Special Insight 2: Wisdom of Emptiness (30 August 2011)

0:17 like, it's a merry-go. Report an error in the passage at 0:17 Highlight the passage at 0:17

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:45 Congratulations to the people who are on time. Report an error in the passage at 1:45 Highlight the passage at 1:45

1:51 Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:51 Highlight the passage at 1:51

1:55 Oh, by the way, while we're settling in, if people wanted a copy of the Middle Languam Room, they're more available. And the cost is $11, so you can pay maybe at break time. It's on the mantle by the fire. Report an error in the passage at 1:55 Highlight the passage at 1:55

2:37 So we can start by setting our motivation for tonight. Maybe Report an error in the passage at 2:37 Highlight the passage at 2:37

2:57 first meditating on the breath for a couple minutes and Report an error in the passage at 2:57 Highlight the passage at 2:57

3:06 just settle our minds, Report an error in the passage at 3:06 Highlight the passage at 3:06

3:26 letting that habitual chatter just fall to the background, focusing Report an error in the passage at 3:26 Highlight the passage at 3:26

3:37 the mind on the breath and Report an error in the passage at 3:37 Highlight the passage at 3:37

· · · silence, 1 minute

4:41 then remembering the countless beings who are all trying to be happy when Report an error in the passage at 4:41 Highlight the passage at 4:41

5:03 we depend for our comforts and Report an error in the passage at 5:03 Highlight the passage at 5:03

5:14 our happiness and Report an error in the passage at 5:14 Highlight the passage at 5:14

5:37 remembering that they're encountering difficulties and Report an error in the passage at 5:37 Highlight the passage at 5:37

5:45 suffering. Again and again, and Report an error in the passage at 5:45 Highlight the passage at 5:45

6:07 will continue to do so until they get out of cyclic existence. Report an error in the passage at 6:07 Highlight the passage at 6:07

· · · silence, 1 minute

6:46 Compassion and bodhicitta wishing to free them from cyclic existence. Report an error in the passage at 6:46 Highlight the passage at 6:46

· · · silence, 1 minute

7:50 I'll start with the praise to Manjushri in the white book. Report an error in the passage at 7:50 Highlight the passage at 7:50

7:59 So on the first page, Report an error in the passage at 7:59 Highlight the passage at 7:59

8:10 obeisance to my guru and protector Manjushri, who holds to his heart a scriptural text symbolic of his seeing all things as they are. Whose intelligence shines forth as the sun, unclouded by delusions or traces of ignorance. Who teaches in sixty ways with the loving compassion of a father for his only son. Report an error in the passage at 8:10 Highlight the passage at 8:10

8:28 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. You, whose princely body is adorned with the 112 marks of a Buddha, who has completed the stages of achieving the highest perfection of a bodhisattva, who has been pure from the beginning, I bow down to you, O Manjushri. Report an error in the passage at 8:28 Highlight the passage at 8:28

9:04 With Report an error in the passage at 9:04 Highlight the passage at 9:04

9:12 the Report an error in the passage at 9:12 Highlight the passage at 9:12

9:19 brilliance of your wisdom, O compassionate one. Illuminate the darkness in closing my mind. Enlighten my intelligence and wisdom so that I may gain insight into Buddha's words and the texts that explain them. And then in the gold book, page 79, no 76, the Heart Sūtra. I Report an error in the passage at 9:19 Highlight the passage at 9:19

9:50 prostrate to the Arya Triple Gem. Thus did I hear at one time, the Bhagavan was dwelling on Massavultures 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 Avalokiteshvara, looked upon the very practice of the profound perfection of wisdom and beheld those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature. Report an error in the passage at 9:50 Highlight the passage at 9:50

10:21 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 Sharivadiputra. Report an error in the passage at 10:21 Highlight the passage at 10:21

10:44 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. 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 in the passage at 10:44 Highlight the passage at 10:44

11:12 Shariputra, likewise all phenomena are emptiness, without characteristic, unproduced, unceased, stainless, not without stain, not deficient, not fulfilled. 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. Report an error in the passage at 11:12 Highlight the passage at 11:12

11:36 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 ignorance, no extinction of ignorance and so on up to and including no aging and death and no extinction of aging and death. Report an error in the passage at 11:36 Highlight the passage at 11:36

11:59 Similarly, there is no suffering, origination, cessation and path. There is no exalted wisdom, no attainment and also no non-attainment. Shariputra, therefore, because there is no attainment, bodhisattvas rely on and dwell in the perfection of wisdom, the mind without obscuration and without fear. Having completely passed beyond error, they reach the end point of nirvāṇa. All the Buddhas who dwell in the three times also manifestly completely awaken to unsurpassable, perfect, complete enlightenment. Report an error in the passage at 11:59 Highlight the passage at 11:59

12:32 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 unequaled, the mantra that thoroughly pacifies all suffering, should be known as truth since it is not false. The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is declared. Report an error in the passage at 12:32 Highlight the passage at 12:32

12:52 Thaya Tha Om Gathe Gathe Paragathe Parasam Gathe Bodhisattva. Sariputra, 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 12:52 Highlight the passage at 12:52

13:17 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, Avalokiteshvara, and those surrounding in their entirety, along with the world of gods, humans, Asuras, and Gandharvas, were overjoyed and highly praised that spoken by the Bhagavan. Report an error in the passage at 13:17 Highlight the passage at 13:17

13:43 And then Refuge in Bodhicitta on page 98. Report an error in the passage at 13:43 Highlight the passage at 13:43

13:55 I go for refuge until I'm enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Supreme Assembly. By the merits I create through listening to the Dharma, may I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings. 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 in the passage at 13:55 Highlight the passage at 13:55

14:26 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 14:26 Highlight the passage at 14:26

14:40 Okay, so we have progressed to the reasonings, the reasonings to prove the selflessness of persons. So Lama Tsongkhapa previously had talked about how between the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena, the selflessness of persons is easier to realize. So we start with the selflessness of persons. And we're at the point, actually, we're in the middle length on the rim in the Philip Corco version on page 268. Report an error in the passage at 14:40 Highlight the passage at 14:40

15:21 And we're settling or trying to realize that the I, the I, or the me does not inherently exist. Report an error in the passage at 15:21 Highlight the passage at 15:21

15:36 so the reasoning that. Lama Tsongkhapa is using is the four-point analysis, the four-point analysis, Nagarjuna's four-point analysis. So we started this last time, the first point being identifying the object of refutation or object of negation. The second point, ascertaining the pervasion. The third point, seeing the faults of asserting that the person and the aggregates are one inherent entity. Report an error in the passage at 15:36 Highlight the passage at 15:36

16:09 And the fourth point, seeing the faults of asserting that the person and the aggregates are different entities. So the first and the second points we went through last time, right? So we've talked about for quite a while now the importance of identifying the object of refutation in our own experience, like really getting to know, okay, well, what is this I that I believe exists so strongly? Report an error in the passage at 16:09 Highlight the passage at 16:09

16:40 So we can have a very strong sense of I when we have an emotional experience, like when we feel hurt or when we feel unappreciated or we feel insulted or we feel blamed. We can have a strong sense of I during those times. It doesn't feel like just a label on an ever-changing body and mind. It feels much more solid than that. Report an error in the passage at 16:40 Highlight the passage at 16:40

17:10 And then we have more subtle experiences of a solid concrete eye all the time. Report an error in the passage at 17:10 Highlight the passage at 17:10

17:24 So just quickly, I want to go through an example. Well, the classic example is a car. Well, the classic example is the chariot, but a more modern example is the car. Right. So... So we have a hunk of metal and we have these four rubber things that we call tires and there's an engine and there's a steering wheel. Report an error in the passage at 17:24 Highlight the passage at 17:24

17:59 There's a bunch of different parts that together we call a car. So if we bring up the image of a car in our mind, Report an error in the passage at 17:59 Highlight the passage at 17:59

18:16 what is the car that we believe exists? Report an error in the passage at 18:16 Highlight the passage at 18:16

18:25 It's a car. Report an error in the passage at 18:25 Highlight the passage at 18:25

18:28 If you want to answer it. Report an error in the passage at 18:28 Highlight the passage at 18:28

18:35 The car that we believe exists is the car that covers the parts of the car. It seems to be a whole solid thing covering its parts. Report an error in the passage at 18:35 Highlight the passage at 18:35

18:55 Similarly, with the person, we... We generally believe that there's an I, a person, a me, that covers the body and the mind, that encompasses the entire body and mind. It's like a cohesive entity tying together all of the parts. It seems to be a cohesive kind of one single entity covering the parts. Report an error in the passage at 18:55 Highlight the passage at 18:55

