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

0:06 are all Sharpies, I have to be with them, and this is a dry erase marker. Oh, okay. Report an error in the passage at 0:06 Highlight the passage at 0:06

0:14 should get her more diaries to write. Report an error in the passage at 0:14 Highlight the passage at 0:14

· · · silence, 2 minutes

2:16 Hey Hillary, can you turn off this middle light? Report an error in the passage at 2:16 Highlight the passage at 2:16

· · · silence, 1 minute

3:08 Welcome back. Report an error in the passage at 3:08 Highlight the passage at 3:08

3:13 It was very nice. Thank you. But I have to confess that my mind is slow getting back into thinking. Still kind of wanting... To still my mind, it's like, no, no, no, Emily, you have to read. You have to think. So I might get stuck at times this evening. So yeah, please, thank you. Report an error in the passage at 3:13 Highlight the passage at 3:13

3:42 But Venerable Rene is going to be here on Friday teaching and highly, highly recommend. He's a very rare meditation teacher. He has lots and lots of amazing experience. Report an error in the passage at 3:42 Highlight the passage at 3:42

4:01 And he's leaving the area, right? So who knows the next time he'll teach here. Report an error in the passage at 4:01 Highlight the passage at 4:01

4:11 So let's spend a couple minutes and focus on our breath. Set Report an error in the passage at 4:11 Highlight the passage at 4:11

· · · silence, 2 minutes

5:54 our motivation for the evening. Report an error in the passage at 5:54 Highlight the passage at 5:54

6:06 Imagine countless beings around us. Report an error in the passage at 6:06 Highlight the passage at 6:06

6:22 We've all been so kind to Report an error in the passage at 6:22 Highlight the passage at 6:22

6:36 endless lives. Report an error in the passage at 6:36 Highlight the passage at 6:36

· · · silence, 1 minute

7:08 And they've all been our dear mother, Report an error in the passage at 7:08 Highlight the passage at 7:08

7:14 father, Report an error in the passage at 7:14 Highlight the passage at 7:14

7:19 best friend, Report an error in the passage at 7:19 Highlight the passage at 7:19

7:27 brother, sister. Report an error in the passage at 7:27 Highlight the passage at 7:27

7:51 So opening the heart and feeling a deep heart connection. With each and every being. And Report an error in the passage at 7:51 Highlight the passage at 7:51

· · · silence, 1 minute

8:45 all these beings are wanting happiness but experiencing suffering again and again. Report an error in the passage at 8:45 Highlight the passage at 8:45

9:12 Creating the causes of suffering again and again. Report an error in the passage at 9:12 Highlight the passage at 9:12

· · · silence, 1 minute

9:50 Developing great compassion for all beings and Report an error in the passage at 9:50 Highlight the passage at 9:50

9:58 the wish to free them from that suffering forever. To Report an error in the passage at 9:58 Highlight the passage at 9:58

· · · silence, 1 minute

10:43 do that I need to eliminate all of my obscurations, Report an error in the passage at 10:43 Highlight the passage at 10:43

10:51 my afflictions. Attain the omniscient mind. Report an error in the passage at 10:51 Highlight the passage at 10:51

· · · silence, 1 minute

12:19 Manjushri the white book on the first page. Report an error in the passage at 12:19 Highlight the passage at 12:19

12:41 Obey since 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 love and compassion of a father for his only son. Report an error in the passage at 12:41 Highlight the passage at 12:41

13:00 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 in the passage at 13:00 Highlight the passage at 13:00

13:24 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 Report an error in the passage at 13:24 Highlight the passage at 13:24

13:50 the Report an error in the passage at 13:50 Highlight the passage at 13:50

13:57 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 in the passage at 13:57 Highlight the passage at 13:57

14:12 And then the Heart Sūtra. Report an error in the passage at 14:12 Highlight the passage at 14:12

14:19 76. In the gold book, Report an error in the passage at 14:19 Highlight the passage at 14:19

14:31 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. Report an error in the passage at 14:31 Highlight the passage at 14:31

14:51 Also at that time, the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara looked upon the very practice of the profound perfection of wisdom and beheld those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature. Then through the power of Buddha, the Venerable Shariputra said this to the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara, How should any son of the lineage train who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom? Report an error in the passage at 14:51 Highlight the passage at 14:51

15:20 He said that, and the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya Avalokiteshvara, said this to the venerable Sharivadiputra. Shariputra, any son of the lineage or daughter of the lineage who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom should look upon it like this, correctly and repeatedly beholding those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature. Report an error in the passage at 15:20 Highlight the passage at 15:20

15:43 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 15:43 Highlight the passage at 15:43

16:10 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. There is no extinction of ignorance and so on up to and including no aging and death and no extinction of aging and death. Report an error in the passage at 16:10 Highlight the passage at 16:10

16:48 Similarly, there is no suffering, origination, cessation and path. There is no exalted wisdom, no attainment and also no non-attainment. Shariputra, therefore, because there is no attainment, bodhisattvas rely on and dwell in the perfection of wisdom, the mind without obscuration and without fear. Having completely passed beyond error, they reach the end point of nirvāṇa. Report an error in the passage at 16:48 Highlight the passage at 16:48

17:14 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, the mantra that thoroughly pacifies all suffering, should be known as truth, since it is not false. Report an error in the passage at 17:14 Highlight the passage at 17:14

17:40 The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is declared. Dayatah, Om, Gathe, Gathe, Paragathe, Parasamgathe, Bodhishoha. Shari Putra, the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva should train in the profound perfection of wisdom like that. Then the Bhagavan arose from that concentration and commended the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalokiteshvara, saying, Well said, well said, son of the lineage, it is like that. Report an error in the passage at 17:40 Highlight the passage at 17:40

18:08 It is like that. One should practice the profound perfection of wisdom just as you have indicated. Even the Tathagatas rejoice. The Bhagavan having thus spoken, the venerable Sharivadiputra, the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalukitesvara, and those surrounding in their entirety, along with the world of gods, humans, asuras and Gandharvas, were overjoyed and highly praised that spoken by the Bhagavan. Report an error in the passage at 18:08 Highlight the passage at 18:08

18:37 Refuge in Bodhicitta on page 98. Report an error in the passage at 18:37 Highlight the passage at 18:37

18:49 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. By the merits I create through listening to the Dharma, may I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings. Report an error in the passage at 18:49 Highlight the passage at 18:49

19:14 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. So Report an error in the passage at 19:14 Highlight the passage at 19:14

19:41 hopefully you brought your text, your special insight, your middling Tham Rim text, sorry, Report an error in the passage at 19:41 Highlight the passage at 19:41

19:56 page 252. Report an error in the passage at 19:56 Highlight the passage at 19:56

20:05 So we've talked about how afflicted ignorance is the root of cyclic existence. All right. The reason why we cycle in saṃsāra, the reason why we have our mental afflictions. All of our suffering, all of our problems are a result of our mental afflictions. Our karma, the contaminated karma and mental afflictions. Report an error in the passage at 20:05 Highlight the passage at 20:05

20:35 Our illness, our problems at work, Report an error in the passage at 20:35 Highlight the passage at 20:35

20:43 getting things that we don't want, Report an error in the passage at 20:43 Highlight the passage at 20:43

20:52 everything unwanted that we experience. It's due to our contaminated karma and or mental afflictions. And Report an error in the passage at 20:52 Highlight the passage at 20:52

21:10 the primary of those is the mental afflictions. Because we have mental afflictions, then we create contaminated karma. Report an error in the passage at 21:10 Highlight the passage at 21:10

21:25 And the reason, right, what's the root of our mental afflictions is afflicted ignorance. Report an error in the passage at 21:25 Highlight the passage at 21:25

21:36 So the reason, right, the root of our anger, the root of our attachment, the root of our pride, the root. The root of jealousy, Report an error in the passage at 21:36 Highlight the passage at 21:36

21:53 the root of irritation. Report an error in the passage at 21:53 Highlight the passage at 21:53

21:58 All is an incorrect way of looking at things. Report an error in the passage at 21:58 Highlight the passage at 21:58

22:14 We believe that things exist from their own side, independent of mind. Report an error in the passage at 22:14 Highlight the passage at 22:14

22:25 And due to this belief, we grasp onto things as being solid, solidly causes of happiness, aversion for things we don't like. Report an error in the passage at 22:25 Highlight the passage at 22:25

22:49 So the... Report an error in the passage at 22:49 Highlight the passage at 22:49

22:53 The antidote to all the mental afflictions is to realize selflessness or emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 22:53 Highlight the passage at 22:53

