Report an error

33:12 worldly convention and not invalidated by ultimate and conventional valid cognizers. Report an error

33:25 And when we're talking about that, now we're talking about the prosingicas. But Report an error

33:34 then we see with the example of salt and sugar. Sorry, did I answer your question? Report an error

33:46 So yes, so conventional existence or valid existence is not determined by functionality, but it's determined by those three factors that we talked about. Worldly convention and not invalidated by a conventional valicognition. Invalidated by an ultimate valid cognizer. So why I can't just label salt sugar if it tastes sweet to me? Report an error

34:22 First of all, it's not according to worldly convention. And second of all, it's invalidated by a chemist who will tell you that conventionally it's not sugar. It may taste sweet to you, but it's not. Sugar conventionally in this society, in this time, right? I Report an error

34:51 like that example because it's so tempting to think that there's something from the side of the object that makes it valid to call it salt or sugar. Report an error

35:06 That's such a difficult thing to let go of, I think. And that's va tantrica. There must be... Something from the side of the object that makes it valid to call it salt or sugar. But even that is a convention. Report an error

35:34 Jim's dying to say something. I had sort of an observation or a question. I'm drawn to this functionality thing because when we discussed whether or not something functioned before, I didn't see it in terms of function. and, like, func-shin - Functioning for me as a human being like telling time or taking me from point A to point B like a car or something like that, I thought it was something more fundamental like reflecting light or interacting with other objects or casting its image or like something, do you know what I mean, something like on a more basic level. Report an error

36:17 And so I was kind of thinking, I mean when I think about how I've learned to think about what's real and what's not real. That's kind of fundamental to how I've always thought about reality. How does it interact aside from my perception, my ego? What's the chemical reaction? What wavelengths does it reflect? Does it have magnetic properties? Report an error

36:43 You know what I mean? That's sort of the Western scientific thing. So I was hoping to see that in here somewhere, and I'm kind of not seeing it at all. I think. What's the, you know, how does it? Report an error

36:55 But I thought maybe I saw a glimmer of it before when you were talking about functioning in the sense of casting its image or something like that. Yeah, I mean that's another level of functioning as well. Report an error

37:13 So the chemical reaction, if it has a particular – well, I mean I don't want to get into chemistry too much, right? Whether or not something chemical really reacts with something else, is it from its own side? Or is that also imputed by the mind? Report an error

37:37 Well, I guess from the Western scientific perspective, it would be, is it evident to all minds that look at it? And if the consensus is we all see the same thing, then that's what's happening. We can all repeat the experiments. That's how they come to a scientific consensus. Can you repeat it in lab A and lab B and lab C in the same way and see the same thing? So I guess, I mean, there are always minds there using the same language and the same definitions and so forth. Report an error

38:05 It seems like there, you know, I'm trying to find a bridge between my Western perspective and this so I can key into it better. Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, there's repeatability. I mean, there is function, right? Like karma, karma, you know, functions, right? Report an error

38:29 But also if you examine that repeatability, you're saying, do you get the, do, does everybody get the same result? Same result? Report an error

38:43 Do people get the same result or similar enough results that are labeled the same? Like a chemical reaction could be a little fizzle or it could be and both of those could be called chemical reaction, right? But are those two the same? Report an error

39:06 So anyway, I don't want to get too much into it. But it's something to think about, right? I mean, when we think, when we... So anyway, Report an error

39:17 Think of real life examples. We see how the mind gets stuck into, well, it seems like there's something that exists from its own side, right? There must be something, right? Like the chemical composition or the function or the chemical reaction or the repeatability. There must be something from the side of the object. Report an error

39:39 So that's okay. That's okay. But it's something to think about, right? It's something to think about. Okay, John, and then we'll... Yeah, I was just going to say for what you said, Joe, in regards to repeatability, a classic example from physics is the double slit experiment where you send a single electron towards two fine slits in a screen. Report an error

40:19 As long as you're not looking at this electron, as long as you're not observing it in some way, then this electron behaves, has a wave-like property, and it will go through both slits at the same time and interfere with itself, and then you'll detect it on a screen. But if at any point along those lines you happen to disturb that electron, if you observe it in any particular way, it'll only go through one slit. Report an error

40:45 It loses that wave property. In that way, as long as you don't observe it from when it's emitted through the slits until it gets to the screen, it exists in many different possibilities. It goes essentially all the different routes that it can go at the same time. And what that does is that... You can't define where that particular electron is. It has properties, but you can't define it. You can only give a probability for it. Report an error

41:17 And the only reason that we call it an electron is because it seems to be localized in a particular spot, but you can make repeated measurements and you can never pin down exactly where it's at. But it's just convention that we say, oh, this is an electron and it's right here. It's in this region. That's the best we can do. Report an error

41:37 So, yeah, and that's all dependent upon, you know, a consensus of minds observing a particular phenomenon in a particular way. And you get, you know, Report an error

41:54 sure, I don't know. All right. All right. So, okay. So back to Svatandrika. Svatandrika says there must be something, right, something from the side of the object. Report an error

42:13 Sugarness from the side of the object or some saltness from the side of the object that makes it valid to call it sugar or salt. And Prasanga could say, no, even that is merely labeled by the mind. Report an error

42:34 So the Sva Tantricas, I'm going to get into a couple of things. So the Sva Tantricas, Report an error

42:47 we talked a little bit about the history. Report an error

· · ·

43:19 Svatantrika and Prasanghika's split happened, right, because Buddha Palita commented on Nagarjuna's text using consequences, and Baba Viveka said, no, you can't just use consequences, you have to use syllogisms. Report an error

43:37 And then later Chandrakirti defended Buddha Palita's use of syllogisms. I mean, use of consequences, sorry, thank you. And so initially it was just thought that the split between Svatantrikas and Prasankikas was just in terms of logical method. Some people use syllogisms, some people use consequences. But Chandrakirti and Lama Tsongkhapa in particular gleaned out the differences in actually their views. Report an error

44:11 It wasn't just a difference in logical method, but Baba Viveka's insistence on using syllogisms. It implied that he believed that things existed inherently, conventionally, whereas Prasangikas say nothing exists inherently. Report an error

44:34 So the Svatantrikas believe that the pen comes into existence, independence on a mind, positing it, but conventionally there are characteristics that exist from its own side, it exists by way of its own character. Report an error