19:29 We have different apprehensions of the I at different times, but that's the one that is considered. Inherent existence. Report an error in the passage at 19:29 Highlight the passage at 19:29

19:43 The I, actually I Report an error in the passage at 19:43 Highlight the passage at 19:43

19:50 mentioned this one last time. This is from the fifth Dalai Lama. Report an error in the passage at 19:50 Highlight the passage at 19:50

19:59 He says the object of refutation is an I which exists in its own right, which exists inherently, as if undifferentiated from the mind and body, which are also mixed like milk and water. So Report an error in the passage at 19:59 Highlight the passage at 19:59

20:21 we have that all the time, right? Report an error in the passage at 20:21 Highlight the passage at 20:21

20:28 You know, if somebody calls us, oh, hey, hey, are you at home? No, I'm at Sechenling, right? The I that's indifferentiated between, you know, from the body and the mind. Oh, Report an error in the passage at 20:28 Highlight the passage at 20:28

20:45 I want to go on vacation. The body and mind wants to go on vacation, right? Report an error in the passage at 20:45 Highlight the passage at 20:45

20:55 So that's the object of refutation. Report an error in the passage at 20:55 Highlight the passage at 20:55

21:02 So this is worth spending a lot of time really getting to know in our experience, right? Report an error in the passage at 21:02 Highlight the passage at 21:02

21:13 I mean, a lot of times when we get teachings on emptiness, we jump very quickly into refuting the I, right? And it's not very impactful to our minds if we immediately start refuting without first having identified the object of refutation. We think, oh, okay, nothing inherently exists. Well, I never thought that it did anyway, you know, so you don't find it. Report an error in the passage at 21:13 Highlight the passage at 21:13

21:42 So no big deal, I never thought that I could, right? So we're skipping, if we skip this first step, then the emptiness teachings won't really mean much. And Lama Tsongkhapa says we're not going to be able to realize emptiness. We're not going to be able to get the correct view of emptiness unless we first identify the object of refutation. Report an error in the passage at 21:42 Highlight the passage at 21:42

22:11 Because we need to develop a certainty that this thing does not exist at all. This thing that we call inherently existing I doesn't exist at all. This thing that we believe in and we believe in all day, every day, doesn't exist at all. This is what we need to do when we realize emptiness. So how do we develop that certainty? Report an error in the passage at 22:11 Highlight the passage at 22:11

22:42 If we've never identified the object of negation, how can we have certainty that it doesn't exist? It's like if we're meeting a friend of a friend at the airport and we don't know what they look like, how can we develop certainty that they arrived or not? First, we have to have a clear picture of what they look like, and then we have to go to the airport, and then we have to pay really close attention to everybody who walks. Report an error in the passage at 22:42 Highlight the passage at 22:42

23:13 And then if we've done that, then we can develop certainty, right? Oh, yeah, that person arrived or, oh, that person didn't arrive. Report an error in the passage at 23:13 Highlight the passage at 23:13

23:22 But if we didn't have a clear picture of what this person looked like, then we wouldn't have any, we would have doubt, right, whether or not they arrived, right? We wouldn't have certainty. If we knew, all we knew is they had brown hair. We would spend a lot of time searching, waste a lot of time, right? And then we still wouldn't be able to develop any certainty. Report an error in the passage at 23:22 Highlight the passage at 23:22

23:54 Go around, oh, are you Joe? Are you Joe? Well, Joe doesn't have any hair. Are you Joe? Right? I mean, and I think it's similar with emptiness. It's like, you know, when an apprehension of an eye comes up, oh, is this the one? Is that one right? Is this one right or is this one wrong? So we need to get a clear idea. And how do we get a clear idea? It's through study and through practice, right? Report an error in the passage at 23:54 Highlight the passage at 23:54

24:28 Noticing. Report an error in the passage at 24:28 Highlight the passage at 24:28

24:34 Mike, where's the mic? I think David is the keeper of the mic. I Report an error in the passage at 24:34 Highlight the passage at 24:34

24:46 think that David already turned it on for you. I mean, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 24:46 Highlight the passage at 24:46

24:58 Okay. Okay. Yeah. Am I correct in thinking that this is? This is like a step beyond what we did sort of like the last term because I remember we talked about you wouldn't say I'm in the next room when my body is here. Report an error in the passage at 24:58 Highlight the passage at 24:58

25:19 Didn't we talk last term about there's no I really that is separate from the body and mind. So is this like the next step or is that part of the next number? Report an error in the passage at 25:19 Highlight the passage at 25:19

25:33 It's similar to that. So the position of prasangika is that there is no I on the body and mind. The I is imputed in dependence on the body and mind. So this body and mind is not the I. It's the basis for imputing the I. Report an error in the passage at 25:33 Highlight the passage at 25:33

26:06 right, so... When we say there's no I, when I was saying before there's no I separate from the body and mind, there isn't. You can't apprehend an I without apprehending first the body and or mind. Report an error in the passage at 26:06 Highlight the passage at 26:06

26:23 But we're not saying that the body and mind is the I. We're saying it's the basis for imputing the I. The I and the body and mind are inseparable, but they're not the same. Report an error in the passage at 26:23 Highlight the passage at 26:23

26:41 It's the difference between saying this is a cup. And this is called a cup. Report an error in the passage at 26:41 Highlight the passage at 26:41

26:55 Or the difference in thinking that is wrong and I think it's wrong. Report an error in the passage at 26:55 Highlight the passage at 26:55

27:07 It's like wrong is fused with that object or behavior or person as opposed to wrong coming from the mind. Report an error in the passage at 27:07 Highlight the passage at 27:07

27:21 Cup comes from the mind. Person comes from the mind. I comes from the mind. Independence on a valid base, right? The valid base for the I is our body and mind. So an I is just imputed, independence on the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 27:21 Highlight the passage at 27:21

27:45 It's just labeled, designated, independence on the body and mind. So this isn't the I, it's the basis for labeling I. Report an error in the passage at 27:45 Highlight the passage at 27:45

28:02 It's not the label that's the object of refutation. No. Is that inherent? Yeah, so the object of refutation is believing that. The body and mind is the I. It's subtle, right? A subtle difference. Thinking the body and mind is the I versus is the basis for labeling I. So the I that exists is that which is merely labeled. The I that doesn't exist is the I that is the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 28:02 Highlight the passage at 28:02

28:43 So we went through that. In the last term, you know, when we went through the four different schools, I think you were here for part of that, right? So for the four different schools, all of the schools below them, the highest school, the Prasangika school, the consequence school, believe that, okay, if the eye existed, you would be able to find it within the basis, within the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 28:43 Highlight the passage at 28:43

29:11 You'd have to be able to find it if it existed. And the subtle... Unique presentation of prasangika is it exists and it's not findable at all among the basis. It is neither the body nor the mind nor the combination of the body and mind. That is just the basis for imputing the eye. The eye is an imputation, a mere imputation on the basis. So this is, you know, so this I think we get slowly, slowly over time. Report an error in the passage at 29:11 Highlight the passage at 29:11

29:51 The significance of that we get slowly and slowly over time. Report an error in the passage at 29:51 Highlight the passage at 29:51

30:02 And then I think Hillary had a question and then Peter. Report an error in the passage at 30:02 Highlight the passage at 30:02

30:11 Between times it would be good to turn the microphone off partly because I find the feedback very distracting. And then secondly it saves the battery. But I'm going to bring that to you, Peter. Report an error in the passage at 30:11 Highlight the passage at 30:11

30:23 So could you say that the ultimate illustration of this would be when we die? So. Report an error in the passage at 30:23 Highlight the passage at 30:23

· · · silence, 1 minute

30:30 And the various elements of the body break up and the various elements of the personality break up. That this is sort of, in a sense, the ultimate manner in which we don't exist. Because that I, there is no Ātman that's going to go on. I mean, there's going to be a very subtle level of consciousness. But our personalities that we have in this life are going to disappear. Report an error in the passage at 30:30 Highlight the passage at 30:30

30:52 They never really existed to begin with. Personality is just imputed by the mind. Exactly. Our likes, our dislikes, our abilities, our propensities, it's all going to go away. I Report an error in the passage at 30:52 Highlight the passage at 30:52

31:10 don't know that it goes away completely because there are imprints, right? We have habits that will go from life to life. But what we identify as being me now, right? I'm a funny person, right? I'm an intelligent person. Report an error in the passage at 31:10 Highlight the passage at 31:10

31:31 Oh, yeah, you want to turn that off? Really? Report an error in the passage at 31:31 Highlight the passage at 31:31

31:43 Yeah, those things, Report an error in the passage at 31:43 Highlight the passage at 31:43

31:51 those things. Report an error in the passage at 31:51 Highlight the passage at 31:51