23:04 So Lama Tsongkhapa talked, well he was quoting Clear Words, a text called Clear Words, where he was saying that there are different antidotes to the different mental afflictions. There's individual antidotes to attachment, individual antidotes to anger. Jealousy, pride. Antidote to attachment is meditating on ugliness or the skeletons, etc. Report an error in the passage at 23:04 Highlight the passage at 23:04

23:43 And so that will help reduce our attachment, but that won't help reduce our anger or pride. Meditating on love will help reduce our anger, but it's not going to help reduce our attachment. Report an error in the passage at 23:43 Highlight the passage at 23:43

24:04 So all of these antidotes are very useful, but Report an error in the passage at 24:04 Highlight the passage at 24:04

24:11 the antidote to all of the mental afflictions is the wisdom realizing emptiness that cuts through all of the mental afflictions. So that is the most, like that's the best antidote, right? If our understanding of emptiness is strong enough, right? Our experience of emptiness is strong enough. These other antidotes are very useful because it takes a while for our experience of emptiness to get good enough and strong enough to overcome our mental afflictions. Report an error in the passage at 24:11 Highlight the passage at 24:11

24:47 So in the meantime, it's very useful to meditate on love and ugliness and et cetera. Report an error in the passage at 24:47 Highlight the passage at 24:47

24:59 So Lama Tsongkhapa says, that being so, you must meditate on emptiness. the antidote to ignorance. Report an error in the passage at 24:59 Highlight the passage at 24:59

25:11 Moreover, unless you have identified ignorance, you will not know how to cultivate its antidote. Therefore, it is extremely important identify ignorance. So let's talk a little bit about why is ignorance the basis of all our mental afflictions? We hear that a lot. Do we believe that? So if we think about Someone that we're annoyed at, bringing up the annoying person in our mind. We have a mental image of a person that we find annoying. Report an error in the passage at 25:11 Highlight the passage at 25:11

26:00 Seems to be a whole solid thing, right? A single thing that is annoying from its own side. So then if we search, right? So that person does exist. Conventionally. Report an error in the passage at 26:00 Highlight the passage at 26:00

26:25 does appear if we search for that person do ultimate analysis is that person that we're does that person actually exist? Report an error in the passage at 26:25 Highlight the passage at 26:25

26:40 is that person? Is that their... Report an error in the passage at 26:40 Highlight the passage at 26:40

26:54 it their head? Report an error in the passage at 26:54 Highlight the passage at 26:54

27:07 So, if it was only a head and nothing else. Report an error in the passage at 27:07 Highlight the passage at 27:07

27:15 Is it the Report an error in the passage at 27:15 Highlight the passage at 27:15

27:20 kidneys? Is Report an error in the passage at 27:20 Highlight the passage at 27:20

27:25 it the physical heart? Is it the body that is the annoying person? Report an error in the passage at 27:25 Highlight the passage at 27:25

27:39 Or is it the mind? Is the mind the annoying person? Report an error in the passage at 27:39 Highlight the passage at 27:39

27:48 Is it the mind in this moment? Or is it the mind in this moment? Or is it the mind in this moment? The mind is a constantly changing stream. Sometimes happy, sometimes sad. Sometimes sharp, sometimes dull, sometimes irritated, sometimes peaceful. Report an error in the passage at 27:48 Highlight the passage at 27:48

28:25 So is this annoying person a regular Report an error in the passage at 28:25 Highlight the passage at 28:25

28:35 moment of mind? Report an error in the passage at 28:35 Highlight the passage at 28:35

28:41 Or is it separate from the body and the mind? Is an annoying person something separate from the body and mind? If Report an error in the passage at 28:41 Highlight the passage at 28:41

28:58 there was a person separate from the body and mind, then I should be able to put the body over there and the mind over there. There should still be something left. Report an error in the passage at 28:58 Highlight the passage at 28:58

29:20 It kind of doesn't make sense, right, for it to be something separate from the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 29:20 Highlight the passage at 29:20

29:28 Or is the annoying person the collection of the body and the mind? The collection of the parts of the body and mind? Report an error in the passage at 29:28 Highlight the passage at 29:28

29:47 If I pile up the eyeballs and the nose and the teeth and the internal organs, is that the annoying person? Report an error in the passage at 29:47 Highlight the passage at 29:47

30:04 The collection of the parts, right? But is it the annoying person? Report an error in the passage at 30:04 Highlight the passage at 30:04

30:13 Where is this person that we find so annoying? Report an error in the passage at 30:13 Highlight the passage at 30:13

30:23 See, as we analyze this, we look more closely. The person seems to be unfindable, right? Not so clear what this person is. When we're annoyed, though, we have a very clear... Image of that person in our minds, right? But if we try to search for that person among the parts and separate from the parts, we find that that person isn't actually findable. Report an error in the passage at 30:23 Highlight the passage at 30:23

30:57 It's not really there either among the parts or separate from the parts. Report an error in the passage at 30:57 Highlight the passage at 30:57

31:05 So that person that we're annoyed at is an Report an error in the passage at 31:05 Highlight the passage at 31:05

31:15 image in our mind. It's not something that actually exists. The way that we think it does. A person does exist, but if we're annoyed at somebody, then we're believing in a person existing the way it actually doesn't exist. So Report an error in the passage at 31:15 Highlight the passage at 31:15

31:49 what they call the referent object of that annoyance doesn't exist. The inherently existent person, the person that exists independent of the mind. Doesn't exist at all. The Report an error in the passage at 31:49 Highlight the passage at 31:49

32:14 person actually exists only in dependence on a mind imputing person. Report an error in the passage at 32:14 Highlight the passage at 32:14

32:26 Well, let's be a little bit more technical correct. So a person comes into existence in dependence on the mind, the conception imputing it, and a valid base. Report an error in the passage at 32:26 Highlight the passage at 32:26

32:42 It's not that anything that I impute exists, right? I need to impute it on a valid base. I Report an error in the passage at 32:42 Highlight the passage at 32:42

32:54 can't just impute this as a person and validly say that this is a person. It's not a valid base. Report an error in the passage at 32:54 Highlight the passage at 32:54

33:05 But as we talked about before in the last class, if we still remember, a valid base is also imputed by the mind. Really, merely imputed by the mind. The valid base doesn't exist from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 33:05 Highlight the passage at 33:05

33:24 If we believed that... There is personness here, right here, sitting here from the side of the object. Then we're holding on to the Svatantrika view or below. There's no person at all in the basis, in its parts. But yet the person still exists and it functions. It exists conventionally as an imputation on a valid basis. Report an error in the passage at 33:24 Highlight the passage at 33:24

34:07 I don't expect you to get it completely right now, but slowly, slowly, you know, we hear the words and we get deeper and deeper understandings. Report an error in the passage at 34:07 Highlight the passage at 34:07

34:22 So the annoying person doesn't exist from its own side, doesn't exist as this solid, concrete entity independent of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 34:22 Highlight the passage at 34:22

34:41 There are some colors and shapes and sounds. And odors that appear and then our mind labels that person, right? Or maybe labels it annoying person. And Report an error in the passage at 34:41 Highlight the passage at 34:41

35:04 so that person comes into existence independence on the mind imputing. There is no person from its own side independent and Report an error in the passage at 35:04 Highlight the passage at 35:04

35:22 the person exists conventionally as an imputation. Report an error in the passage at 35:22 Highlight the passage at 35:22

35:30 But there's no person among its parts. Report an error in the passage at 35:30 Highlight the passage at 35:30

35:36 A person is labeled on something that's not a person. Report an error in the passage at 35:36 Highlight the passage at 35:36

35:48 It's labeled on a valid basis. It's labeled on four or five aggregates. It's labeled on the body and or mind. But there is no person there at all on the basis. Report an error in the passage at 35:48 Highlight the passage at 35:48

36:16 It is labeled independence on the body and mind. But there is no person on the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 36:16 Highlight the passage at 36:16

36:25 So we'll get into this more. Hopefully this will help you see how all of the mental afflictions have as its basis ignorance, a grasping at inherent existence, a grasping at something that doesn't actually exist. Report an error in the passage at 36:25 Highlight the passage at 36:25

36:52 So if things really existed from their own side, the more that we searched for it, the more clear it would become, right? If my keys were in my bag, the more I searched in my bag, I would be able to find them conventionally. But an ultimate analysis, if they really existed from their own side, then I should be able to pinpoint exactly where they are. Report an error in the passage at 36:52 Highlight the passage at 36:52

37:30 So ignorance is the root of cyclic existence. It's the root of all of our mental afflictions and all of our problems and suffering. Report an error in the passage at 37:30 Highlight the passage at 37:30