44:55 It exists by way of its own entity, conventionally. It exists inherently by way of its own characteristics, conventionally, is what the Svetantrikas would say. Report an error

45:12 Not ultimately, because if you search for the pen among the basis of designation, you won't be able to find it. But conventionally, they would say there are characteristics from their own side. Report an error

45:27 So like the example of salt and sugar, there's a chemical composition from its own side, according to Svatantrikas and Prasangikas would say. Sure, there's a chemical composition, but not from its own side, as merely imputed by the mind. So it's so not able to grasp onto anything. Prasangika can't grasp onto anything. Report an error

46:04 But Svatandrika is a little more comfortable. It's like we can grasp onto something existing from its own side. Not ultimately, but conventionally, they say that something exists from its own side. Report an error

46:22 So then there was the split between Svatandrika and Prasangika. And then subsequently, so Baba Viveka then criticized Chittamatra's refutation of external objects. Baba Vika said, the Buddha never taught that. That's a misrepresentation of what the Buddha taught. And so he denied the refutation of external objects. So he says that external objects do exist, but they don't exist truly, they don't exist ultimately. Report an error

47:02 So he was called a saotrantica, spa tantrica, because his... View of external objects is more similar to the Sautranticas. Sautranticas believe in external objects. And then subsequently there was someone named Shantarakshita who studied the mind only, the chitta matra system, and agreed with the chitta matras. Report an error

47:29 Oh yeah, there are no external objects. But then he said they didn't go far enough. They refuted the kind of the solidity. Report an error

47:40 Of objects, but not of the mind, right? Remember that Chita Mantra still maintained that the mind inherently exists, the mind truly exists. So Shantarekshita took the Chita Mantra view and then took it a step further and refuted the true existence of the mind. So there and there was another split within the spa tantricas, the ones that believed in external objects like Baba Viveka. Report an error

48:08 And the ones that refuted external objects like Shantarakshita. Report an error

48:17 I'm just wondering, so, this thing's so loud. They're both Svatantrika, but it sounds like Shantarakshita is really more closely Chitamatran, but still under the Svatantrika. Is that more because of the historical progression of that, rather than keeping to the principles or the view of the school? Yeah, so what's common about these two Svatantrika schools is what makes it Svatantrika is that they refute true existence and ultimate existence, but posit inherent existence and existence from its own side conventionally. Report an error

49:00 So both of these schools refute true and ultimate existence, but say that things do exist inherently conventionally. So when you were talking about Shantarak Shida, he was talking about mind not existing. Truly. Truly. Truly. But there was still the view of conventionally existent things, things having a pen having some penness and a mind having some mindness. Report an error

49:39 Well, mind is a cognizer, so okay. Okay, so it's just refuting the... Report an error

49:50 Yeah, so just to repeat, because I mean this is a lot of ideas to try to cram into our heads. So to make use Sva Tantrica, you need to refute true existence and ultimate existence. Report an error

50:16 So Sva Tantricas refute true existence and ultimate existence, but they say things... Do exist inherently by way of their own character and from their own side conventionally. So that's what is in common with those two swatantrikas. Report an error

50:39 And then there's that further split. Some of them believe that objects exist externally to the mind. Others exist just as the karma ripening, not external to the mind. But either way, those external objects... Report an error

50:58 not Whether they're external or internal objects, they don't exist truly or ultimately, according to Svatantricas. But they do exist inherently by way of their own character and from their own side, conventionally. Report an error

51:15 Would the Red Hat schools be more the Svatantricas then? And then the Galupas be more the Pansanica? I Report an error

51:27 don't know enough about the Red Hat schools. I mean, officially... According to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, all of the schools follow. All the Tibetan traditions ultimately take the Prasangika viewpoint. That Report an error

51:48 doesn't mean all of the writings are consistent with Prasangika. I forgot the difference between true existence and ultimate existence. Report an error

52:01 There's a lot of words and a lot of different meanings. And the Svatantrikas would use these words in a different way than Prasangikas. Report an error

52:16 So for it to be truly existent or ultimately existent, it comes down to ultimate analysis. Searching for the object among the basis of designation. So if you search for the cup, is the handle the cup, or is this part the cup, is that part of the cup, is that. Report an error

52:44 We won't be able to find cup among its basis of designation. If we could find cup. the basis of designation that would make it truly existent inherent or truly existent or ultimately existent Report an error

53:07 That's one measure of it being ultimately existent. And the other one we talked about last Report an error

53:23 week was that Report an error

53:30 which exists as its own. Objective mode of subsistence without being posited through the force of appearing to a non-defective awareness. If it existed by way of its own mode of subsistence without needing to appear to a non-defective awareness, then it would be truly existent. Report an error

53:55 Remember that Svetantrikas say there's something coming from the side of the object, something coming from the side of the mind. You need those. Two together, right, to make it existent. So to say it's truly existent means that it would have its own mode of subsistence from its own side without needing the side of the mind. Report an error

54:20 So another way of saying this is it would exist independent of the mind. It's just Vatantricas to say nothing exists completely independent of the mind. Report an error

54:32 You need a mind that posits its existence. Report an error

54:39 I know this is probably mostly words right now, but we get some imprints and slowly, slowly we get... Report an error

· · ·

55:15 In the reading, maybe we'll get to this later, or maybe this is the right time to ask. In the reading, I was kind of struck by one of the things that we haven't talked about yet. In the mind-only school, in the reading it said, the mind-only school searches among the bases of a person and finds a person in this thing called the mind basis of all. Report an error

55:38 It didn't seem like the other schools... Did that, didn't it? That seemed to me like something that stood out. Is that significant? We'll talk about that. We'll talk about that when we get to how the various schools assert a person. Because all the schools assert a person that exists and a person that doesn't exist, or a self that exists and a self that doesn't exist. Report an error

56:02 And all of the schools, except Prasangika, say that if you, well, We'll get to it. We'll talk about it when we get to it. Report an error

56:18 So, alright. So, for Prasangika, we'll move to Prasangika now. Nothing exists from its own side. Nothing exists by way of its own entity. Like, we think that there are objects from their own side, but it's actually, right, the mind that organizes data into objects. Report an error

56:50 We perceive data and we organize it into objects. We Report an error

57:01 perceive white and blue. We perceive a shape and we organize it in our minds into an object that we call come. Report an error