31:55 Well, let's explore that a little bit further through the four-point analysis. Okay. Report an error in the passage at 31:55 Highlight the passage at 31:55

32:13 Yeah, and, you know, when we think about how we identify the me or the I, you know, who am I? Oftentimes we identify the me with our personality, right? I am this. Funny, intelligent, outgoing, whatever, person, right? And then we can, then it's useful then to break down the personality. Is their personality something solid and concrete that we can find? Or is the personality just something imputed independence on data, data points, right? Report an error in the passage at 32:13 Highlight the passage at 32:13

32:55 So oftentimes like we can refute, right, in order to, Report an error in the passage at 32:55 Highlight the passage at 32:55

33:03 We need to really realize emptiness. We need to realize the emptiness of both the I and the basis of the I, right? Because oftentimes when we meditate on emptiness, we can think, okay, well, that solid I doesn't, that covers its parts, it doesn't really exist, but there's something really there. There's something like the personality that's really there, or the basis of karmic imprints is really there, or the mental consciousness is really there. Report an error in the passage at 33:03 Highlight the passage at 33:03

33:43 So we need to refute all of those things. Report an error in the passage at 33:43 Highlight the passage at 33:43

33:49 Okay, so back to the four-point analysis. First, identifying the object of negation. Oh, and I have a handout. I sent it out via email, but in case you didn't get it. Report an error in the passage at 33:49 Highlight the passage at 33:49

34:19 Forget Janet in the back row. Report an error in the passage at 34:19 Highlight the passage at 34:19

34:40 Yeah, I should have said, yeah, in the other room. Report an error in the passage at 34:40 Highlight the passage at 34:40

34:56 Okay, so back to number two, Report an error in the passage at 34:56 Highlight the passage at 34:56

35:04 ascertaining the pervasion. So this is developing a conviction, a certainty that if it inherently existed, if the I inherently existed the way that we think that it does, exist from your own Report an error in the passage at 35:04 Highlight the passage at 35:04

· · · silence, 1 minute

35:20 Then it must exist as being the same entity as the body and mind or a different entity as the body and mind. It must be either same or different. So this is kind of based on, okay, if something exists, it needs to be either singular or plural. There are no other possibilities. If something exists, it needs to be one thing or more than one thing. Report an error in the passage at 35:20 Highlight the passage at 35:20

35:51 And so we need to spend time also with this. Really thinking about it and becoming convinced if it existed this way, then it would have to exist either in this way as the same entity or a different entity as its basis. There are no other possibilities. So that when we refute, okay, that it can be the same entity, inherent entity, and we refute that it's a different entity, that we have no doubt that, oh, okay, then it can't be inherently existing. Report an error in the passage at 35:51 Highlight the passage at 35:51

36:23 So we have to nail it down. I mean, our minds currently around the eye is very fuzzy. Sometimes the eye is the mind. Sometimes it's the body. Sometimes it's the body and the mind. Sometimes it's separate from the body and mind, right, as when we think I have a body and mind, right? We have this really kind of wishy-washy view of the eye. Report an error in the passage at 36:23 Highlight the passage at 36:23

36:56 But with this reasoning, in order to realize emptiness, we have to pin it down. How do we think it exists and is it possible for it to exist that way? So we have to look at all the possibilities. If there was pizza in the house, it would have to be either in the refrigerator or in one of the other rooms. Report an error in the passage at 36:56 Highlight the passage at 36:56

37:19 There are no other possibilities. So that when you search within the... Refrigerator and you can't find pizza and you search everywhere else in the house and you can't find pizza, then you can develop a certainty that there's no pizza in the house because we've exhausted all possibilities. Report an error in the passage at 37:19 Highlight the passage at 37:19

37:39 So that's ascertaining the pervasion, deciding that if the person inherently existed or if the I inherently existed, then it must be either the same entity or a different entity is the basis. Report an error in the passage at 37:39 Highlight the passage at 37:39

38:01 To the third point, seeing the faults in asserting that the person and the aggregates are one inherent entity. So if the person was inherently existing like we think it is, right? Existing from its own sight and existing in and of itself, covering its parts, what are the faults? Report an error in the passage at 38:01 Highlight the passage at 38:01

38:26 So first of all, so back on page 268, it would be pointless to assert a self toward the top is the first fault. Because if the self and the aggregates were inherently existing and they were the same entity, they would have to be utterly indivisible. They would have to be exactly the same. So if we take car, for example, again, the car and the components of the car, the parts of the car. Report an error in the passage at 38:26 Highlight the passage at 38:26

39:10 If we say that they're the same entity. Then the parts, the car and the parts would have to be exactly the same in every way. If we think about it, the cart, so last time we talked about what same entity means, right? Does anybody remember what same entity means? All Report an error in the passage at 39:10 Highlight the passage at 39:10

39:35 right, we'll go through that again. Same entity. We'll do it through examples. The cup and the shape of the cup are the same entity. Report an error in the passage at 39:35 Highlight the passage at 39:35

39:48 The cup and the table are different entities. The table and the color of the table are the same entity. So to the direct perception perceiving cup, to the eye consciousness perceiving cup, the cup and the shape of the cup cannot be distinguished. Report an error in the passage at 39:48 Highlight the passage at 39:48

40:16 There are two different ways of looking at the same thing. Conceptually we can isolate out the cup from the shape of the cup. Conceptually we can. But to the direct perception, the cup and the shape of the cup are undistinguishable. Report an error in the passage at 40:16 Highlight the passage at 40:16

40:41 So the cup and the shape of the cup are the same entity, and they can be the same entity. And conventionally, the cup and the shape of the cup don't have to be exactly the same thing, because while we're looking at the same object, In two different ways. We're looking at the same object in two different ways. Report an error in the passage at 40:41 Highlight the passage at 40:41

41:17 Either in terms of the object or in terms of the shape of the object. Report an error in the passage at 41:17 Highlight the passage at 41:17

41:27 But if it inherently existed as Report an error in the passage at 41:27 Highlight the passage at 41:27

41:35 a cup, then it would have to appear the same to every consciousness that perceives it. Because it exists from its own side, independent of the mind. If it inherently existed, it would have to appear the same to everyone. Everyone. If it existed from its own side, independent of the mind, in and of itself, it would have to appear the same to everybody. Report an error in the passage at 41:35 Highlight the passage at 41:35

42:07 So an example, if it was inherently beautiful, in and of itself, from its own side, it was beautiful, then everyone would have to see it as beautiful. Report an error in the passage at 42:07 Highlight the passage at 42:07

42:29 If this was a cup, inherently from its own side, then Everyone would have to see it as a cup. Report an error in the passage at 42:29 Highlight the passage at 42:29

42:39 An ant couldn't see it as being a death trap. An ant doesn't see it as being a cup. The ant doesn't see it as being something to drink out of. Report an error in the passage at 42:39 Highlight the passage at 42:39

42:55 Oh, that the ant says it has something to drink out of. Yeah, right, exactly. Swimming pool. Right, so, but if it inherently exists, so conventionally it exists. As a cup for people who have, you know, for people in a particular society, in a particular time, Report an error in the passage at 42:55 Highlight the passage at 42:55

43:24 and in another society in time, it would appear as something else. Report an error in the passage at 43:24 Highlight the passage at 43:24

43:31 And that's perfectly valid if it only exists conventionally as an imputation by the mind, right? It changes depending on who's looking at it. Report an error in the passage at 43:31 Highlight the passage at 43:31

43:45 Whereas if it inherently existed, it... It would have to appear exactly the same to everybody because it exists independent of the mind. It would exist independent of perception. Report an error in the passage at 43:45 Highlight the passage at 43:45

44:01 It would have to exist independent of who looked at it and it would have to exist independent of how you look at it. So no matter how you looked at it, it would have to appear exactly the same. Report an error in the passage at 44:01 Highlight the passage at 44:01

44:18 Whereas with a car and the parts of a car, right? Sometimes the car appears to be a whole, single object, right? And sometimes, like if the car needs repair, oh, the window is broken, the carburetor isn't working, I need new brakes, right? Then it appears as being a collection of many things, right? So if you look at it in one way, it's a whole thing. Report an error in the passage at 44:18 Highlight the passage at 44:18

44:53 If you look at it in another way, There are many different things. But if it inherently existed, they would have to be exactly the same. They would have to appear exactly the same, no matter how you looked at it. Am I making sense? Report an error in the passage at 44:53 Highlight the passage at 44:53

45:15 Okay, so back to the self and the aggregates. If the self and the aggregates were the same inherent entity, then they would have to be exactly the same. So the self and the aggregates, the self and the body and mind would have to be exactly the same. If they were exactly the same, the first fault would be then asserting that a self or a person would be senseless. Report an error in the passage at 45:15 Highlight the passage at 45:15