37:43 So all we have to do is realize emptiness and familiarize ourselves with that again and again. And attain calm abiding and special insight. And then our mental afflictions are gone. Report an error in the passage at 37:43 Highlight the passage at 37:43

38:07 But this is so cool because it's clear what we need to do. Report an error in the passage at 38:07 Highlight the passage at 38:07

38:17 And then of course if we want to become a Buddha then we need bodhicitta and the method side. Well actually we need to practice the method side anyway to realize emptiness because we need merit. Report an error in the passage at 38:17 Highlight the passage at 38:17

38:41 So if we want to get out of cyclic existence, if we want to end our suffering forever, we need to realize emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 38:41 Highlight the passage at 38:41

38:55 So Lama Tsongkhapa says therefore it is extremely important to identify ignorance. What is ignorance? So if we want our meditation on emptiness to be effective, we first need to understand, well, how are we holding to things as being incorrect? Report an error in the passage at 38:55 Highlight the passage at 38:55

39:18 So ignorance is, Lama Tsongkhapa says, ignorance is the reverse side of knowledge. But here we're not talking about just any knowledge, but it's the wisdom-knowing suchness or emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 39:18 Highlight the passage at 39:18

39:37 Which is selflessness. Report an error in the passage at 39:37 Highlight the passage at 39:37

39:42 So its opposite is not suitable to be the mere absence of that wisdom or just something else. So ignorance isn't just the lack of having the wisdom realizing emptiness. It's not just the lack of knowing or understanding emptiness. It's the antagonist or it's the contradictory opposite. Report an error in the passage at 39:42 Highlight the passage at 39:42

40:13 So it's not just not understanding emptiness or not knowing about emptiness. We're holding on to something completely opposite. Report an error in the passage at 40:13 Highlight the passage at 40:13

40:24 We're holding on to things existing in the opposite way than they actually exist. Report an error in the passage at 40:24 Highlight the passage at 40:24

40:33 It's like instead of, let's say we don't understand that virtue is the cause of happiness. Just not understanding that virtue is the cause of happiness is a lack of understanding. But ignorance in this context is not just not knowing that, but it's the complete opposite. So in that example, it would be not only not understanding that virtue is a cause of happiness, but believing that non-virtue is the cause of happiness, believing that the opposite is the cause of happiness. Report an error in the passage at 40:33 Highlight the passage at 40:33

41:14 And similarly, ignorance is not just not understanding emptiness, it's believing the opposite, believing that things do exist solidly, independently, from their own side, independent of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 41:14 Highlight the passage at 41:14

41:42 So when we talked about the lower schools, Vaibhashika and Sotrantaka, the focus primarily was on the selflessness of persons, the self-sufficient, substantially existent self that doesn't exist. there are, uh... Report an error in the passage at 41:42 Highlight the passage at 41:42

41:56 They didn't really focus on the selflessness of phenomena, of things other than persons, like the things that we own, the body, the mind, the clocks, the cars, our possessions. Report an error in the passage at 41:56 Highlight the passage at 41:56

42:13 But according to Mahāyāna we need to realize the selflessness of phenomena as well. So ignorance is the conception of a self of persons as well as the conception of a self of phenomena. Report an error in the passage at 42:13 Highlight the passage at 42:13

42:34 So remember in the lower schools there was a lot of talk about the lack of the self-sufficient, substantially existent self, right? The lack of a person that exists as the being in charge of the body and mind, right? The controller of the body and mind, right? Someone, you know, someone, you know, yeah, in charge kind of running the show or the... Report an error in the passage at 42:34 Highlight the passage at 42:34

43:03 Person that seems to exist that owns the body and the mind. I have a body and mind. As if there's a person separate from the body and mind that's kind of running the show. Report an error in the passage at 43:03 Highlight the passage at 43:03

43:17 So Prasangikas would agree that person doesn't exist. But the lower schools would say, but there is a person among the body and the mind. Report an error in the passage at 43:17 Highlight the passage at 43:17

43:31 Some schools say the person is the mental consciousness. Some schools say it's the mind basis of all, etc. But all of the schools below the Madhyamakas would say that there is a person findable within its parts. Report an error in the passage at 43:31 Highlight the passage at 43:31

43:51 There is a person here. There's no person that's the controller of the body and mind, but there is a person in the body and mind. And then the Prasangikas say there's not even a person within the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 43:51 Highlight the passage at 43:51

44:09 The inherently existent person doesn't exist. So there is no person at all among the parts. the body and Report an error in the passage at 44:09 Highlight the passage at 44:09

44:24 So sometimes we think there's a person that's indistinguishable from the body and mind, like covering the parts of the body, like a spread. I just love this visual, right? Like butter covering the parts of the body and mind. Like there's a person covering the parts. Report an error in the passage at 44:24 Highlight the passage at 44:24

44:50 It's indistinguishable from the body and mind. don't mind you, you, you, yeah, anyway. It's not, anyway, indistinguishable from the body and mind. So the prasangika would say that person doesn't even exist either. Report an error in the passage at 44:50 Highlight the passage at 44:50

45:08 And so that's the subtle selflessness of persons running prasangika. So the coarse selflessness of persons is the lack of the self-sufficient, substantial existence self. But just realizing that won't get you out of cyclic existence, according to prasangikas. The lower schools would say just realizing that will get you out of cyclic existence. But according to Persang, you have to realize the lack of the inherently existent person as well as the lack of inherently existent phenomena other than persons in order to get out of cyclic existence. Report an error in the passage at 45:08 Highlight the passage at 45:08

45:50 There's no person covering its parts. There's no clock covering the parts. There's no table covering the parts. Report an error in the passage at 45:50 Highlight the passage at 45:50

46:03 The person comes into existence, independence on the mind, imputing it, Report an error in the passage at 46:03 Highlight the passage at 46:03

46:12 valid base. Report an error in the passage at 46:12 Highlight the passage at 46:12

46:16 So ignorance is the opposite of the wisdom realizing selflessness. It's the conception grasping onto things as existing from their own side, existing inherently, existing independent of the mind, imputing it. Report an error in the passage at 46:16 Highlight the passage at 46:16

46:41 So Lama Tsongkhapa continues by saying it is the superimposition of self. And more specifically, the two superimpositions of the self of phenomena and the self of persons. So superimposition, right? So we're adding something onto what actually exists. We're adding inherent existence onto something that does exist imputedly. Report an error in the passage at 46:41 Highlight the passage at 46:41

47:11 Things do exist, independence on imputation. But ignorance superimposes. Inherent existence, existence from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 47:11 Highlight the passage at 47:11

47:29 So Lama Tsongkhapa says, so both the apprehension of a self of phenomena and the apprehension of a self of persons are ignorance. Report an error in the passage at 47:29 Highlight the passage at 47:29

47:38 And the manner of superimposition is by apprehending that phenomena exist by way of their own entity, by way of their own characteristics, or inherently. Report an error in the passage at 47:38 Highlight the passage at 47:38

47:53 So these are different terms referring to the same thing. There are many different terms that Prasangicus would say are interchangeable, that are equivalent, let's say equivalent, or mutually inclusive. And each term gives you a slightly different flavor, so it can be useful to know these different terms, and some of the terms may click with us, where others don't, like inherent existence may or may not mean anything. Report an error in the passage at 47:53 Highlight the passage at 47:53

48:27 To us, but maybe existing by way of their own entity. What does that mean? Thinking that there's an entity in and of itself, separate from the mind, independent of the mind imputing it. As if there's an entity, an objective entity. Report an error in the passage at 48:27 Highlight the passage at 48:27

48:50 But actually it's the mind, the conceptual mind, that organizes data into objects. Organizes data into entities. There's no entity independent of the conception. Report an error in the passage at 48:50 Highlight the passage at 48:50

49:15 It is a product of a conceptual mind. I shouldn't say it that way, but the entity comes into existence. Independence on a mind imputing it. We'll say it that way. Report an error in the passage at 49:15 Highlight the passage at 49:15

49:37 Because this thing in my hand, from its own side, is it one thing, one entity, or is it many entities? Any Report an error in the passage at 49:37 Highlight the passage at 49:37

49:51 entities from its own side? Report an error in the passage at 49:51 Highlight the passage at 49:51

49:59 Or is it one entity from its own side? It looks like one entity, right? Well, if you look at it in one way, it looks like one entity, right? If you look at it in another way, you focus on the parts, right? It looks like many things, right? Yeah, Report an error in the passage at 49:59 Highlight the passage at 49:59