57:20 The tricky thing is it appears that way. It appears to even our senses as existing self-existently as its own entity right here. Report an error

57:36 So it appears as a single object. Report an error

57:52 One way of refuting true existence that they use in Svat Tantricas is if it existed truly, if it's truly independent of the mind, if it truly existed independent of the mind, it would be either one thing or many things. Report an error

58:14 If it exists independent of the mind, then independent of the mind it would have to be One or many, right? Report an error

58:29 One or more than one, right? Is there another possibility? It existed independent of the mind. It would have to exist as one or many. Truly existent one or truly existent many, if it was truly existent. So, is this thing truly existent one? Is it one thing independent of the mind? Report an error

59:15 I mean, it can't be one thing because it has parts. If it has parts, it's more than one, right? Report an error

59:32 So really, so if I ask you, is it one or many things? Is this thing in my hand one or many? Report an error

59:55 Well, doesn't it, like if I ask you, is there one cup or many cups in my hand? Report an error

1:00:05 So it's one thing or many things depending on how you look at it. All right. Report an error

· · ·

1:00:16 It's many atoms or it's one cup, right? But it depends on how you look at it, right? You can look at the quote-unquote same object in different ways. So it's one or many depending on what? The mind. So the refutation of true existence goes, it's not truly existent one, right? It's not one independent of the mind because it has parts. It's not truly existent many. Report an error

1:00:57 More than one? Because in order for it to be truly existent many, it needs to be a composite of many ones. And there is no truly existent one. Report an error

1:01:10 But we'll have to cook that. Yeah, we will. Because, I mean, one of the things you can say that, yeah, there are many atoms, but atoms are not cups, right? We're implying some of this logic when we look at things and we use, I mean, I know this is kind of a simplified analysis of cup. Report an error

1:01:31 You can say that that structure that we call a cup is a collection of parts and that the parts are, you know, there's a handle, there's a cylindrical section that holds liquid, there's a top. And you could say, okay, is cup the collection of those parts? And if it is, which one is cup? So I can see where you're going in terms of, but sometimes... Report an error

1:01:58 It seems more like semantics to me in terms of how that argument is generated or that analysis. Because if we're very specific, we can say, yes, you can have one object that you're holding. You're obviously not holding multiple cups when you hold that object up. But to say that it has many parts... -hmm. Report an error

1:02:29 In my mind, it doesn't necessarily make it inconsistent with being one, one as a collection of parts. I do understand that you can't then find the one, but to simply say that because it's a collection, it can't be one. Report an error

1:02:50 Okay, but it can't be one from its own side. No, I understand that. I mean, and I can understand when we're talking about from its own side, I think. Report an error

1:03:01 It's really, you know. Yeah. So. No, I mean, I think that's a good point because oftentimes it does seem like semantics, but actually it's much deeper than that because. Report an error

1:03:21 I mean, when you were saying before when we talked early on about vaibashikas and vaibashikas and like the partless particles and then the view of how can you have a partless particle because now if they're, you know. Are they adjacent? If they're adjacent, now you have parts. And then, you know, are they superimposed or, you know, then you only have one, you know. Report an error

1:03:47 So I can see on that level that kind of argument. And I know that this is very subtle, but sometimes the way this explanation is presented, it sounds, I think it's hard to... Report an error

1:04:06 To really bring it to that subtle level when you're just talking about it. It just seems to get, at least in my mind, it's my own karma. Report an error

1:04:19 I Report an error

1:04:27 don't know if this addresses your question, but a collection of parts, a collection of parts, does Report an error

1:04:41 a collection of its parts exist independent of the mind? Or is it the mind that organizes many things into one thing? A collection, does it exist independent of the mind or is the collection merely a collection because the mind collects, like the example of the forest? Report an error

1:05:08 Is it a forest independent of the mind or is it the mind that collects these trees together and calls it a forest? Report an error

1:05:24 A forest is... I think as a good example, or for me it's an effective example to see how that's clearly not something that exists as one thing from its own side, right? It's clearly something that is created into one object by the mind. Let's call this collection of trees a forest. Report an error

1:05:50 Everything is like that. Everything has part. Everything is a collection of parts. And it's the mind that's organizing many things into one. Report an error

1:06:08 This is, if we look under a microscope, right, is many things. There is no one cup covering its parts, right? But that's what we think, right? That's what it looks like is that there's a cup covering its parts. But it's the mind that's taking many things. Report an error

1:06:33 Organizing it to a single object. Which is why that refutation of partless particles is so significant. Because if everything has parts, then everything is just an imputation by the mind on parts. Whereas if there's a partless particle, then you can kind of hang on to something and say, okay, there's a truly existent one. Report an error

1:07:00 It's interesting, when you were saying that, one thing that came to my mind, you were mentioning looking at that through a microscope. So if we could perceive things like, you know, if we perceived ordinary things, if we could perceive atoms, if we could perceive even, you know, subatomic particles and so on and forth, would we have this idea of them, would we see things as solidly existing, you know? Report an error

1:07:28 So you're absolutely right. It's the mind creating all of this structure out of just data. And we're limited by how we actually interact with things that we've created. You're right. I mean, between the karma and between, well, it is the karma, isn't it, that we perceive the way we do. Report an error

1:07:55 Yeah. So that's part of the trick is that everything appears. Things appear solidly. If we perceived atoms, then we probably wouldn't think cup existed from its own side, but we would think that the atoms existed from their own side, right? Report an error

1:08:19 So the trick of someone who's realized emptiness, and we'll get into this later, when we realized emptiness, we will... right, just, Report an error

1:08:31 We realize that things don't exist the way they appear because everything appears to the senses to exist from its own side, but we just won't believe it anymore. Report an error

1:08:43 It's like seeing our reflection in the mirror. It still looks like me, but we know that it's not. Have you ever walked into a restaurant where there's mirrors on the wall and it seems like the restaurant is twice as big as it is? And until you realize those are mirrors, you think that the restaurant is twice as big. But as soon as you realize it, it still looks like the restaurant is twice as big, but you just don't believe it anymore. Report an error

1:09:14 And it's the same thing with realizing emptiness. Things will still appear the same way, but we won't believe it. Report an error

1:09:31 Okay, maybe we should take a break, and then we'll take Leslie's question. Report an error