45:50 It would be superfluous because it's exactly the same as the aggregates. If the self is the aggregates, if the self is the body and mind, Then asserting the self would be useless, meaningless, senseless, superfluous. Report an error in the passage at 45:50 Highlight the passage at 45:50

46:15 So we don't normally talk in terms of, oh yeah, those two are the same inherent entity, right? But this is what we believe oftentimes, right? That the I is the body and mind. If the I is the body and mind, then they would have to be exactly the same. And then asserting an I would be... Report an error in the passage at 46:15 Highlight the passage at 46:15

46:38 Superfluous. Or saying I and body and mind would be interchangeable. Report an error in the passage at 46:38 Highlight the passage at 46:38

46:49 Saying I am tired would be the same as saying body and mind are tired. Report an error in the passage at 46:49 Highlight the passage at 46:49

46:57 I had a good day. Body and mind had a good day. I got a promotion. Body and mind got a promotion. Report an error in the passage at 46:57 Highlight the passage at 46:57

47:11 I can't believe you said that to me. Body and mind can't believe you said that to body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 47:11 Highlight the passage at 47:11

47:43 Or I have a body and mind. It would be the same as saying body and mind has a body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 47:43 Highlight the passage at 47:43

47:54 It doesn't make sense, right, for the I to be the body and mind. If the I was the body and mind, it would be interchangeable with the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 47:54 Highlight the passage at 47:54

48:14 So that's the first fault. Of asserting that the body and mind, or the aggregates, are the self, or the I. Asserting the I would be senseless. Report an error in the passage at 48:14 Highlight the passage at 48:14

48:28 Second fault. Report an error in the passage at 48:28 Highlight the passage at 48:28

48:37 Okay, second fault. There would be many selves, or the selves would be many. Because the I and the aggregates are the same, right? Our position is the I is the aggregates, right? So following on from that position, then because there are many aggregates, Or let's say because there are five aggregates, then there would have to be five selves. Report an error in the passage at 48:37 Highlight the passage at 48:37

49:09 So you could have one self in the gompa and one self sitting in front of the TV at home and one self sleeping. All at the same time we'd have ten. Because there are five aggregates, it would be five selves because the self and the aggregates are the same. Report an error in the passage at 49:09 Highlight the passage at 49:09

49:35 Or alternatively, because there's one self, there could only be one aggregate. There couldn't be a body. Report an error in the passage at 49:35 Highlight the passage at 49:35

49:53 Third fault. Report an error in the passage at 49:53 Highlight the passage at 49:53

50:00 Actually, let me go back to the text. Actually, back to the first fault. Under the heading where it says first refutation, I should follow the text. So where it says, okay, first it would be pointless to assert a self. If the sameness of entity of the two were inherently established, they would be... I would cross out permanently. They would be utterly indivisible one. This is because if their sameness of entity were ultimately established, then whatever mind those two appeared to, they would necessarily not appear to be different. Report an error in the passage at 50:00 Highlight the passage at 50:00

50:46 So we talked about that, right? If they were exactly the same, if they were inherently existing. And the same entity, they would have to be exactly the same and they would have to appear exactly the same to whatever mind appeared to it. And then Lama Tsongkhapa says the reason for this is that although with falsities or conventions or conventionalities, it's not contradictory for the mode of appearance and mode of subsistence to be discordant. Report an error in the passage at 50:46 Highlight the passage at 50:46

51:18 With something established as true, those two are necessarily contradictory. Because something truly established that appears to a mind must appear just the way that it is. So one of the synonyms Report an error in the passage at 51:18 Highlight the passage at 51:18

51:44 of true existence in Dharma is the way that it appears and the way that it exists are the same. If it truly existed, then the way it appears and the way it exists would always be the same to whoever, to everyone. Report an error in the passage at 51:44 Highlight the passage at 51:44

52:12 The way it appears, well the way that exists and the way that appears. So if it inherently existed, if it truly existed, it would appear as being the same as the way it existed. Report an error in the passage at 52:12 Highlight the passage at 52:12

52:27 And so if it inherently existed, it Report an error in the passage at 52:27 Highlight the passage at 52:27

52:35 would appear exactly how it exists. Report an error in the passage at 52:35 Highlight the passage at 52:35

52:53 So the person in the aggregates, if they were inherently existing, Report an error in the passage at 52:53 Highlight the passage at 52:53

53:09 And they were the same entity. If they were inherently existing and they were the same, they would necessarily not appear as different. Report an error in the passage at 53:09 Highlight the passage at 53:09

53:24 So if Report an error in the passage at 53:24 Highlight the passage at 53:24

53:31 they were inherently existing and the same entity, then they would not appear as being different to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 53:31 Highlight the passage at 53:31

53:49 It's one of those things that I find with emptiness. It's like it's really clear in one moment and then... It just slips through your fingers in the next moment. So this is one of those sentences where I read it and I go, okay, I got it. And then I lose it. Oh, no, no, I got it. And I lost it again. So at the moment, I've lost it. Report an error in the passage at 53:49 Highlight the passage at 53:49

54:17 It's empty. So we'll have to think about this one. Report an error in the passage at 54:17 Highlight the passage at 54:17

54:29 Confession, is it confession time? Report an error in the passage at 54:29 Highlight the passage at 54:29

54:36 Confession to me. Report an error in the passage at 54:36 Highlight the passage at 54:36

54:40 A western sort of scientific person, I struggle with this because I try to reconcile it, you know, my own perspective of the world with what's being taught. And it Report an error in the passage at 54:40 Highlight the passage at 54:40

54:58 seems to me that this is just not consistent with any kind of scientific perspective on it because different things will appear differently to different observers depending on the characteristics of the observers. Some people are colorblind, some people are deaf, some people, you know, everyone perceives things differently and there's no even telling that we both look at the color blue and what you experience is the same as what I experience. Report an error in the passage at 54:58 Highlight the passage at 54:58

55:31 We just label it blue and you and I will agree that it's blue, but I don't know that you're actually experiencing what I'm experiencing. So that level of relativity. That you're just proving right there that things don't inherently exist. Right, but science would say that there was some object that did really exist and that we can explore it using instruments that expand our ability to look into the electromagnetic spectrum, to look into the magnetism, other invisible characteristics and to convert it into data that we can experience. Report an error in the passage at 55:31 Highlight the passage at 55:31

56:10 So if you were blind and I were sighted... We could look at the same set of data. It would just have to be presented to you in a different form, you know, in Braille or in sound or something like that. But you could look at that set of data. And I could look at that set of data visually and we could agree that, okay, this object is square or this object has a certain density or something like that. Report an error in the passage at 56:10 Highlight the passage at 56:10

56:32 We can take that and project it into our experiences and come to some agreement on it. But there is something inherently existent. But this mode of appearance thing sounds like that's going to be true for anything, just because we're different observers and you and I, because we're so different. Report an error in the passage at 56:32 Highlight the passage at 56:32

56:53 So I have trouble with this, you know, at that level, like trying to see the appearances will always be different. Right, because they don't inherently exist. Yeah. Because, see, the thing is, how can you establish that anything exists objectively independent of an observer? Report an error in the passage at 56:53 Highlight the passage at 56:53

57:15 Science cannot establish that. Anything exists objectively independent of a perceiver and of an observer. And even science says, and I'm no expert in science, say this up front, but from my understanding, if you look at a particle, from one angle it's a particle, if you... Look at it from another angle. It's a wave. Depending on the observer, it appears as a particle or a wave. Depends on how you look at it, right? So is it a particle from its own sight? Report an error in the passage at 57:15 Highlight the passage at 57:15

57:48 No. Is it a wave from its own sight? No, right? There is nothing objectively a particle or objectively a wave, right? It changes depending on who you look at it, which proves emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 57:48 Highlight the passage at 57:48

58:07 What it is depends on the mind looking at it. And that's what we're proving here, is there is no objective existence independent of the way you look at it, independent on who's looking at it. Report an error in the passage at 58:07 Highlight the passage at 58:07

58:25 Well, I got that part. Okay. Okay, so there are many different reasonings used to... Oh, my God. Report an error in the passage at 58:25 Highlight the passage at 58:25

58:34 Prove that there is no objective, independent existence from its own side, inherent existence. Report an error in the passage at 58:34 Highlight the passage at 58:34

58:44 And this is one of them. And a lot of these, I mean, Jeffrey Hopkins, who's one of the foremost Western scholars, he wrote this incredible book called Emptiness Yoga. And he gives a lot of really useful practical advice in going through these reasonings. And one of them is that a lot of these reasonings at first glance will seem absurd, right? Report an error in the passage at 58:44 Highlight the passage at 58:44