50:22 yeah, yeah. So Tim just said it appears back depending on how you look at it, right? So if you look at it in terms of one entity, then it appears back as one entity. If you look at it, focus on the parts, right? Appears back as being multiple entities. But from its own side, which is it? One or many. Report an error in the passage at 50:22 Highlight the passage at 50:22

50:51 Neither. Report an error in the passage at 50:51 Highlight the passage at 50:51

50:55 There's no entity or multiple entities from its own side. You Report an error in the passage at 50:55 Highlight the passage at 50:55

51:06 guys are getting it. So the manner of superimposition is by apprehending that phenomena exist by way of their own entity, by way of their own characteristics. right if By way of the characteristics of the object, it's a clock. So believing that by way of its own characteristics, independent of the mind, Report an error in the passage at 51:06 Highlight the passage at 51:06

51:44 not to negate conventional characteristics. There are valid conventional characteristics. Conventionally, validly, this is plastic. Report an error in the passage at 51:44 Highlight the passage at 51:44

51:59 If I called it steel, Report an error in the passage at 51:59 Highlight the passage at 51:59

52:04 That's not valid conventionally, right? Conventionally, it's validly plastic. Not from its own side, right? Plastic is just labeled by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 52:04 Highlight the passage at 52:04

52:20 But there are characteristics conventionally, but just not from their own side. So this is similar to the example we had last time about sugar and salt. Report an error in the passage at 52:20 Highlight the passage at 52:20

52:35 They each have their own chemical composition. Report an error in the passage at 52:35 Highlight the passage at 52:35

52:42 Conventionally they have certain characteristics that make one sugar and one salt, but those characteristics are also imputed by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 52:42 Highlight the passage at 52:42

52:56 So those characteristics don't exist from their own side. They do have characteristics validly conventionally, but they don't exist from their own side. Those are all just labeled by the Report an error in the passage at 52:56 Highlight the passage at 52:56

53:19 mind. As soon as we start grasping onto something, like characteristics as existing from their own side, We've fallen down to Svatantrik, which we do all the time, right? Report an error in the passage at 53:19 Highlight the passage at 53:19

53:35 All the time. Because Svatantrikas say, yeah, characteristics, they do exist by way of their own characteristics. They do exist from their own side conventionally. It's not ultimately, but conventionally. Report an error in the passage at 53:35 Highlight the passage at 53:35

53:53 And Prasangikas would say they don't even exist from their own side by way of their own convention, or by way of their own characteristics. Conventionally, Report an error in the passage at 53:53 Highlight the passage at 53:53

54:07 there's nothing findable from the side of the object. Report an error in the passage at 54:07 Highlight the passage at 54:07

54:21 Ignorance superimposes that phenomena exist by way of their own entity, by way of their own characteristics or inherently. Report an error in the passage at 54:21 Highlight the passage at 54:21

54:33 In this regard, it says in the sūtra requested by Upali that phenomena are posited by the power of conception. So we've talked about that quite a lot, right? Phenomena. The clock is posited by the power of conception. The person is posited by the power of conception. Report an error in the passage at 54:33 Highlight the passage at 54:33

54:58 How are we doing so far? Report an error in the passage at 54:58 Highlight the passage at 54:58

55:07 So then Lama Tsongkhapa quotes the sūtra requested by Upali, saying, The various flowers that gladden the mind, the golden resplendent, attractive mansions, both completely lack a creator. They're posited by the power of conception. The world is imputed by the power of conception. Report an error in the passage at 55:07 Highlight the passage at 55:07

55:33 So here, according to Geshe Jampagyatsu's commentary, he's saying, right, flowers, mansions, you know, these beautiful things that we see, they're not created by, like, a creator god, for example, but they come into existence independent on the conceptual mind. Report an error in the passage at 55:33 Highlight the passage at 55:33

55:55 And they function, right, the flowers. Come into existence independence on the conceptual mind and they function to make the mind happy. Report an error in the passage at 55:55 Highlight the passage at 55:55

56:16 Beautiful houses, mansions, you know, come into existence independence on the conceptual mind and they function to give us shelter. Report an error in the passage at 56:16 Highlight the passage at 56:16

56:32 One example I really like is a song. A song is Just a series of sounds, a series of notes, a series of tones that the mind organizes into one thing that we call a song. Report an error in the passage at 56:32 Highlight the passage at 56:32

57:03 Many different notes, many different sounds that the mind organizes into one thing that we call a song. Report an error in the passage at 57:03 Highlight the passage at 57:03

57:15 And the song functions, right? It functions to make us happy or... Make us agitated or, you know, make us peaceful. Report an error in the passage at 57:15 Highlight the passage at 57:15

57:31 But it doesn't function right from its own side, right? It makes some rap music make some people happy and some people not so happy. Report an error in the passage at 57:31 Highlight the passage at 57:31

57:46 So it functions, but it doesn't function from its own side. Function is also imputed by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 57:46 Highlight the passage at 57:46

58:05 So everything is just imputed by the mind. And it functions. Report an error in the passage at 58:05 Highlight the passage at 58:05

58:17 So then Lama Tsongkhapa continues by quoting the 60 stanzas of reasoning, which explains that the worlds are not established by way of their own entity. The world is not established by way of its own entity, but is also merely imputed by conception. Even the universe, the world, the earth, really imputed by conception. Report an error in the passage at 58:17 Highlight the passage at 58:17

58:45 And Report an error in the passage at 58:45 Highlight the passage at 58:45

58:52 then Tsongkhapa. Quotes the 400 verses by Aryadeva, saying, If in the absence of conceptions, desire and so forth do not exist, who with intelligence would uphold intrinsic realities and are also conceptual? Report an error in the passage at 58:52 Highlight the passage at 58:52

59:13 So in the absence of conceptions, desire and so forth do not exist. Report an error in the passage at 59:13 Highlight the passage at 59:13

59:22 In the absence of conceptions, desire and so forth do not exist. Desire and so forth exist only in dependence on the conceptual mind, right? Report an error in the passage at 59:22 Highlight the passage at 59:22

59:38 So if we perceive things with our senses, colors, shapes, sounds, odors, and we perceive them as attractive or not, but when then we label them as attractive, and then desire arises in dependence on... Report an error in the passage at 59:38 Highlight the passage at 59:38

1:00:02 Conceiving that thing as being attractive and then wanting it. But without the conception of it being attractive, desire doesn't arise. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:02 Highlight the passage at 1:00:02

1:00:16 Similarly with Report an error in the passage at 1:00:16 Highlight the passage at 1:00:16

1:00:21 anger, conceiving something as being unattractive or annoying or something, then anger arises. But anger only arises in dependence on the conceptual mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:21 Highlight the passage at 1:00:21

1:00:46 Not to say that conceptions are all bad, but there are certain conceptions that we want to cultivate, like compassion and love and bodhicitta and a conceptual understanding of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:46 Highlight the passage at 1:00:46

1:01:02 And then there are certain conceptions that cause us a lot of problems, like conceiving things as being attractive. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:02 Highlight the passage at 1:01:02

1:01:21 And then Tsongkhapa quotes the commentary on Arya Deva's... 400 verses and says things that exist only through the existence of conception and do not exist without conception are without doubt definite as being unestablished by way of their own entity like a snake imputed on a rope. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:21 Highlight the passage at 1:01:21

1:01:46 So I repeat that things that exist only through the existence of conception and do not exist without conception are without doubt definite as unestablished. By way of their own entity, like a snake imputed on a rope. So things exist only in dependence on conception and do not exist without a conception imputing it. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:46 Highlight the passage at 1:01:46

1:02:16 So they're definitely, without a doubt, not established by way of their own entity, like a snake imputed on a rope. So probably many of you have heard this analogy before. This is the popular analogy used to... Describe Prasangika, the Prasangika view, right? So in dim light, let's say at dusk, we see a coiled rope on the ground. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:16 Highlight the passage at 1:02:16

1:02:46 And because the light isn't good, we think that it's a snake. And then fear arises, right? Because we've labeled it as a snake, right? We've conceived it through our conceptual mind that it's a snake. But there is no snake at all. at all, Report an error in the passage at 1:02:46 Highlight the passage at 1:02:46

1:03:14 When we realize that there is no snake there, then our fear goes away because our fear was based on conceiving it as a snake. So when we realize there's no snake at all there, the fear goes away. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:14 Highlight the passage at 1:03:14

1:03:37 So that's similar to our mental afflictions in that when we realize that things don't exist by their own character, then the mental affliction goes away. Because the mental affliction was based on believing that there was a real snake there or a real annoying person from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:37 Highlight the passage at 1:03:37