1:09:56 you running out of sheets in there? Do you need a new one? There's enough for a while. Do you have to buy a whole new thing when you run out of it? Yeah, because it doesn't seem to be a way to just add a tablet. I'll look and see what they have. They have something that, um... Report an error

1:10:22 more of a refill for it, or just a stand-up, you know, since you have the whiteboard on the back of that one. Maybe there's just a stand-up that doesn't have a whiteboard right now. Right. Keep all of them moving. Yeah. Report an error

1:10:36 It's fine for me. But I think we'll be fine for a while. And then once we start in the text, we probably won't use this quite as much. Report an error

1:10:47 There's an article in the New York Times. The Science Times. It's this tiny little thing. Read that. It's really cool. Can you read it? Yeah, my eyes are getting old. Me too. Oh, the science type. Okay. Report an error

· · ·

1:11:30 I wrote it down like what I thought. Report an error

1:11:37 my question is like, maybe it's exactly what you said, but it's like, oh, is that the whole foreign thing? I do much better if I go home. Report an error

1:12:14 It's sort of like that notion like we see things because we're just habituated to seeing it through our own two eyes. Yeah, and we're stuck in our way of looking at things, right? Like an ant, if an ant was here, you know, an ant would see things totally differently, right? Yeah, but in a way that's relevant to an ant. Report an error

1:12:37 Yeah, sure. Yeah, we see things in a way that's relevant to our size and our... Right, and our karma, right? Yeah, yeah. A lot of the kind of stuff comes together. I think science supports this quite well. Yeah, it's very useful to have a scientist and a physicist. I have a question about our text. I have the emptiness yoga and meditation of emptiness, and I don't have this one yet, and I want to make sure which one of these should I be reading right now, probably. Report an error

1:13:19 and that we're going to be... I intend to read them all, but I just think if I focus on one right now, which one would be the best one to focus on? I think Meditation on Emptiness and Emptiness Yoga. Those two would be good. This one contains the translation of our text. So it's useful to read those few. Report an error

1:13:52 that we cover in a particular class but that'll you know but that and of itself is not enough right when you a root text or a commentary it tends to be very pithy right so you get you get the point but then you need a commentary right and so Meditation on emptiness and emptiness yoga are good commentaries on this. But this is a very nice translation of the text. Report an error

1:14:19 I mean, it's the same text as if... Do you think I should try to do all three or together then or as a combination? Is that possible? I could probably, yeah. It sounds like a lot. Yeah. It's like determining how to... Space it all together, I guess, just to do it on each topic in each book at the same time. Yeah, yeah. I mean, you can take this as the basis. Report an error

1:14:44 Okay, this is what these pages are what we're covering this week, and then we can read the corresponding section in meditation on emptiness. Report an error

1:14:54 And then, I mean, you can skip emptiness yoga for now until we get into... meditation on this? I mean, technically just myself, I've been meditating on it for a while now, but it's really interesting to read about it and to get the other just to hear it and to reinforce everything. Yeah. Did you study emptiness from the enigma? Okay. Report an error

1:15:24 I know there's a little bit of a difference in the schools. I feel, I mean, just from my, getting all my higher yoga and comments from the group, and from Chodron Rinpoche, I feel so blessed, but I feel like a total great girl. I mean, my mind is there, you know what I mean, so I'm definitely a yellow hat guy. But you still do some, some Nyingma practices too? Report an error

1:15:57 Well, because I went to retreats. So I was told that since I went to those retreats with those Lamas, that I should still do it. Like my medicine Buddha. I went to a medicine Buddha, extensive medicine Buddha retreat with Ningma. And that was like, so I still do my medicine Buddha practice that way. But when I'm here and we're doing medicine Buddha, I do it the way we do it here. Sure. Report an error

1:16:28 Okay. Yeah, but I definitely am, I see it, it makes sense. And I like the structure and the way it's all, Tsongkhapa laid everything out. The ninmas just throw you, when you start learning, the ninmas, the beginning, they just can't do everything. Here, go. You're doing Vajrayogini and you're doing Vajrasatva and you're doing everything right from the beginning. Report an error

1:16:54 It's like. Well, what am I doing? You're getting benefits from it, but then now it's all making sense to you. You're going to put it all together in the stages. And the way Tsongkhapa did it. It's brilliant. Oh, it's amazing. It is amazing. But I still do my seven-line paddlers and baba as part of my practice every day. Report an error

1:17:28 There's no contradiction. That's just one of the things I do. I do all of the other things too. Keeps you busy. Yeah. Yeah. Report an error

1:17:34 so we're out. Report an error

1:17:55 Hey, Emily, I want to tell you something. Hmm. So I have to tell you. So went to teach you this with you, right? I'm trying to appreciate it. Huh? Oh, okay. Report an error

1:18:38 Fabric is the highest quality you could find here, but even beyond. You can't even describe it. And it's like this beautiful, deep purple. It's like not even on the floor. And you're in this bright, and you're like nicely tanned. It's bright kata, as if it were a scarf, like folded over. As a designer's part, but its kata is glowing. It was like just so... Report an error

1:19:04 Thank you. You're pure view. Yes, and then he said, he was talking to me about, oh, if you had this kind of dream, it's auspicious. And I was like, oh, yeah, all my dreams are just proud of you. Right, but. Oh, yeah, yeah. Hmm. Oh, yeah, yeah. It's so beautiful. I like it. All right. FYI. I don't take any credit at all. That's great. Report an error

1:19:50 That's a good reminder. You've got to do that every day. Some tea or cookies or something? Are there cookies? There are goodies back there. I might have to get up around here. I might check it out. Report an error

1:20:09 you're going to go to the ash. I'm very fortunate. Looking forward to it. Report an error

1:20:23 Oh, well, I'll, uh, lounge on the couch. Report an error

· · ·

1:21:04 Oh, no, no, it's not. Report an error

1:21:12 don't even get into it. Report an error

1:21:17 That's how you know going on. Report an error

· · ·

1:22:00 still have a question? I have a question. All right. Report an error

1:22:10 Back to the forest idea of that we're, and it doesn't need to be a collection of things, it can be anything that we look at, that's how our mind is. Report an error

1:22:23 Grabbing things and putting them into its own little perspective. So with that in mind, is that, is that what, is that? Report an error

1:22:45 I know. It's a strange voice. Is that in my head? Report an error

1:22:51 Is it because that is how the mind, when it looks at things, is that why things don't exist from their own side? Is it because the mind is doing that? that. Report an error