59:10 And we need to sit with them. We need to sit with them and not reject them right away because we're so habituated to inherent existence, right? That these are absurd... Report an error in the passage at 59:10 Highlight the passage at 59:10

59:25 In the four-point analysis, these are absurd consequences to asserting that things exist the way they appear. And these absurd consequences won't be immediately obvious to us because we've always believed that things exist that way, right? So we think, oh, well, that's not logically consistent. That's for a lot of us, myself included. Now, it's like, oh, that doesn't make sense. Report an error in the passage at 59:25 Highlight the passage at 59:25

59:55 So we have to be willing to work through it and really try to put ourselves, our minds into that position. Okay, well, if it really existed that way, if it really existed the way we think it exists, then, for example, things couldn't change. If it really existed from its own side, independent of, you know, causes and omniscience, you know, etc., then it couldn't change. Report an error in the passage at 59:55 Highlight the passage at 59:55

1:00:28 But that's not the way we view things. We think that things exist from their own side, independent of mind, and they change. We know that things change. We don't see anything inconsistent with those two things. So it's something that we have to sit with. I mean, if we want to realize emptiness, then we need to be willing to work through those doubts in our mind and really try to think about it. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:28 Highlight the passage at 1:00:28

1:00:57 Because I know that when I first... Got these teachings, I thought, oh, you know, it didn't really have much impact in my mind. Oh, yeah, it doesn't really make sense. Well, it kind of makes sense. And then I'd have glimpses of, oh, my gosh, that really makes sense. And then immediate, you know, fog again, right? So it kind of goes back and forth. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:57 Highlight the passage at 1:00:57

1:01:22 Louis, did you have something? And then after that, we'll take a break. Well, I don't even think you could have language if things inherently existed. Because you couldn't label them. They would already be whatever they are from their own side. So that you couldn't name it. It already has its name and you would know it. So there's no conceptual thought involved. It's all direct experience without any. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:22 Highlight the passage at 1:01:22

1:01:53 And so you can't change your name. You can't go to court, change your name. You can't do anything. So there wouldn't be any language. So it comes to that. Fundamental level inherent means that's it no matter what. Good point. It is. It is that in and of itself. Right. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:53 Highlight the passage at 1:01:53

1:02:28 So just to finish this section where it says the assertion of a self established through its own entity is for the sake of establishing an agent, discarding and adopting aggregates. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:28 Highlight the passage at 1:02:28

1:02:41 Because if you were one with the aggregates, this would be impossible. So, okay, so first of all. We have to kind of, I mean, some of this reasoning is predicated on believing that there are multiple lives. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:41 Highlight the passage at 1:02:41

1:03:00 So we think there are multiple lives, right? We think there is a self that takes on new aggregates in each life, right? The self that takes on a new body and mind and it dies. It discards the old aggregates. When it's reborn, it takes on new aggregates, right? So in that sense we think that there's a self that's separate from the aggregates, right? A self that then takes on new aggregates. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:00 Highlight the passage at 1:03:00

1:03:29 But if they were the same inherent entity, then they would have to be exactly the same and you couldn't, right? You couldn't have a self that takes on new aggregates. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:29 Highlight the passage at 1:03:29

1:03:50 So then Nagarjuna says in his root wisdom or fundamental wisdom, I'm changing this quote a little bit. Based on what Hopkins has in his text. Once you have understood that apart from the appropriated aggregates there is no self, so once we've refuted that there's no self other than the aggregates, if you claim that the aggregates themselves are the self, Report an error in the passage at 1:03:50 Highlight the passage at 1:03:50

1:04:28 then it's not feasible. Well, that self. Is not feasible. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:28 Highlight the passage at 1:04:28

1:04:37 So if we refute, okay, that the self is separate from the aggregates and we claim that the self is the aggregates, right, that position isn't feasible either, right, for the reasons that we talked about. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:37 Highlight the passage at 1:04:37

1:05:02 Okay, so this stuff is, yeah, as I was saying, we have to think about it and think about it and think about it and think about it. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:02 Highlight the passage at 1:05:02

1:05:13 It takes a long time. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:13 Highlight the passage at 1:05:13

1:05:21 So... Are we ready for a break or should we go on to the next? Report an error in the passage at 1:05:21 Highlight the passage at 1:05:21

1:05:29 Body and mind, wants a break? All right, we'll take a break then. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:29 Highlight the passage at 1:05:29

1:05:49 Hopkins 67. Well, 67 is the final exposition of wisdom. If you have a different translation, I don't know. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:49 Highlight the passage at 1:05:49

1:06:10 exactly. Well, your daughter remembers that part. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:10 Highlight the passage at 1:06:10

1:06:17 She'll never be back. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:17 Highlight the passage at 1:06:17

1:06:30 I have Report an error in the passage at 1:06:30 Highlight the passage at 1:06:30

1:06:37 no problem with body and mind. Yoda Report an error in the passage at 1:06:37 Highlight the passage at 1:06:37

1:06:46 has some wisdom there. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:46 Highlight the passage at 1:06:46

1:06:55 So this first refutation is quite powerful, right? I'll never I know. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:55 Highlight the passage at 1:06:55

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:06:53 right. Okay. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:53 Highlight the passage at 1:06:53

1:07:01 The aggregates can't be the self, because then it would be superfluous, pointless to assert a self. And then the second refutation we went over already, if the aggregates and the self were exactly the same, then there would be many selves, just like there are many aggregates. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:01 Highlight the passage at 1:07:01

1:07:35 So we get this point, like the car and the parts of the car. They're the same entity, right? But if I ask you, is it one thing from its own side or is it many things from its own side? Report an error in the passage at 1:07:35 Highlight the passage at 1:07:35

1:08:04 Is it one thing from its own side or is it many things from its own side? It's one of those trick questions, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:08:04 Highlight the passage at 1:08:04

1:08:17 Well, I mean, you have to say, right, it depends on how you look at it, right? If you look at it in one way. It's one thing. If you look at it, if you look at the same thing in one way, it's one thing. If you look at the same thing in another way, it's many things, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:08:17 Highlight the passage at 1:08:17

1:08:36 So what is it from its own side? Report an error in the passage at 1:08:36 Highlight the passage at 1:08:36

1:08:45 But if existed from its own side, it would have to be either one thing or many, right? Nothing can be one and many at the same time, right, from its own side. But you can look at it in terms of one or you can look at it in terms of many, which then we see the mind comes into play then, right? The mind comes into play. It doesn't exist independently of the mind as one or many. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:45 Highlight the passage at 1:08:45

1:09:20 But if it existed independently of the mind, inherently, intrinsically, from its own side, then Report an error in the passage at 1:09:20 Highlight the passage at 1:09:20

1:09:30 it would have to be one or many. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:30 Highlight the passage at 1:09:30

1:09:38 Okay, so third fault of the self and the aggregates being. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:38 Highlight the passage at 1:09:38

1:09:50 The self would have production and a destruction. What does that mean? So the self would have to come into existence as well as go out of existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:50 Highlight the passage at 1:09:50

1:10:09 So we might think, that's no problem. Yeah, the self comes into existence. It goes out of existence. It changes. In one sense we think, oh yeah, the self changes and it goes into existence. It comes out of existence. Self is born. It dies. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:09 Highlight the passage at 1:10:09

1:10:26 So if we say that, okay, bottom of page 268, well, you may think that that's not a fault, right? It is asserted that the self or person is produced and destroyed in each moment. Well, there's no fault in merely asserting this conventionally. So the body and mind do change from moment to moment. The self does change from moment to moment conventionally because the body and mind changes from moment to moment. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:26 Highlight the passage at 1:10:26

1:11:00 And then we impute a self on that. That's no problem conventionally, right? So the mind is tying all of these moments together into something we call the self. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:00 Highlight the passage at 1:11:00

1:11:14 The mind is tying all these moments together into something that we call the self. But if it existed from its own side, Report an error in the passage at 1:11:14 Highlight the passage at 1:11:14

1:11:35 then when it changed, it would be something completely different. Well, first of all, if it existed from its own side, it couldn't change. If it existed independent of the mind, in and of itself, it couldn't change. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:35 Highlight the passage at 1:11:35

1:12:09 So if we talk about birth and death, Report an error in the passage at 1:12:09 Highlight the passage at 1:12:09

1:12:23 top of page 269. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:23 Highlight the passage at 1:12:23

1:12:30 269 and Hopkins page 69. Top of page 269. So there are three faults of the self having inherent production and destruction. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:30 Highlight the passage at 1:12:30

1:12:51 So first of all, Lama Tsongkhapa quotes Chandrakirti's entrance to the middle way, Madhyamaka Vatara. Things distinct by their characteristics included in a single continuum do not make sense. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:51 Highlight the passage at 1:12:51