1:04:02 So this analogy is very good to describe the Prasangika view. In terms of there's no snake at all on the basis. Similarly, there is no person at all among the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:02 Highlight the passage at 1:04:02

1:04:27 But the difference, right, so from the perspective that there's no imputed object at all amongst its basis, is that analogy is correct. But it's dissimilar, well, it's incorrect in terms of valid existence, right? There is a valid person. We can label this thing validly as a person. It exists conventionally as a person. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:27 Highlight the passage at 1:04:27

1:04:59 It exists validly as a person. Whereas there is no valid existence of a snake on a rope. Conventionally, the rope isn't even a snake. Ultimately, the rope wasn't a snake. And conventionally, the rope wasn't a snake. But Report an error in the passage at 1:04:59 Highlight the passage at 1:04:59

1:05:25 the Prasangika view would be... There is no person on its basis, on the body and mind, on its parts, but conventionally there is a person that's validly imputed independence. Am Report an error in the passage at 1:05:25 Highlight the passage at 1:05:25

1:05:46 I making sense there? Okay, Peter has a question. I don't know if it's a question or more of a comment. I was just thinking that, as you were saying, we could extrapolate this into the way we look at other people because we often think, oh, that... That woman hates me because she might have kind of a strange expression on her face. And we have no idea. That could just be her normal expression. She could be having totally serene thoughts about you, but she has kind of an odd look on her face. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:46 Highlight the passage at 1:05:46

1:06:14 And we do this all the time. You know, that woman hates me. That woman's a, you know, this guy's a, you know, based on complete misapprehensions of subtle signals or no signals at all. And the more deluded we are, the worse that gets. So if you get people that have like a personality disorder, that's their whole world is just mistaken impressions. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:14 Highlight the passage at 1:06:14

1:06:36 So it's making me realize that the way we see everybody is basically completely incorrect, which kind of blows my mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:36 Highlight the passage at 1:06:36

1:06:58 Well, I mean, I think, I mean, you might be going a little bit too far. too much Yeah, so it's not that the way we see everybody is completely incorrect and we've never had a valid cognition in our whole life, right? It's not like that. It's not that bad. We might be half right. We might be half right. Right. So this is a very important point, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:06:58 Highlight the passage at 1:06:58

1:07:29 So there is valid existence. There is... Report an error in the passage at 1:07:29 Highlight the passage at 1:07:29

1:07:44 How should I say? I mean, these stories that we create in our minds, you know, that's on top of, right, what actually is there. But sometimes those stories are correct, right? Some, yeah, conventionally, not from their own side, right? But conventionally, you know, sometimes people are angry at us, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:07:44 Highlight the passage at 1:07:44

1:08:09 Sometimes people are, you know, do like us. But... You know, but... Yes, so it's not that we should invalidate every single perception and every single conception we've ever had. There are valid conceptions that we have, but every perception we've ever had and every conception we've ever had does have an element of mistake in it. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:09 Highlight the passage at 1:08:09

1:08:40 There's an element of mistake in that we think that things exist from their own side. so yeah so from in that from That perspective, every perception, every conception we've ever had is mistaken, but not necessarily wrong. Remember when we made that distinction between mistaken and wrong? Report an error in the passage at 1:08:40 Highlight the passage at 1:08:40

1:09:05 So our minds can be valid with respect to labeling people as people and clocks as clocks. Tables is tables, right? But it's incorrect in terms of the way it exists from its own side. But then on top of what you're saying, Peter, I mean, I think that's very true. We do create all these stories. We get a little bit of data, and then we have a full-blown story within seconds, right, of somebody looking at us. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:05 Highlight the passage at 1:09:05

1:09:49 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that's very true. That's very true, right? To greater and lesser extents for different people. But yeah, so it's good to understand, right, that that's just a story, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:09:49 Highlight the passage at 1:09:49

1:10:09 So, I mean, mostly what you said, I think, is very valid, Peter, and helpful. I just also want to caution people against, right, invalidating their valid cognizers, right, their valid conceptions. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:09 Highlight the passage at 1:10:09

1:10:28 I wanted to actually build off of what you were talking about. So like say I'm perceiving somebody who's angry at me and then I'm like okay I'm perceiving them to be angry with me because of the force of my karma. So is that insight like the absence of a mistake or the presence of some sort of truth to the situation? Report an error in the passage at 1:10:28 Highlight the passage at 1:10:28

1:10:53 Like as it's occurring like maybe in my head or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. So there's an element of wisdom there. There's some wisdom, right? Everything that we perceive is a result of our karma. So that's valid. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:53 Highlight the passage at 1:10:53

1:11:07 And there's probably an element of mistake. I mean, there is an element of mistake because you still see things as appearing, as existing from their own side. And that's, you know, until we become a Buddha. Everything is going to appear as if it exists from its own side. There's still going to be an appearance of a solid object separate from the mind, independent of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:07 Highlight the passage at 1:11:07

1:11:40 And that will continue until we become a Buddha. So everything appears mistakenly to a non-Buddha. Well, except for an Arya who is directly realizing emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:40 Highlight the passage at 1:11:40

1:12:02 To an ordinary being, everything appears mistakenly in that it appears to exist from its own side, but yet a mistaken mind can also be a valid cognizer. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:02 Highlight the passage at 1:12:02

1:12:19 So this was one of Lama Tsongkhapa's brilliant and controversial positions, that even though all of our conceptions and all of our perceptions Have an element of mistake. They can still be valid cognizers. They can be valid with respect to the object, but not valid with respect to its appearance. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:19 Highlight the passage at 1:12:19

1:12:49 So the conceptual realization of emptiness is a valid cognizer and will function to undermine your mental afflictions. And it's also a mistaken consciousness. In that things still appear to that conceptual mind as being inherently existent. But it's valid with respect to the way that things exist. It's valid. It's not valid with respect to, or it's not correct with respect to its appearance, but it's valid with respect to the way that things exist, realizing that things don't exist from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:49 Highlight the passage at 1:12:49

1:13:37 So this is tricky, right? This is very tricky. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:37 Highlight the passage at 1:13:37

1:13:44 Everything appears as being solid. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:44 Highlight the passage at 1:13:44

1:13:55 Is what you just said the same as saying it's valid because it's a label on a valid base? He has a microphone. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:55 Highlight the passage at 1:13:55

1:14:08 But maybe you need to speak up a little. But that's the same thing as saying it's valid because it's a label on a valid base. It's not inconsistent. It's not an invalid base. And it's not an inappropriate label because it functions. Yeah, I think you could say that. Yeah, I think you could say that. It's a valid imputation on a, it's an imputation on a valid base. Yeah, yeah. And we had talked about, right, before what makes it a valid basis, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:14:08 Highlight the passage at 1:14:08

1:14:42 The worldly convention not refuted by a conventional valid cognizer and not refuted by an ultimate. Okay, so one more question before break and then let's take. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:42 Highlight the passage at 1:14:42

1:14:57 So I just want to go back to the coiled rope and snake example. Coiled stuff here. A coiled cord. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:57 Highlight the passage at 1:14:57

1:15:12 So to break this conception that the coiled rope is a snake, I could see how our eye consciousness sees the rope and then our thought leads us to believe that it's a snake and then the emotion arises, which is the fear. Yes, I did. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:12 Highlight the passage at 1:15:12

1:15:30 But then I have a question. My reaction would be to try to cut the fact that the thought doesn't exist rather than that the object doesn't exist. You know what I mean? So I'm wondering if that's just like, again, jumping, just leaping, leapfrogging and not being... You know, not really being here looking and trying to cut through the object, but just trying to cut through the fact that, you know, the thought ultimately doesn't exist, you know, which. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:30 Highlight the passage at 1:15:30

1:16:06 Yeah, you in that case, you want to negate the existence of the snake, right? Like, you know, because what if it really is a snake? You know, if it really is a snake. You want to get out of its way, especially if it's a poisonous snake. You don't want to just say, oh, well, that thought doesn't really exist, so the snake's not going to bite me. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:06 Highlight the passage at 1:16:06

1:16:36 Well, you can negate the existence of a thought, but if it's validly a snake, it functions as a snake, and you better get out of its way, right? So I think you're leaning toward invalidating the conventional existence. Once again, right? So we need to still understand that conventionally, okay, conventionally it's a rope, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:16:36 Highlight the passage at 1:16:36

1:17:10 And it functions as a rope, right? And Lama Tsongkhapa says something about, you know, not, like if we want to develop wisdom, we need to realize the opposite of our ignorance, right? We need to realize that it's not a snake, as opposed to suppressing the label altogether, thinking about something else. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:10 Highlight the passage at 1:17:10