1:23:03 As in making everything a forest when it sees things. Report an error

1:23:09 Is that why things don't exist from their own side? Is it because the mind is doing that? Well... I mean, I think they don't exist from their own side and they just don't. But it's because... I'm just trying to understand. But it's fine for the mind to organize things into objects. I mean, that's... We need to do that, right? We need to be able to distinguish between the wall and the door so that we don't walk into the wall, right? Report an error

1:23:45 We walk through the opening and the door. So conventionally we need to see, okay, well, you know, the difference between objects and we need to say, okay, well, that's a person sitting there and it's not, right? It's a person sitting there, right? And it's not a... Report an error

1:24:06 Bear, okay. So the problem isn't that we organize things into objects. The problem is that we believe that although we organize things into objects, they exist that way independent of my mind. Report an error

1:24:26 Even though my mind labels someone annoying. I believe that they're annoying from their own side, independent of my mind. Even though my mind is what labels something beautiful, then we believe that it's beautiful from its own side and then we grasp onto it. So the problem isn't that the mind is organizing things and labeling things. It's that we believe in those labels and we believe that they exist independent of the mind that way. Report an error

1:25:12 Like Report an error

1:25:17 the mental afflictions arise, right? When we label something attractive, well, we perceive it as being attractive, right? Pleasant. And then we grasp onto it, right, attachment. We perceive it as being unpleasant. We grasp, well, we grasp. Report an error

1:25:38 We develop aversion, right, irritation, annoyance, anger. So those mental afflictions arise based on, right, attractive or unattractive. Report an error

1:25:52 And then we perceive this thing that we call a body, and then we label it me. Report an error

1:26:04 And then we think, I have to take care of me first. Report an error

1:26:12 I Report an error

1:26:17 mean, it's okay to call this thing me, right? I mean, conventionally, it's me. But when we think it exists independently, separately from anything else, you know, that becomes the problem. And more importantly than others, that becomes the problem. So the problem isn't the mind organizing it. The problem isn't the mind labeling, it's the believing and the lame grasping onto it. Report an error

1:26:47 Okay, so that's a very important distinction, right? So Tsongkhapa, one of Tsongkhapa's revolutionary ideas was that nothing exists at all from its own side. It's merely imputed by the mind that things appear mistakenly to everyone. Except someone who's directly realized emptiness. Like, to everyone all the time, unless you're directly realizing emptiness. And we have valid cognition. Report an error

1:27:36 That still, even though we perceive things mistakenly, we still have valid cognition. It's still valid to call this a cup and this a clock. It's valid, merely imputed by the mind, but it's still valid. Report an error

1:27:59 So nothing exists from its own side, but things do function, things do exist conventionally. Appearances are mistaken, and yet we have valid cognition. Report an error

1:28:12 So these are revolutionary ideas because some of the other schools would say, oh, well, if everything always appears mistakenly, then you can't rely on that cognition as being valid if things are appearing mistakenly. How could you say it's valid? But Tsongkhapa would say, okay, well, it's not valid with respect to the way it exists, right? It's not valid with respect to its inherent existence that we believe, right? Report an error

1:28:41 But it is valid with respect to the convention, right? That it's a cup. Report an error

1:28:50 All right, so we're going to get into all of this stuff later in much more detail. Report an error

1:28:58 And then we'll get into the text again. Report an error

1:29:03 You had given a good example about the watch and the functioning of it, but I'm wondering, can you go over that again? I'm still not getting how something can function, yet still be from the mind, you know? Report an error

1:29:37 Okay, so we'll go back to the watch. We'll go back to this thing in my hand. A Report an error

1:29:48 collection of many parts, right? What actually appears to you? Some colors and some shapes. Report an error

1:30:01 What is it conventionally? It's a watch. Why is it a watch conventionally? Because, you know, according to what worldly convention we call something that looks like this, it's about this size. Report an error

1:30:21 Well, that tells time in general, right? As a watch, we call it a watch, right? If this thing was like as big as the room, we probably wouldn't call it a watch, right? But something this size, you know? With this function we call it watch, right? But where does watch come from? The side of the object or from the side of the mind? Report an error

1:30:45 From the mind, right? Because it wouldn't be a watch unless we had a convention to call it a watch. So watch comes from the side of the mind. Report an error

1:30:58 And so there was this comment earlier about, okay, well, it's a watch because it functions as a watch. But then I called into question that because oftentimes when we say something like that, That implies that we're thinking that the function exists from its own side. The function exists independent of the mind, right? Report an error

1:31:21 The function exists right here. But then I was trying to break it down into an analysis. If the hand stopped moving, would it still function? Report an error

1:31:37 Well, it wouldn't be functioning as what we normally would say a watch, how a watch functions, right? Report an error

1:31:47 But yet... Maybe we would still call it a watch. We'd probably call it a broken watch, but it'd still be a watch. Report an error

1:31:57 When we analyze anything, we'll see that it comes from the mind. Function comes from the mind. If it doesn't work at all, then we would clearly say it doesn't function as a watch. Report an error

1:32:19 But then, like, if it's, let's say, 10 minutes off every hour, would we say it functions as a watch? Report an error

1:32:34 What if it's, like, an hour off every hour? What if it's 10 hours off every hour? Report an error

1:32:47 But, you know, I mean, like, there's not a clear point where you would say, oh, yeah, it functions properly. And it doesn't function properly, right? If it's a minute off every hour, is it still functioning properly? What if it's five seconds off every hour, right? I mean, any time you analyze anything, you say, oh, well, there's not a clear point where from its own side you can say it functions properly or not. Report an error

1:33:25 It comes from the mind. Oh, yeah, I mean, in my mind, if it's five seconds off every hour, it still functions properly. Thirty seconds every hour? Report an error

1:33:41 10 minutes off every hour? No. In my mind, but in someone else's mind, it would be different. Report an error

1:33:51 Did that answer your question? Partly, kind of? I have one more question. Report an error

1:34:03 It's okay if you want to talk about this after class, but can you give the example of, say, for a cup, how it functions then from just the mind? Oh, yeah, yeah. Report an error

1:34:11 Just to give another example. Function. Well, the typical function of a cup is that it holds liquid, right, and you can drink out of it. Report an error