1:13:14 So something existing from its own side, And having a continuum does not make sense. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:14 Highlight the passage at 1:13:14

1:13:30 Okay, so if we look at, on a gross level, the person of this life and the person of the previous life. We say it's the same person, right? We say it's the same continuum, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:13:30 Highlight the passage at 1:13:30

1:13:51 this is a or at least Report an error in the passage at 1:13:51 Highlight the passage at 1:13:51

1:13:58 This person was reborn into the next life. So we think of it as being the same person, in a sense, the same person. Not exactly the same, but a continuity of the same person. Would we agree with that? The Report an error in the passage at 1:13:58 Highlight the passage at 1:13:58

1:14:26 aggregates are different. The aggregates of the previous life are different from the aggregates of this life. In the previous life, the aggregates of the previous life... Report an error in the passage at 1:14:26 Highlight the passage at 1:14:26

1:14:38 We're discarded. And then in this life we took on new aggregates. So if the self was the aggregates, it's the same as the aggregates, that self of the previous life would have been destroyed, utterly destroyed when the aggregates died, let's say. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:38 Highlight the passage at 1:14:38

1:15:13 When the person of the previous life died, when the aggregates, gosh, yeah, If the self and aggregates died, then that self would be utterly destroyed, would utterly go out of existence. And Report an error in the passage at 1:15:13 Highlight the passage at 1:15:13

1:15:38 the self of this life wouldn't have any relationship to the self of the previous life because there are different aggregates. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:38 Highlight the passage at 1:15:38

1:15:49 If the self and aggregates were the same, then the self of this life would be totally different and unrelated to the self of the previous life. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:49 Highlight the passage at 1:15:49

1:16:07 Because the aggregates are totally different. The aggregates of this life, okay, if we took an example, let's say I was an Report an error in the passage at 1:16:07 Highlight the passage at 1:16:07

1:16:21 Iranian man in my previous life. Those aggregates are gone, right? I am not an aggregate, I mean an Iranian man in this life as far as I know. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:21 Highlight the passage at 1:16:21

1:16:38 So there's an Iranian man in the previous life and there's a... Chinese-American female in this life, right? Aggregates are totally different, right? So if the self was the same as the aggregates, we'd be totally separate selves. No Report an error in the passage at 1:16:38 Highlight the passage at 1:16:38

1:17:03 relationship. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:03 Highlight the passage at 1:17:03

1:17:08 So Report an error in the passage at 1:17:08 Highlight the passage at 1:17:08

1:17:14 then the first fault would be that there would be no memory of former lives, right? Because that... Self of the previous life and the self of this life have no relationship. They are completely separate. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:14 Highlight the passage at 1:17:14

1:17:35 So how would it be possible for me to remember? Not that I do, right? But there are accounts, right, of people remembering their previous life. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:35 Highlight the passage at 1:17:35

1:17:49 So... Report an error in the passage at 1:17:49 Highlight the passage at 1:17:49

1:17:53 Alright, so Lama Tsongkhapa says, with respect to something earlier and something later established as distinct by way of their own entities, a relationship of dependence between what is later and what is earlier is inadmissible. Because since they are established as capable of setting themselves up with their own power, they cannot depend on anything else. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:53 Highlight the passage at 1:17:53

1:18:19 So, another way of saying inherently existing, right? Able to set itself up under its own power, existing in and of itself. So if it exists in and of itself, it cannot depend on anything else. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:19 Highlight the passage at 1:18:19

1:18:38 So then a single continuum is therefore inadmissible, because a continuum, one moment of continuum, depends on the previous continuum, which depends on the previous continuum. And since there's no dependence, because everything's set up in and of itself, exists in and of itself, Under its own power, then it can't depend on anything else. And so then a continuum is impossible. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:38 Highlight the passage at 1:18:38

1:19:13 If a single continuum is impossible, then the memory of former lives does not make sense. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:13 Highlight the passage at 1:19:13

1:19:27 So, Lama Tsongkhapa says, it's like with Devadatta when he remembers his former lives. He doesn't remember that I was Yajanadatta, whose continuum is distinct from his. So if I remembered my previous lives, if I remembered myself as being an Iranian man, that would be like my remembering when I was Peter because the two unrelated, distinct entities in and of themselves. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:27 Highlight the passage at 1:19:27

1:20:12 Does that make sense? Of course it takes cooking, right? At least on the superficial level. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:12 Highlight the passage at 1:20:12

1:20:29 So first fault of the self having inherent production and destruction. Second one, actions done will be wasted. So this is karma, right? So one of the laws of karma, right, is whatever karma that I create is experienced by the same person in the same continuum later, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:20:29 Highlight the passage at 1:20:29

1:20:58 So if we talk about karma from... Between lives, right? An action that was created in one life would be experienced by someone totally different, right? You wouldn't be the same person experiencing the result of that action because the Iranian man and the Chinese American woman are unrelatedly different if they existed from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:58 Highlight the passage at 1:20:58

1:21:39 It's really hard, right, to put our minds into, okay, well, what would it mean if it was inherently existent? It would mean the past life and the previous life would be totally separate, totally unrelated. It would be two separate people, unrelated, so they have different aggregates, right? And they exist in and of themselves, so they can't depend on each other. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:39 Highlight the passage at 1:21:39

1:22:03 So then the actions done in this life would not be experienced by the same person. So the actions or the karma created in this life would not be experienced by the same person. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:03 Highlight the passage at 1:22:03

1:22:26 Lama Tsongkhapa says, the fault that actions done would be wasted is that both the agent of the action, the creator of the action, and the experiencer of its result could not be grouped together on the one basis of the mere I. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:26 Highlight the passage at 1:22:26

1:22:42 So once again, so conventionally, we can say it's the same continuum, it's the same, yeah. The same person experiencing, you know, who commits the action as experienced the action because Report an error in the passage at 1:22:42 Highlight the passage at 1:22:42

1:23:01 upon that many moments of that continuum, I can group those moments together mentally under the label person or I or me. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:01 Highlight the passage at 1:23:01

1:23:19 Label many different moments me. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:19 Highlight the passage at 1:23:19

1:23:28 Just like with the Hurricane Irene, right? Many different ever-changing moments that we call Hurricane Irene. It's not one solid concrete thing. So similarly, there are many different moments in that mental continuum that we can call, we can group together as being the same person, me. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:28 Highlight the passage at 1:23:28

1:23:59 Conventionally, but if existed from its own side, then a continuum. Related moments is impossible because they exist in and of themselves under their own power independently. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:59 Highlight the passage at 1:23:59

1:24:18 And then similarly the third fault would be meeting with results of actions not done. So that follows on that Emily in this life would meet with the results of karma that I never created. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:18 Highlight the passage at 1:24:18

1:24:38 Because that Iranian man who has nothing to do with me created it. And this Chinese-American female had to experience the results because those two beings would exist in and of themselves, unrelated. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:38 Highlight the passage at 1:24:38

1:25:04 Okay, Report an error in the passage at 1:25:04 Highlight the passage at 1:25:04

1:25:08 so then just finishing up this section, these two faults are associated with the essential, or at bottom page 269, these two faults are associated with the essential point explained in Chandrakirti's entrance to the middle way and above. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:08 Highlight the passage at 1:25:08

1:25:26 Accordingly, if the person were established by way of its own entity, its earlier and later moments could not be the same continuum. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:26 Highlight the passage at 1:25:26

1:25:39 Okay, I'm thinking that we shouldn't slam more information in our heads right now. But yeah, let's take questions, discussion. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:39 Highlight the passage at 1:25:39

1:26:07 Many moments of me. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:07 Highlight the passage at 1:26:07

1:26:30 this kind of seems like it might be summing it up right here, how that merrily imputed slightly barely does exist, this ADNC. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:30 Highlight the passage at 1:26:30

1:26:50 Will you say more on your question? I'm not sure I'm getting... So these A, B, and C are the faults if the self and the aggregates were the same, right? And you asserted that the self was... Report an error in the passage at 1:26:50 Highlight the passage at 1:26:50

1:27:18 Produced and destroyed along with the aggregates. So if the self was produced and destroyed along with the aggregates, then the self of this life would be totally different from the self of the previous life. And you wouldn't be able to remember previous lives, or it would be impossible, let's say, to remember previous lives. You wouldn't, you know, the actions that you create now, you wouldn't have to experience the result as well as... Report an error in the passage at 1:27:18 Highlight the passage at 1:27:18

1:27:48 If you experience, I mean you would experience a result that you didn't create, of an action you didn't create. So those are the absurd consequences of holding the self and the aggregates are the same. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:48 Highlight the passage at 1:27:48