1:17:46 If we suppress the label or just turn our mind to something else, then we're creating a dull mind. We're creating ignorance, actually. And this is an incorrect way of practicing, and this is a way a lot of people... Report an error in the passage at 1:17:46 Highlight the passage at 1:17:46

1:18:05 Okay, well, you know, it's like the head in the sand thing. And that's, you know, that will create a less sharp, a less, less wisdom, right? So we need to, oh, actually, Jeffrey Hopkins talks about this very effectively in emptiness yoga. So, right, rather than, let's say with the annoying person, rather than just trying not to think about the annoying person, Report an error in the passage at 1:18:05 Highlight the passage at 1:18:05

1:18:38 Wisdom, well, wisdom realizing emptiness is looking deeper into that person, right? Seeing the person more clearly, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:18:38 Highlight the passage at 1:18:38

1:18:54 Delving into, well, how does that person actually exist? That's how we cut through our ignorance. It's not a matter of turning away from it. Turning away from it will suppress the mental affliction temporarily, but it's not going to cut through that mental affliction. It won't uproot the mental affliction. So that's also a difference between calm abiding and special insight. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:54 Highlight the passage at 1:18:54

1:19:24 With calm abiding, you can just suppress the thought from arising, the thought that that person's annoying, but calm abiding alone isn't going to get you out of cyclic existence. It's not going to give you wisdom. That's why we need the special insight part, to see things more clearly the way that they are. So cut through the basis. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:24 Highlight the passage at 1:19:24

1:19:51 So let's take a break. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:51 Highlight the passage at 1:19:51

1:20:02 Well, we kind of covered a lot. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:02 Highlight the passage at 1:20:02

1:20:30 Oh yeah, that's my pleasure. That's my purpose, actually, to help understand. You're the reason why I'm not sitting there going, Dope! Report an error in the passage at 1:20:30 Highlight the passage at 1:20:30

1:20:47 Yeah, and you know, and so ask the questions because this is the opportunity where we can have a discussion with the translation and all that. It's hard to have that back and forth thing. So, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:47 Highlight the passage at 1:20:47

1:21:12 he was talking about, Miss, Miss. Oh, the stories. Yeah, because there's a story in there about, he says, I think that's the story, he says he met this really annoying man, who was just angry and turned away, and he watched him, and he said, I worked on that guy for like two years, and he used to drive down the street, and he wouldn't even look up at me, and his fingers were stuck on him, you know, six months later, it's like his hands started to move up, and he said, a year and a half later, he waved at me, you know, with a smile on his face, and I thought, I, you know, You know, solved solve the the problem. problem of this anointing man. And then one day he came to visit me, you know, and he said, and then I found out that he had had a stroke and he was hit by a car or something. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:12 Highlight the passage at 1:21:12

1:21:53 He was paralyzed. He couldn't move. And all this stuff that he thought he was a mean, nasty old man was because he was paralyzed. I think it was in that book, Beyond Mindfulness. And that's what we do all the time. All the time. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:53 Highlight the passage at 1:21:53

1:22:13 It's true. That happened to me once when I was visiting my brother in Colorado. You know, the neighbor came out, you know, and was grilling something, and I said, hey! And they just ignored me, and I thought, you have a really unfriendly neighbor, or he doesn't like me or something. And finally, like, I talked to my brother, and he said, oh, yeah, he's hard of hearing. Oh, okay, that could explain why he didn't say anything. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:13 Highlight the passage at 1:22:13

1:22:45 Anyway, but we do that all the time, as you were saying. Well, I don't do that. No, no. The royal we. But, you know, when you were talking about the snake, the rope and snake, it's like, because ultimately, when you look at a snake on a valid basis of the body of the aggregate, it's appropriate, the fear arises from the misapprehension of a really existing snake. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:45 Highlight the passage at 1:22:45

1:23:14 I apprehend the snake, and that's where the fear of us, because an enlightened being wouldn't generate fear in their mind. Right. Like with people, I was thinking the enlightened, or sentient, you know, then I forget, it's like our enlightened part, what is sentient being? No. Enlightened being without the sentient part. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:14 Highlight the passage at 1:23:14

1:23:40 Well, that's true. Maybe more than a little better in my case. But yeah, so like with other people, non-objectifying compassion is the ultimate, right? But right before that, the last veil is there's an object, right? And you would never generate anger with ascension being as your object because you would only see them as an object of compassion until you became a Buddha. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:40 Highlight the passage at 1:23:40

1:23:44 Yeah, uh-huh, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:44 Highlight the passage at 1:23:44

1:24:14 and then your compassion is not a general being. So when a person who understands intimacy sees a being, they'll only experience compassion in relationship to them they see them as hallucinating and with all their ignorance. They would never get angry at them. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:14 Highlight the passage at 1:24:14

1:24:36 then they say even when you get to like the age level, like the age booming, you don't even, even. Right. Right. experience harm from that attempt to harm you. Right. Totally gone wrong. Right. Right. I don't know what that is exactly right now. Yeah, well they don't even experience pain at that point, right? Even if they're torturing you... Report an error in the passage at 1:24:36 Highlight the passage at 1:24:36

1:25:05 It's just, it's shield of Report an error in the passage at 1:25:05 Highlight the passage at 1:25:05

1:25:13 It's not real, it's just that's what happens. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. so, I mean, but even, a bodhisattva has directly realized emptiness, right, that they would feel compassion, and they would know that that, they would intellectually know they don't exist from their own side. like there's Chandra Kurdi actually talks about three kinds of compassion Compassion, just general compassion, and then compassion viewing impermanent sentient beings. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:13 Highlight the passage at 1:25:13

1:25:54 So this is a deeper level of compassion where you have compassion with the realization that they're changing from moment to moment. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:54 Highlight the passage at 1:25:54

1:26:07 And then the third level, which is the most profound level of compassion, is... Compassion viewing empty sentient beings, sentient beings as empty from their own side. So that's what bodhisattvas, like bodhisattvas on the boomies, you know, directly realized emptiness. They have compassion viewing, yeah, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:07 Highlight the passage at 1:26:07

1:26:32 Right. They still, I mean, the sentient beings will still appear as existing from their own side, but the bodhisattva won't believe in that appearance anymore. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:32 Highlight the passage at 1:26:32

1:26:47 Because nothing appears, right? Except emptiness. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:47 Highlight the passage at 1:26:47

1:27:15 I'm getting that connection. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, Report an error in the passage at 1:27:15 Highlight the passage at 1:27:15

1:27:27 exactly. It's a context thing. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:27 Highlight the passage at 1:27:27

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:27:41 Yeah, I mean, it's amazing. You know, we get those drops in the bucket, right? At first, those names don't mean anything to us, and then suddenly it's very clear. You mean you don't know who these people are? Report an error in the passage at 1:27:41 Highlight the passage at 1:27:41

1:28:04 Janet, are you something else? Report an error in the passage at 1:28:04 Highlight the passage at 1:28:04

· · · silence, 5 minutes

1:32:46 I don't have to do it for any of Report an error in the passage at 1:32:46 Highlight the passage at 1:32:46

1:33:07 Thank you. Unless you guys have a key. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:07 Highlight the passage at 1:33:07

1:33:20 be right back. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:20 Highlight the passage at 1:33:20

1:33:35 mean, I shouldn't to, I need to be able to, I need to be able to, by for all of you guys. This is perfect. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:35 Highlight the passage at 1:33:35

1:33:59 be plenty of people around. probably going to be 25, Report an error in the passage at 1:33:59 Highlight the passage at 1:33:59

1:34:27 Marcella's going with a car, David Graves is going with a car. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:27 Highlight the passage at 1:34:27

1:34:40 Yeah, I just need to check on somebody. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:40 Highlight the passage at 1:34:40

1:34:52 Or you could, yeah, or you could know. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:52 Highlight the passage at 1:34:52

1:35:02 leaving. You can actually call them. I guess we'll go through there. Thank you. You might be able to come around the time you can come, so it's just around 9, 4, and he comes to the park, and then you can, Report an error in the passage at 1:35:02 Highlight the passage at 1:35:02

1:35:23 earlier, like after precepts. Oh, you mean right? Yeah. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. not sure yet. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:23 Highlight the passage at 1:35:23

1:35:43 Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:43 Highlight the passage at 1:35:43

1:36:09 Chelsea's mic. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:09 Highlight the passage at 1:36:09

· · · silence, 3 minutes

1:39:27 Oh, Report an error in the passage at 1:39:27 Highlight the passage at 1:39:27