1:34:29 So if there was a hole in this cup, would it still function as a cup? Would it still be a cup? Report an error

1:34:41 The hole was as big as the bottom. We probably wouldn't call it a cup anymore, right? If there was no bottom, we probably wouldn't call it a cup. But if the hole was like the size of a dime, would we still call it a cup? Report an error

1:34:58 If the hole was the size of a quarter, would we still call it a cup? You know, it's like as soon as you start analyzing, you know, you just see, oh, okay, it doesn't really exist from its own side. And so that's kind of the point is if we don't analyze. Report an error

1:35:17 We, you know, things appear to exist from their own side. But as soon as we start analyzing, if it existed from its own side, the more we looked at it, right, the more we investigated, the clearer it would become. Report an error

1:35:33 But the thing is, when we analyze, we see the more self-existence falls apart. Report an error

1:35:46 Anyway, but we'll spend a lot more time on this. Report an error

1:35:52 So let's get into... The middle-length lamrim again. So I'm going to review a little bit. On the bottom of page 249, the top of page 250 in the text, translated by Phil Bacorco, or Hopkins' page in the final exposition of wisdom, his page 28. Report an error

1:36:33 So where it starts on whom should you rely on the top of 250 or the second paragraph on 228? Whom should you rely? So Tsongkhapa so far has been talking about how if we want to attain the realization of special insight, then we need to develop, first of all, develop the view, correct view, realizing emptiness by way of... Report an error

1:37:04 Hearing and reflecting, relying on unmistaken beings. And so he gets into, as well as the other prerequisites, then he gets in, okay, well, who are these unmistaken beings or these excellent beings that we should rely? So he says you should rely on Arya Nagarjuna, widely renowned on the three levels, whom the Bhagavan himself, so the Buddha prophesied Nagarjuna. Report an error

1:37:36 numerous sutras and tantras. we need to rely on Nagarjuna. Report an error

1:37:45 having the correct Report an error

1:37:49 So it's not that the Buddha didn't teach this. The Buddha did teach. the founder or the elusive. Report an error

1:38:12 But those teachings were lost in the world and then it was said that Nagarjuna brought them back. And he clarified the meaning and wrote texts like the Treatise on the Middle Way and other texts. And when you go to His Holiness the Dalai Lama's teachings, when he teaches on emptiness, he always mentions Nagarjuna. Report an error

1:38:35 Nagarjuna is the man. Report an error

1:38:44 So then next he mentions, right, so the identification of the original Madhyamaka. He says, then since the great Madhyamaka, such as the master Buddha Palita, remember who Buddha Palita is, Bhava Viveka, Chandra Girti and Shanta Rakshita consider Aryadeva to be valid as his master. Both the father and the spiritual son are the sources for the other Madhyamakas. So Aryadeva was the spiritual son of Nagarjuna, so we need to rely on Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. Report an error

1:39:24 And those are considered the Report an error

1:39:30 Madhyamakas of the original texts, Report an error

1:39:36 or of the model texts as Hopkins translated it, whereas these... Others like Buddhapalita, Chandrakirti, Bhavavika are considered partisan Madhyamakas. Partisan. They're considered either Svatantrikas or Prasangikas. So this division into Svatantrika and Prasangika happened subsequent to Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. Report an error

1:40:05 And it happened when others commented on Nagarjuna's texts. And then there was a split that happened. Report an error

1:40:18 And then next. Tsongkhapa says, some spiritual teachers of earlier generations said that there were two kinds of Madhyamakas termed from the point of view of how they posit conventionalities. Those who assert that external objects conventionally exist, the Sotrantika Madhyamakas, and those that assert conventionally external objects do not exist. Report an error

1:40:41 So this is what we talked about before. Some Madhyamakas say that external objects do exist conventionally and others say they don't. So you can split Madhyamakas into those two divisions. I Report an error

1:41:07 bet there are people who subscribe to that. Like me, oftentimes. Report an error

1:41:18 Officially, I don't know of any practice schools that subscribe to that. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but I don't know of any. Report an error

1:41:30 This next section... Yeah, we were trying to say you were being Report an error

1:41:38 I want to kind of skip over, but this is Lama Tsongkhapa talking about how others incorrectly, others of the past incorrectly viewed ultimate truths as, for example, being the object Report an error

1:41:56 and the appearance lacking true existence as the ultimate truth, etc. And later on... Yeshide says no. The translator Loden Sherab says that's ridiculous. That's amazing that people would posit it that way. So I don't really want to go into the wrong ways of positing ultimate truth. Report an error

1:42:33 So you guys with me so far? Then at the bottom of page 250, Yeshide. Report an error

1:42:44 And the top of page 31 in Hopkins' book, the bottom of 30 and top of 31. So he says, in the Madhyamaka treatises by Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, they didn't make it clear whether or not external objects existed or not. They didn't refute external objects and they didn't say that external objects did exist either. But then after them, Baba Viveka, Report an error

1:43:19 Refuted the mind-only system and established a system where external objects conventionally exist. So we talked about that. Report an error

1:43:31 Then Report an error

1:43:38 Shantarakshita then made a different Madhyamaka system based on the Yogacara or Chittamatra treatises, teaching that external objects do not conventionally exist, but ultimately the mind is without inherent existence. Report an error

1:43:59 So remember Svatantrikas say that things inherently exist conventionally but not ultimately. So then two kinds of Madhyamakas emerged. Report an error

1:44:19 And then Lama Tsongkhapa talks about how Chandrakirti, it's unsuitable to call him a Sotrantaka Madhyamaka, although he asserts that external objects conventionally exist because his position doesn't accord with these. Sotrantika, Svatantrika, Madhyamakas. Is that too many words? All right. Too much Sanskrit. All right. Report an error

1:44:46 Okay. And also his assertions aren't in accordance with Vaibashika, right? Because remember the Vaibashikas say that things exist inherently. Sotrantikas say things exist inherently. Sotrantika, Svatantrikas say that things exist inherently conventionally. Whereas Chandrakirti says nothing exists inherently. Report an error

1:45:13 So this is still history. Then Tsongkhapa gets into how the designations of Svatantra and Prasangika actually happened in the land of snowy mountains. So this split in Tibet didn't happen in India. So even though Baba Viveka and Budapalita, they were Indian, Report an error