1:28:02 I don't know if that addresses your question. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:02 Highlight the passage at 1:28:02

1:28:11 It's just touchy, I think. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:11 Highlight the passage at 1:28:11

1:28:22 Yeah, this mic is taking some getting used to. Wireless is nice. So it's on now. I'm scaring myself, I'm so loud. I guess what I'm saying is that the opposite of this then would be that there is this subtle way that things do merely exist from lifetime to lifetime. Or no. Yeah. As merely imputed, yeah, there is a subtle way that things exist, right? And isn't this them right here, this A, B, and C? Report an error in the passage at 1:28:22 Highlight the passage at 1:28:22

1:28:57 No. No. It would be the opposite of A, B, and C. Right, that's what I'm saying, the opposite. The opposite, right. Wouldn't the opposite be the way actually things do exist? Yeah, so the way things do exist is the opposite. So instead of there would be no memory of former lives, what memory of former lives is possible, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:28:57 Highlight the passage at 1:28:57

1:29:17 Instead of actions done would be wasted, actions done would be experienced, right, by the same person. Instead of meeting with results of actions not done is that we would never meet with actions not done. We would only meet with actions that are with the karma, the result of actions that we've created. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:17 Highlight the passage at 1:29:17

1:29:40 So exactly, it's the opposite of those three is how things actually conventionally exist. And those are merely labeled by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:40 Highlight the passage at 1:29:40

1:29:59 so yeah, other Report an error in the passage at 1:29:59 Highlight the passage at 1:29:59

1:30:03 Questions? Concerns? What I was just going to say, this is probably more of a comment than a question, but when I first started meeting with these teachings, I could kind of apprehend it intellectually, but it really didn't have a lot of meaning for me until I started applying it in terms of conflicts within myself or conflicts with other people. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:03 Highlight the passage at 1:30:03

1:30:29 And it really is the way I think to make this more real is, you know, if you have somebody that you have a difficult relationship with, if you have a habit or an issue that comes up for you again and again, you can apply all of these things in a very direct, practical way and really dissolve them. And it's helped me to break up things that were, you know, difficulties for me for many, many years of my life. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:29 Highlight the passage at 1:30:29

1:30:54 And also deal with people in my life with whom I have had very difficult relationships with. This is how it works. And this is the way to prove to yourself also that these are why the teachings are valid. Because as long as it's just kind of in the intellectual sphere, it doesn't have the relevance. Yeah, exactly. We have to use it. Exactly, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:54 Highlight the passage at 1:30:54

1:31:19 I mean, that's the purpose of it, right? Not to do intellectual gymnastics. So when we try to identify the object of refutation, or when the mind gets stuck on, okay, well, okay, so I can see that the self isn't really, but the self must be. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:19 Highlight the passage at 1:31:19

1:31:52 The mental consciousness, right? Because it's the subtle level of mental consciousness that goes from life to life, right? I mean, the mind keeps getting stuck, right? Well, it must be something, right? So then we can use a refutation. Okay, well, the self, oh, if the self was the mental consciousness, then the self would have to be exactly the same as the mental consciousness, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:31:52 Highlight the passage at 1:31:52

1:32:14 So when I say, I have a cold, I could say equally, mental consciousness has a cold. Or, um... Gosh, I'm really frustrated. Mental consciousness is frustrated. I'm really feeling fat today. Oh, mental consciousness is really feeling fat today. Right? Does it make sense? So this is where it can be really practical. And then, you know, I have a mental consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:14 Highlight the passage at 1:32:14

1:32:46 Mental consciousness has a mental consciousness. Oh, okay. So that starts to break down our belief that the I is the mental consciousness. Because we have to, you know, we have minds that so want to grasp onto something, right? So we need to look at it in very different, many different ways, right, to break that down. Okay, so I see, I see, okay, that the, that, okay, so I can see that the I isn't, you know, the mental consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:46 Highlight the passage at 1:32:46

1:33:23 Okay, but. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:23 Highlight the passage at 1:33:23

1:33:27 It's the mind basis of all, right? It must be the carrier of the karmic seeds, right? Okay, so if it's the carrier of the karmic seeds, if it's the mind basis of all, which Prasangis don't even believe in, but if it was, right? So I am feeling really frustrated. Mind basis of all is feeling really frustrated. I'm feeling fat. Oh, mind basis of all is feeling fat. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:27 Highlight the passage at 1:33:27

1:33:54 I, you know, I can't believe you said that to me. Oh, mind basis, you can't believe you said that to mind basis of all, right? Mind basis of all. That's right, right? You know, I was at such and ling tonight. Mind basis of all was at such and ling tonight. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:54 Highlight the passage at 1:33:54

1:34:16 And then once again, there's always the I have a mind basis of all. Mind basis of all has a mind basis of all, or my mind basis of all. Mind basis of all is mind basis of all, right? So we keep going until we become convinced, right, that, oh, well, that doesn't really make sense for the me to be the mind basis of all. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:16 Highlight the passage at 1:34:16

1:34:47 So we keep going because some of those, you know, and it might just kind of soften it a bit and it takes time, right, to become really convinced. But that's what we need to do is we just keep working at it until, right. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:47 Highlight the passage at 1:34:47

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:35:01 There's no doubt in our minds, right? And that just takes time and merit and thinking about it and meditating on it. So I notice I get stuck again and again. Oh, well, okay, it's not that we Report an error in the passage at 1:35:01 Highlight the passage at 1:35:01

1:35:22 need to work through that again and again until we develop certainty, right? Certainty free from doubt. So that's where it becomes really practical. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:22 Highlight the passage at 1:35:22

1:35:35 And there will be times, right, when we're utterly convinced that that inherently exists in itself exists, right? Because we have a very strong sense of it, right? Like with fear, right? You almost get hit by a car and we have this strong sense of a me pervading the body and mind. I... Almost got hit by a car. I almost died. And so with that experience, then checking, okay, is it possible for that I to make sense? Report an error in the passage at 1:35:35 Highlight the passage at 1:35:35

1:36:16 And every pore of our body will say, of course that I exists. I can feel it. It's right there. Because the feeling is there. And then we meditate. Okay, well, what could that I be? That I that I believe so strongly in, could that exist the way I think it exists? Is it possible for that to exist? And then we use reasoning to say, okay, well, can it exist? Report an error in the passage at 1:36:16 Highlight the passage at 1:36:16

1:36:46 Okay, well, it would have to be one with the aggregates or separate from the aggregates, right? Does it have to be one with the aggregates or different from the aggregates? Report an error in the passage at 1:36:46 Highlight the passage at 1:36:46

1:36:59 One with the aggregates. Oh, well, but then these are the consequences. Oh, okay, well, maybe it's not. Maybe it's different from the aggregates and then go through the consequences. And then the mind wants to give up and say, oh. Forget it, that's too hard, right? But in order to realize it, we need to stick with it. Because it's uncomfortable, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:36:59 Highlight the passage at 1:36:59

1:37:21 It's uncomfortable and we don't like to nail things down so specifically, precisely. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:21 Highlight the passage at 1:37:21

1:37:35 We do. Good. I don't know if that's on. I think it's on. Is it on? No, it is. For me, this part, this three faults of having... Inherent production and destruction. The reason it's hard for me to get my head around it is I think that I don't see the faults necessarily from my own personal experience. There would be no memory of former lives. Well, I don't have any memory of former lives. Actions done would be wasted. Well, I don't know that they're not because I don't have any memory of a former life. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:35 Highlight the passage at 1:37:35

1:38:18 Meeting them with the results of actions not done, I don't know that that doesn't happen. And I think our Our regular understanding of things, like 9-11, people would say those people met with things that were not there. So the Western culture is just the way I was raised to think about it. I just don't see these as necessarily not true in my own experience. So I have to take somebody else's word for it, that reincarnation exists, that it happens, that something goes from life to life. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:18 Highlight the passage at 1:38:18

1:38:50 And so it's hard for me to reconcile that stuff because that's somebody else's idea. Right, I mean, yeah, you don't. I mean, you haven't developed that belief yet in, well, I shouldn't even say yet. You don't have that belief in past and future lives, right? And it's not even clear to me, like, because I have books on reincarnation. I have several books that relate the stories of people who say that they have remembered their former lives and have some. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:50 Highlight the passage at 1:38:50

1:39:19 Corroboration about it. People investigated it and said, yeah, this kid is remembering things that nobody would know except this old fellow who died down the road. So it seems like it's true in those particular cases. But even some of those things, some people say they never understood why they had a phobia of this or they had this pain or something and then they regress and they remember a past life where they were drowning, where they were Shot in the neck or something, you know, where they have trouble with their voice in this life. So they experienced a fear that somehow that fear got transmitted. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:19 Highlight the passage at 1:39:19