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:40:25 you're all here. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:25 Highlight the passage at 1:40:25

1:40:29 I thought that you'd be slower coming in. Oh, Report an error in the passage at 1:40:29 Highlight the passage at 1:40:29

1:40:36 okay. Sorry, Shane, I've been going through the other one. So in Hopkins, right, so in Hopkins we're on page 40 in translation of wisdom. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:36 Highlight the passage at 1:40:36

1:40:53 So in the Corco. Version, we're on page 253. So let me see. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:53 Highlight the passage at 1:40:53

1:41:07 Right. So Hopkins, underneath that quote where he says, he explains that desire and so forth are like a snake imputed to a rope. So that's where we are now. So this, what we were talking about just before the break about the snake imputed to a rope. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:07 Highlight the passage at 1:41:07

1:41:27 So Tsongkhapa. Here it says, a rope snake and desire and so forth are not similar in terms of whether they do or do not exist in conventional terms. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:27 Highlight the passage at 1:41:27

1:41:42 Actually, let me read this sentence before. So desire and so forth are like a snake imputed to a rope from the viewpoint of being imputed to be established by way of their own nature where they're not. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:42 Highlight the passage at 1:41:42

1:41:58 A rope snake and desire and so forth are not similar in terms of whether they do or do not exist in conventional terms. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:58 Highlight the passage at 1:41:58

1:42:09 So they're similar in terms of, right, believing that they're established from their own side or by way of their own character, right? But they're not similar in terms of conventional valid existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:09 Highlight the passage at 1:42:09

1:42:32 So that's the end of a section. So do we have any questions so far? Report an error in the passage at 1:42:32 Highlight the passage at 1:42:32

1:42:48 I wasn't going to ask, but so according to the Prasangika, I don't know, maybe this is, how did you put it? Basically the object arises because, the referent object arises because, or on the basis of a conception by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:48 Highlight the passage at 1:42:48

1:43:18 Okay. Yeah, the object comes into existence. Comes into existence. Well, or the existence of the object is posited independence on the conceptual mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:18 Highlight the passage at 1:43:18

1:43:29 It's not quite correct, actually, for me to say the object comes into existence independence, right? The existence of the object is posited independence on a valid conceptual mind. And so the opposite is also true. The mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:29 Highlight the passage at 1:43:29

1:43:51 The mind does not exist either, right? So the mind comes into existence in dependence on the imputation of this object, right? Yeah, exactly. They're like co-emergent or something like that, I think. Yeah, but anyway. Yeah, the mind only comes into existence. Well, not comes into existence. Right. Yeah, a lot of times when I... Report an error in the passage at 1:43:51 Highlight the passage at 1:43:51

1:44:19 Here, the first statement you made, you know, I kind of jumped to this maybe more of a chita macho type thing. I don't know if it's all the schools of chita macho. It sounds like the mind is, you're saying the mind really exists, and I know that that's not what they're saying. Right, right, exactly. Right, but it's tempting, right? That's what's so, yeah, to hold it together, those things. I mean, it makes sense, but... Report an error in the passage at 1:44:19 Highlight the passage at 1:44:19

1:44:50 It slips away quickly for me. Yeah, it is very slippery, isn't it? Like your elbow on that chair. Thank you for putting it into words. Yeah, I mean, no, that's a very important point, right? And also, the mind is merely imputed by the mind, right? The mind also doesn't exist. From its own side, by way of its own characteristics, by way of its own entity. Even the mind is merely imputed. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:50 Highlight the passage at 1:44:50

1:45:29 And it functions. And it functions. The mind still, it functions, right, to perceive objects. It functions to, you know, have thoughts. And the mind is merely imputed, independent on... Report an error in the passage at 1:45:29 Highlight the passage at 1:45:29

1:45:51 Many moments of perception and conception. Many moments of awareness we can say. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:51 Highlight the passage at 1:45:51

1:46:05 Yeah, I think the mind is harder to refute than the body. I mean it's harder to refute its inherent existence because the mind seems to be so solid. But even the mind, even the mind is merely imputed by conception. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:05 Highlight the passage at 1:46:05

1:46:27 And it functions. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:27 Highlight the passage at 1:46:27

1:46:33 So we have to try to hold both conventional truth and ultimate truth as both Report an error in the passage at 1:46:33 Highlight the passage at 1:46:33

1:46:47 being valid, both supporting each other. And we'll get into the two truths later. It's not that ultimate truth invalidates conventional truth or conventional truth invalidates ultimate truth. They're both... Report an error in the passage at 1:46:47 Highlight the passage at 1:46:47

1:47:10 Valid conventionally. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:10 Highlight the passage at 1:47:10

1:47:15 So the mind doesn't exist from its own side. It's just imputed by the mind. And it functions. The Report an error in the passage at 1:47:15 Highlight the passage at 1:47:15

1:47:28 function is also imputed by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:28 Highlight the passage at 1:47:28

1:47:35 Okay, did that answer your concern? How Report an error in the passage at 1:47:35 Highlight the passage at 1:47:35

1:47:43 are other people doing? Report an error in the passage at 1:47:43 Highlight the passage at 1:47:43

1:47:55 Any other questions? Doubts? Concerns? Report an error in the passage at 1:47:55 Highlight the passage at 1:47:55

1:48:13 So we do a meditation. So Report an error in the passage at 1:48:13 Highlight the passage at 1:48:13

1:48:41 let's... go. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:41 Highlight the passage at 1:48:41

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:48:41 Start by spending a couple minutes calming our mind on Report an error in the passage at 1:48:41 Highlight the passage at 1:48:41

1:48:50 the breath. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:50 Highlight the passage at 1:48:50

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:50:17 So I want to do a meditation on the annoying person. So Report an error in the passage at 1:50:17 Highlight the passage at 1:50:17

1:50:29 first bringing up the person in our mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:29 Highlight the passage at 1:50:29

1:50:47 Find anybody annoying, then we can bring up a person that we're attached to. So Report an error in the passage at 1:50:47 Highlight the passage at 1:50:47

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:51:39 holding the appearance of that person in our mind with part of our mind and start to analyze. Well, where? Try to find where? Report an error in the passage at 1:51:39 Highlight the passage at 1:51:39

1:51:53 Is this annoying person Report an error in the passage at 1:51:53 Highlight the passage at 1:51:53

1:51:59 searching among the body, Report an error in the passage at 1:51:59 Highlight the passage at 1:51:59

1:52:06 searching among the mind, Report an error in the passage at 1:52:06 Highlight the passage at 1:52:06

1:52:13 searching separate from the body and mind, trying to pinpoint exactly where this annoying person is. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:13 Highlight the passage at 1:52:13

1:52:31 On the top of the head, on the toes, slowly, rigorously searching everywhere we can think of. When Report an error in the passage at 1:52:31 Highlight the passage at 1:52:31

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:54:02 we meditate on emptiness, it's often very easy to get diverted. Start analyzing something else or thinking about something else. So just bring the mind back to searching for this person. Report an error in the passage at 1:54:02 Highlight the passage at 1:54:02

· · · silence, 3 minutes

1:57:18 We may get to a point where we get Report an error in the passage at 1:57:18 Highlight the passage at 1:57:18

1:57:25 to a non-finding, like that person Report an error in the passage at 1:57:25 Highlight the passage at 1:57:25

1:57:33 is unfindable. So that lack, an absence, Report an error in the passage at 1:57:33 Highlight the passage at 1:57:33

1:57:46 experience of the absence, non-finding, we stabilize on that. Report an error in the passage at 1:57:46 Highlight the passage at 1:57:46

1:57:57 Calm abiding or stabilizing meditation on that. Experience holding that. Report an error in the passage at 1:57:57 Highlight the passage at 1:57:57

· · · silence, 3 minutes

2:01:14 That's one way to meditate on emptiness, right? To analyze, search and hold at the non-finding, experience the non-finding. Hold on that until it becomes unclear and then you analyze again to bring it up more clear. Then you hold on that to make that experience more powerful and deeper. Report an error in the passage at 2:01:14 Highlight the passage at 2:01:14

2:01:41 Any questions or comments on that? Report an error in the passage at 2:01:41 Highlight the passage at 2:01:41

2:01:48 Meditation makes sense? Okay. Report an error in the passage at 2:01:48 Highlight the passage at 2:01:48

2:02:05 When you're analyzing the parts, and then if you get for just a second there's no person there, is it possible to stop it functioning? You can see how it might not function? Report an error in the passage at 2:02:05 Highlight the passage at 2:02:05