1:45:49 People thought that the difference between Babaveika and Buddhapalita was only in terms of logical method, but they didn't think that there was a difference in view until later. And it was specifically Tsongkhapa that pointed out Babaveika is saying that things do inherently exist conventionally. Report an error

1:46:18 Whereas Buddhapolita was saying things don't inherently exist conventionally. So Tsongkhapa studied very extensively Buddhapolita's writings and as well as Baba Viveka's writings and gleaned a difference in view that wasn't understood at the time. Report an error

1:46:39 So it was only in Tibet that these schools were formed, the Svatanjikas and the Prasangikas. Report an error

1:46:57 And then Tsongkhapa says we need to follow, which masters do we seek to follow in order to understand the noble father, which is Nagarjuna, and his spiritual son, which is Aryadeva. So we need to follow Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, and then on whose commentaries do we need to rely. So he says, from the tradition of Atisha, who made Chandrakirti's system the main... Report an error

1:47:29 Manyamaka system. So we need to follow basically Chandrakirti and Buddhapalita mainly, their treatises, their explanations of Nagarjuna. Report an error

1:47:43 And then also there were a lot of good, he's saying a lot of good explanations from Baba Viveka, although he was slightly incorrect, but there were a lot of good things about Baba Viveka's writings. Report an error

1:48:03 Primarily we should rely on Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti's commentaries on Nagarjuna. Report an error

1:48:16 So the next section is in particular how the view is settled, how the view of emptiness is settled. So the first section in there is identification of afflicted ignorance. Report an error

1:48:35 So on the top of page 252 and in Hopkins pages 37 and 38. Report an error

1:48:48 Talks about how, right, we, right, in order to eliminate our suffering, we need to eliminate our mental afflictions, right? To eliminate our mental afflictions, right, in the teachings there are a lot of different antidotes, right? An antidote to anger is meditating on love, right? An antidote to attachment is meditating on ugliness. Report an error

1:49:15 Penis, you know what I meant, right? An antidote to pride is to meditate on the things we don't know. All of this kind of thing. But here, in Chandrakirti's clear words, he's saying that the antidote for removing attachment, like meditating on ugliness, isn't going to help eliminate your anger. Report an error

1:49:42 Meditating on love isn't going to help. Eliminate your attachment, etc. So all of these other antidotes are provisional antidotes and antidotes for specific mental afflictions. But the antidote to the main or to all the mental afflictions is wisdom. Report an error

1:50:13 He says ignorance is the basis. Report an error

1:50:23 So the antidote to... The antidote to ignorance, which is wisdom, is the antidote to all of the mental afflictions. Therefore, Tsongkhapa says, ignorance is the basis of all errors and faults. Report an error

1:50:39 So the ignorance is the basis. So therefore, we must meditate on emptiness. And moreover, unless you have identified ignorance, Tsongkhapa says, you will not know how to cultivate its antidote. Therefore, it's extremely important to identify ignorance. We need to identify the object of refutation. We need to identify ignorance. Intellectually, we need to know the correct view or the object of refutation. Report an error

1:51:18 Intellectually, but also in our experience, in our daily life. How do we hang on to things? How do we view things? So Tsongkhapa really puts a lot of effort into making sure we identify the object of refutation. We just meditate on emptiness like oftentimes I think we do. We search for the cup. We don't find the cup. Okay, there's no cup in your hand. Report an error

1:51:55 No big deal. Search for the eye. Don't find it. Okay, there's no eye here. But... Because we haven't identified that object of reputation, that I that we believe strongly in, in our experience, that I that we believe really exists and is the basis of our self-cherishing, is the basis of our attachment, is the basis of our annoyance. Report an error

1:52:30 If we just do it intellectually without trying to find the object of mitigation in our experience first, Then the meditation doesn't have much power. It doesn't have much impact. It's like, okay, well, I remember a friend of mine used to say, I never meditate on emptiness because they tell me I'm not going to be able to find it. Report an error

1:52:50 So I meditate on it and I'm not going to be able to find it. And I don't find it. All right. Okay. That's what I was supposed to find. And that's what I found. And okay, I meditated on emptiness. And it didn't affect his mind at all. Report an error

1:53:09 I was just like, okay, well. Or they say you're not going to find it, so you don't really look very hard because you know you're not going to find it, so that's the big deal, right? Report an error

1:53:22 So it makes it really powerful, right, if we first identify that I, we really believe, and then we search for it. And when we don't find it, it's this shocking moment. It's like... And I think I've given you this example before, right? Like when we're trying, like after class, we need to get in the car and go home. Report an error

1:53:54 We search in our bag for our keys and we don't find them. We're sure that our keys are in our bag and we search for them and they're not there. Report an error

1:54:12 I was so sure that they were there. Oh my God, there. The lack. The fact of the keys being there is powerful for the mind. It's a shock for the mind. Report an error

1:54:29 And it's similar in the meditation on emptiness. We start with identifying the object of negation. Report an error

1:54:40 We can spend weeks, months, years trying to identify the object of negation first. And then we search for it and we don't find it. It should have an impact on the mind. Even greater than not finding our keys, right? Well, I don't know. Keys are pretty important. Report an error

1:55:03 If you really want to get home, no. But it's that similar, though. Oh, my shock. Didn't find something that I always believe. Report an error

1:55:27 Really important to start by identifying the object of refutation. Right, Report an error

1:55:44 so it's very useful, right, in our experience to just watch that eye coming up, especially in the middle of a mental affliction. Report an error

1:55:59 Because sitting here right now, we probably don't have a strong grasping eye right now, unless you're having a strong mental affliction. Report an error

1:56:13 But, you know, normally we don't. All right. Report an error

1:56:17 We don't have a strong sense of I until something happens. Then when something happens, when the false accusation happens or Report an error

1:56:37 when somebody or when we don't get that promotion that we were sure that we were supposed to get, that we deserved, right? That I deserved, right? Report an error

1:56:56 Then the strong sense of I comes up. When Report an error

1:57:07 pride comes up, right? Oh, I'm smarter than these other people. The I is that I that's smarter than anybody else. Or who's the I that's worse than everybody? Report an error

1:57:29 Or who's the I that is never going to be able to understand? Report an error

1:57:48 So we're really watching in our experience when that strong sense of I comes up. Report an error

1:57:57 Sitting down and doing the meditation. Who's that eye that just got insulted? Search like when you did the cup. Report an error