1:39:58 So that sense of I got transmitted from life to life. So all this is sort of confusing to me. Like I try to reconcile what I've heard about reincarnation with these things and my own experience. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:58 Highlight the passage at 1:39:58

1:40:10 What you just said was about the practical part. That totally makes sense. Okay. So let me address. Yeah, so let's do the same thing within this life. So the Joe that was 12 years old and the Joe that's now. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:10 Highlight the passage at 1:40:10

1:40:31 The body was very different at 12. The mind was very different at 12. So the aggregates were different at 12 than now. right? So, if the self... It was the same as the aggregates. It would be a completely different self at 12 and now. And if it existed in and of itself, then there would be a Joe at 12 that existed in and of itself, not dependent, and Report an error in the passage at 1:40:31 Highlight the passage at 1:40:31

1:41:13 a Joe of now that exists in and of itself. And it couldn't be related because the aggregates are different, right? The aggregates at 12 and the aggregates of now are different. So the self... It would have to be different and unrelatedly different if Report an error in the passage at 1:41:13 Highlight the passage at 1:41:13

1:41:41 it existed from its own side, under its own power, in and of itself. It couldn't depend on anything else. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:41 Highlight the passage at 1:41:41

1:41:52 So then we can do the same analysis. Okay, so the Joe of now wouldn't be able to remember the Joe of 12 years old, wouldn't be able to remember anything that happened to Joe. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:52 Highlight the passage at 1:41:52

1:42:11 It would be like being able to remember what happened to Peter at 12 years old. They would be equally unrelatedly different if they existed in and of itself. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:11 Highlight the passage at 1:42:11

1:42:27 I mean, it's something, right, we have to think about. But we can do the same thing within the same life, right? And what happened at 12 wouldn't affect the person of now, right? So if I got... Made fun of when I was 12, that wouldn't affect the person of today because they're unrelatedly different. They're different selves. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:27 Highlight the passage at 1:42:27

1:43:00 And similarly, I wouldn't experience... I mean, it's the same thing, looking at different ways, right? The action of the 12-year-old wouldn't affect the person now, and the person now wouldn't experience the result of what the 12-year-old did. So we can do it within the same life as well. It's just not quite as obvious within the same life. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:00 Highlight the passage at 1:43:00

1:43:38 It seems a little bit like semantics. Because if you say it's inherently existing means unchanging, well, why does it mean unchanging? I see myself as a continuum. I'm not the same person as I was when I was 12. My aggregates aren't the same, my consciousness isn't the same, my memories aren't the same. I'm totally different, but the things that happen at 12, there's been a continual cause and effect relationship between the stuff that was going on at 12 and the stuff that's going on. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:38 Highlight the passage at 1:43:38

1:44:18 It's totally different and it's always changing. Right, so this is where we have to really look at what inherent existence would mean. If it existed... From its own side, in and of itself, independent, under its own power, it Report an error in the passage at 1:44:18 Highlight the passage at 1:44:18

1:44:42 couldn't change. So that's something to really think about. If it existed in and of itself, under its own power, it couldn't change. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:42 Highlight the passage at 1:44:42

1:44:55 It would always be the same. And causes and conditions wouldn't affect it. Right, so... So we see things as being a continuum. What is a continuum? Does it exist in and of itself? Report an error in the passage at 1:44:55 Highlight the passage at 1:44:55

1:45:32 The mind appreciates cause and effect more Report an error in the passage at 1:45:32 Highlight the passage at 1:45:32

1:45:46 than the light. Okay. I don't know. It just kind of seems like to the extent that the mind can appreciate cause and effect, that's a continuum. Like if I can see a cause and effect and a cause and effect and a cause and effect and I can link them together, I call it a continuum. But a continuum doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:46 Highlight the passage at 1:45:46

1:46:06 Apart from the mind's perception of cause and effect, I think. So the continuum doesn't exist independent of the mind. So it can't be inherently existing, right? If that's what inherently existing means. If it was inherently existing, it would exist in and of itself independent of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:06 Highlight the passage at 1:46:06

1:46:34 So it's the mind that groups together those moments, those cause and effect moments, right? Into something we call a continuum, into something that we consider to be a singular thing, right? It's the mind that does it. So the mind is imputing continuum on a series of moments, right? Or a series of cause and effect. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:34 Highlight the passage at 1:46:34

1:46:59 So it can't be inherently existent. because if inherently existent it would exist in Independent of the mind. Independent of a conception, grouping those things together. Yeah, that part I think I can get into. Yeah. So then these consequences make sense, right? So if it was existed from its own side, then there couldn't be a continuum. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:59 Highlight the passage at 1:46:59

1:47:28 Because what creates a continuum, what Report an error in the passage at 1:47:28 Highlight the passage at 1:47:28

1:47:33 establishes a continuum is the mind grouping. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:33 Highlight the passage at 1:47:33

1:47:38 Those things together. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:38 Highlight the passage at 1:47:38

1:47:43 So we'll have to think about it. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:43 Highlight the passage at 1:47:43

1:47:52 Okay, so there's lots to think about. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:52 Highlight the passage at 1:47:52

1:47:57 We didn't do a meditation tonight. Okay, so I'll send out the homework. And I'm planning on having class next Tuesday. So unless you hear from me. But check your email before you come. Yeah, I'm... Optimistic about being able to have class next Tuesday, but it's possible I'll be totally wiped out and won't be able to do it. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:57 Highlight the passage at 1:47:57

1:48:28 Yeah, and especially, you know. So, yeah. Okay. So, this will be good to contemplate, right? Contemplate these consequences and make them very real in our lives. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:28 Highlight the passage at 1:48:28

1:48:51 And continue to try to identify the object of negation. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:51 Highlight the passage at 1:48:51

1:49:07 Yep, difficult in the evening, right, when you're already tired. So we'll do the dedications on page 240 until the middle of 241. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:07 Highlight the passage at 1:49:07

1:49:29 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 1:49:29 Highlight the passage at 1:49:29

1:49:52 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 1:49:52 Highlight the passage at 1:49:52

1:50:11 Like Lama Tsongkhapa, may I be able to offer extensive benefits equaling the limitless sky to all sentient beings in teachings of Buddha. From now on in all future lives by having all the qualities of Lama Tsongkhapa within me. Because of the past, present and future merit by me and all the Buddhist and sentient beings, may I, my family, disciples and all sentient beings be able to actualize completely in this very lifetime Lama Tsongkhapa's path of unified sūtra and tantra, which is pure like refined gold. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:11 Highlight the passage at 1:50:11

1:50:46 May this pure teaching of Lama Tsongkhapa spread in all directions and flourish forever. Because of all the merits of the three times created by me and all the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and other sentient beings, may there be no wars, famines, disease, quarreling, fighting or unhappy minds. May there be great prosperity and may everything needed be easily obtained. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:46 Highlight the passage at 1:50:46

1:51:09 May all the human beings in the world be guided by spiritual leaders teaching only Dharma and may everyone enjoy the happiness of Dharma. May everyone have perfect conditions and have only compassion and love for each other in their mind streams and may they only benefit and never harm each other. We Report an error in the passage at 1:51:09 Highlight the passage at 1:51:09

1:51:38 pray for the complete recovery of Lama Tsongkhapa Rinpoche. Lama Report an error in the passage at 1:51:38 Highlight the passage at 1:51:38

1:51:54 Tsongkhapa Rinpoche, Geshe Dagpa, His Holiness the Dalai Lama. And all our spiritual masters and Report an error in the passage at 1:51:54 Highlight the passage at 1:51:54

1:52:12 urging them to return again and again to teach us until Report an error in the passage at 1:52:12 Highlight the passage at 1:52:12

1:52:24 we're all out of saṃsāra. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:24 Highlight the passage at 1:52:24

1:52:52 Thank you. Have a good week. Thank you. Screw up my head some more. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:52 Highlight the passage at 1:52:52

1:53:02 This is such a great practice trying to explain this stuff, let me tell you. I'm Report an error in the passage at 1:53:02 Highlight the passage at 1:53:02

1:53:15 not sure why this is buzzing this week and wasn't buzzing, doesn't normally buzz. You're going to come back Report an error in the passage at 1:53:15 Highlight the passage at 1:53:15

1:53:31 I think it buzzed last week, did it? Because this was moved a ton. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:31 Highlight the passage at 1:53:31

1:53:52 Okay. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:52 Highlight the passage at 1:53:52

1:54:10 Janie, can I get them? Thank you. Stephen has time, he's going to try to Report an error in the passage at 1:54:10 Highlight the passage at 1:54:10