2:02:25 Would that be a part of this, of the meditation, is you can see why it functions, and then if you stop that, how it doesn't function? Like a person, for example, if you see the person, the body and the mind, and then you see that you're imputing person on that, if you impute person, you can see how the body and the mind interact, like the person smiles, you know, or does these things that a person does. Report an error in the passage at 2:02:25 Highlight the passage at 2:02:25

2:02:59 But if you break that up, then there's no function. Report an error in the passage at 2:02:59 Highlight the passage at 2:02:59

2:03:07 Actually, when we... Report an error in the passage at 2:03:07 Highlight the passage at 2:03:07

2:03:13 They still function, right? Report an error in the passage at 2:03:13 Highlight the passage at 2:03:13

2:03:19 Chandragirti talks about how because things are empty, then they can function. If it's coming from your mind, if your imputation is causing them to function, then if you can, Report an error in the passage at 2:03:19 Highlight the passage at 2:03:19

2:03:42 I don't know, I guess for lack of words I'll just say suspend that imputation, is it possible then to see? How it doesn't function, so you can see your own mind how it works to make things function. Does this apply to all phenomena or any phenomena or none? So we're not negating functionality, but we are negating functionality from its own side. That's right, exactly. Yeah, so I could see that. Report an error in the passage at 2:03:42 Highlight the passage at 2:03:42

2:04:13 Is that useful? It can be, yeah, because we can... We can hold on to anything, right? We can hold on to function, right? We oftentimes hold on to function as existing from its own side, right? Especially, you know, we get a lot of teaching saying, well, things don't exist from their own side, but they function so that function, it's tempting to say, well, that exists independent of conception, right? Report an error in the passage at 2:04:13 Highlight the passage at 2:04:13

2:04:41 But yeah, so, I mean, in general, you know, we stick with the non-finding of the person. Right. And we don't want to switch to the function. I mean, you can do that in a separate meditation. Report an error in the passage at 2:04:41 Highlight the passage at 2:04:41

2:04:57 But yeah, but if you're then but if you notice you're hanging on to function, then it's useful. Yeah, it can be useful to to see how that's just imputed by the mind, too. Yeah. Yeah. I think so. If I'm getting what you're saying. Yeah, I think so. I think you are. Yeah. OK. Report an error in the passage at 2:04:57 Highlight the passage at 2:04:57

2:05:19 I mean, yes, it's, you know. If it's true that I'm imputing what's not there onto something and that allows it to function for me, where does it function without me? Report an error in the passage at 2:05:19 Highlight the passage at 2:05:19

2:05:44 It does. Things do. Yeah. It depends on what function we're talking about. Like with the annoying person, if we're talking about they function to annoy me. You know, that function we can negate. But they still function to speak and walk and talk, right, independence. Right, the body and the mind functions together like that to look like a person, right? Report an error in the passage at 2:05:44 Highlight the passage at 2:05:44

2:06:06 Right. They would do that whether or not I suspend my imputation of it. It would still happen. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, right, right. It's not that things come into existence because I impute it. Right. Things do exist and they function and, you know, they they rise, they bide, they cease. Right. Things are born, they grow, they die. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:06 Highlight the passage at 2:06:06

2:06:35 Right. Not because of me imputing it. Right. But. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:35 Highlight the passage at 2:06:35

2:06:48 Yeah, I think you could say that. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:48 Highlight the passage at 2:06:48

2:06:59 Well, I mean, there would still be an experience for you, but it wouldn't be an experience of being born and moving. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:59 Highlight the passage at 2:06:59

2:07:11 There can be a non-conceptual experience, but it's not an experience of talking and moving and all of that unless it's imputed. It's Report an error in the passage at 2:07:11 Highlight the passage at 2:07:11

2:07:32 all very slippery. A little off, distant from the meditation, but I heard at one time a way to think about how things exist conventionally in terms of continuity, consensus and function. Report an error in the passage at 2:07:32 Highlight the passage at 2:07:32

2:07:52 Okay. So it's the continuity is the one I've always been a little baffled about. Is that, if you think about it in terms of continuity, is it because things are produced and they abide and they stay with us for a long time, Report an error in the passage at 2:07:52 Highlight the passage at 2:07:52

2:08:12 you know, there's a continuity there that we can then agree, you know, have a consensus about something and it functions? Report an error in the passage at 2:08:12 Highlight the passage at 2:08:12

2:08:23 Well, you know, I haven't heard that. that what was his cut. Continuity, consensus and function. Consensus and function. I haven't heard that threefold. We can talk about it separately. I would have to think about that. I just wondered if you heard that as a way. I haven't heard that. Oh, as a way of validating positive things. Yeah, how things actually do exist. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:23 Highlight the passage at 2:08:23

2:08:47 Oh, how they actually exist. How they actually exist because of continuity, consensus and function. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:47 Highlight the passage at 2:08:47

2:08:58 I'm Report an error in the passage at 2:08:58 Highlight the passage at 2:08:58

2:09:05 not sure, you know. What I had asked was, is the continuity just the persistence of the object? Oh, I see, I see, I see. Yeah, I haven't heard that in a Galupa presentation. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I haven't heard that. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:05 Highlight the passage at 2:09:05

2:09:24 Actually, that sounds vaguely familiar. Now, I don't know what he means by that, actually, because I haven't heard that presentation. I would only be speculating. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:24 Highlight the passage at 2:09:24

2:09:42 I'll think about that more. I'll see if I can even find it in Tsongkharkensis. Okay, let's have one more question and then we need to wrap this up. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:42 Highlight the passage at 2:09:42

2:09:55 Okay, I'll try to be quick. In this meditation, I chose someone and so, you know, breaking down her body and not finding it. I wasn't getting that feeling, but then, you know, I was realizing particularly what pissed me off was something she said. So I pretended it was a song and I'm like, is it the S, is it the T? Report an error in the passage at 2:09:55 Highlight the passage at 2:09:55

2:10:14 You know, and I still didn't find it, but I'm not like... Getting that feeling behind it. And so then I was like, well, clearly I'm super sticking on the conception of the whole thing because in order to even break down this, I'm still anticipating the entire phrase that I was annoyed with. So anyways, it's just so super sticky. So I had to, at the risk of strengthening my irritation with the delusion, I turned it back in on me. Report an error in the passage at 2:10:14 Highlight the passage at 2:10:14

2:10:47 And so I'm trying it's it's always coming back to the emptiness of my head, trying to kind of look in my brain. That was a first looking in my brain for where the thought was. But really, I really want to get that feeling. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that that will take time. Yeah. Yeah, slowly, slowly. And sometimes, I mean, sometimes we have to play with the meditation, you know, maybe then try to find the me who was annoyed, right? Report an error in the passage at 2:10:47 Highlight the passage at 2:10:47

2:11:26 Because there are many different meditations on emptiness we can do with regard to the annoying person. We can search for the annoying person. We can say, okay, the person doesn't exist from its own side, but the annoying... Report an error in the passage at 2:11:26 Highlight the passage at 2:11:26

2:11:42 Speech exists from its own side. Then we can search for the annoying speech and maybe we can't find that. But maybe that doesn't have a big impact and then maybe it always comes back to the me though, doesn't it? And then we can, you know, we can, I mean that's all of our problems, right? So then we can search for the me. So in another class we'll do a search for the me, the source of Report an error in the passage at 2:11:42 Highlight the passage at 2:11:42

2:12:10 most of our mental questions. Anyway, so we just have to keep doing it. Slowly, slowly, then gradually. Report an error in the passage at 2:12:10 Highlight the passage at 2:12:10

2:12:29 Okay, well let's dedicate. So this week, continue to think about emptiness and get that object of negation in our minds. We need to really familiarize ourselves with that before the meditation on emptiness really becomes powerful. First we have to know what we're negating. Report an error in the passage at 2:12:29 Highlight the passage at 2:12:29

2:12:56 And creating merit and purifying, all of that helps. Report an error in the passage at 2:12:56 Highlight the passage at 2:12:56

2:13:03 Okay, so let's do the dedications on page 240. Report an error in the passage at 2:13:03 Highlight the passage at 2:13:03

2:13:17 Let's do the first four dedications on 240. Report an error in the passage at 2:13:17 Highlight the passage at 2:13:17

2:13:34 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 2:13:34 Highlight the passage at 2:13:34

2:13:57 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 2:13:57 Highlight the passage at 2:13:57

2:14:17 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. Report an error in the passage at 2:14:17 Highlight the passage at 2:14:17

2:14:40 Let's also dedicate to the quick recovery and long life of Lama Tsongkhapa Rinpoche. Report an error in the passage at 2:14:40 Highlight the passage at 2:14:40