1:58:10 Did the strand of hair, is that the eye that just got insulted? Was it this nostril that just got insulted? Was it the ear that just got insulted? Report an error

1:58:31 You know, any part of the body that just got insulted? The Report an error

1:58:39 mind that got insulted? Report an error

1:58:43 Or is this mind business? Was it the mind in this moment? Was it the mind in this moment? Was it the eye consciousness that got insulted? Report an error

1:58:57 Was it the mental consciousness that got insulted? You search. It's very interesting, right? When you have that strong sense of eye come up, and then you start searching. Report an error

1:59:20 And when we start breaking down the mind, is it this, this moment that got insulted, this moment, this moment, right? Because the mind's constantly changing, right? Like a stream constantly changing. So who is the I that got insulted? Become Report an error

1:59:46 quite transformative, right? Okay, well, actually, there's no I that really got insulted. How can I be insulted if there's no real I there? There's an I conventionally, right? But there's no I that you can find in the body and mind or separate from the body and mind, right? Is the I in the next room? Report an error

2:00:21 Janet's I might be in the next room. Anyway, Report an error

2:00:32 so over time we'll do some meditations on that. Report an error

2:00:40 So we're out of time. Next week we don't have class. Thank you. It'll be hard not to with Chodron Rinpoche and Venable Rene there, except I'll be with my merely imputed mind. Report an error

2:01:01 That'll be easy to get frustrated. So I sent out the homework. I have some copies here. The practice homework I put is... To try to identify the object of refutation in our experience. So notice how things appear to exist from their own side, independent of the mind. The cup appears. Just like when we're sitting on the bus or whatever, whenever, throughout the day. Report an error

2:01:41 Just, you know, just look around. Carol seems to be appearing out there, independent. independent. Of my mind. It appears that way. And then the next step is to identify the basis versus the object of imputation. So the basis is just some colors and shapes. I'm imputing is Carol. The basis of this, the imputation of table, is just this rectangular shape that's red and that's what appears. Report an error

2:02:26 And then the conceptual mind labels it tamal. So it's useful to just go through and just look at objects. What's the basis of this? Shape, some gray, etc. What's imputed is clock. Report an error

2:02:48 What's the basis of this? What's being imputed? What's the basis? What's being imputed? What's the basis? Report an error

2:03:10 So we'll dedicate? Report an error

2:03:16 We'll dedicate with Shantideva tonight. On page 246. 246. Report an error

2:03:39 May all beings everywhere, plagued by sufferings of body and mind, obtain an ocean of happiness and joy by virtue of my merits. May no living creature suffer, commit evil or ever fall ill. May no one be afraid or belittled with a mind weighed down by depression. May the blind see forms and the deaf hear sounds. May those whose bodies are worn with toil. Report an error

2:04:04 be restored on finding repose. May the poor find wealth, those weak with sorrow find joy. May the forlorn find hope, constant happiness and prosperity. May there be timely rains and bountiful harvests. May all medicines be effective and wholesome prayers bear fruit. May all who are sick and ill quickly be freed from their ailments. Whatever diseases there are in the world, may they never occur again. Report an error

2:04:40 May the frightened cease to be afraid and those bound be freed. May the powerless find power and may people think of benefiting each other. For as long as space remains, for as long as sentient beings remain, until then may I too remain to dispel the miseries of the world. Report an error

2:05:05 And on the previous page, on 244, the Long Life Prayers for His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Lama Zopa Rinpoche. In Report an error

2:05:17 the land encircled by snow mountains, you are the source of all happiness and good. All-powerful Chenrezig, Tenzin Gyatso, please remain until saṃsāra ends. Report an error

2:05:38 You who uphold the subduers pour away, who serve as the bountiful bearer of all. Sustaining, preserving and spreading Manjunath's victorious doctrine, who masterfully accomplished magnificent prayers honoring the three jewels. Savior of myself and others, your disciples, please, please live long. Report an error

2:06:22 Enjoy your two weeks. Thank you. Does anybody want a hard copy of the homework? Report an error

2:06:35 Such enthusiasm. I'm, I think, behind Shane. Report an error

2:06:44 Did somebody else? Report an error

2:06:49 Oh, well, good for you. Report an error

2:06:59 There might be a reason. And actually, we didn't even cover all of these points, even tonight. So, okay. Report an error

2:07:20 Yes. yes. Report an error

2:07:27 Okay, all right, all right. well, very enthusiastic of you. Report an error

2:07:42 The smell of these flowers is amazing. Not from its own side though. though. Report an error

2:07:54 do not to be digging for my keys when you were talking about all of them. You were right. I was like, oh, my God. and do it easy like that all the time. Report an error

2:08:09 I lost my billboard a couple months ago. I found it. Oh, good. Yeah, that's a good... like, quit crazy and then I stopped myself. Report an error

2:08:30 And then I actually found that he's really weird in his life. Yeah, sometimes we just leave it somewhere we never can remember. Report an error

2:09:03 You're still around until August, right? Or July? AAR card. Report an error

Report an error

Passage at . Please listen to the audio before you suggest a fix.

Suggest a fix

Passage at . Please listen to the audio before you suggest a fix.

Related talks

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

    Emily Hsu · 24 May 2011 · 2 h 12 min

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

    Emily Hsu · 10 May 2011 · 2 h

  3. Special Insight 1: Wisdom of Emptiness (17 May 2011)

    Emily Hsu · 17 May 2011 · 2 h 9 min

  4. Special Insight 1: Wisdom of Emptiness (14 June 2011)

    Emily Hsu · 14 June 2011 · 2 h 15 min

  5. Special Insight 1: Wisdom of Emptiness (21 June 2011)

    Emily Hsu · 21 June 2011 · 2 h 6 min

  6. Special Insight 1: Wisdom of Emptiness (19 April 2011)

    Emily Hsu · 19 April 2011 · 1 h 36 min

Talk by Emily Hsu, recorded 31 May 2011. Original at Tse Chen Ling Center for Tibetan Buddhist Studies via Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/EH_SpecialInsight_20110412_639. Licensed CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. Transcript generated automatically and may contain errors; the audio is the authoritative version.

Recorded at Tse Chen Ling Center, San Francisco, and archived by the center on Internet Archive. More from Tse Chen Ling

Listen on Internet Archive · CC BY-NC-ND 3.0