Special Insight 3: Wisdom of Emptiness (11 October 2011)

0:06 was laughing at how his daughter does that. No, no, I didn't do that. That's like very, very, wow, Peter, I think that's really important to her. Yes. How are you? It's been a long time. Nice to see you. Nice to see you. Nice to see you too. Yeah, I've turned into a Yeti. Very good luck. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 0:06 Highlight the passage at 0:06

0:29 I got just sick of shaving. It's just pretty cool. How would you get it? Because it's the same colors that you wear. Oh, yeah. can't believe it. Very creative. Oh, my God, it's creepy. It's because of you. Success or faith? Very well. It's about the same. Right? Very good. you. are you teaching? I am a teacher with the writing scene. Report an error in the passage at 0:29 Highlight the passage at 0:29

1:01 Yeah, I am teaching the story in that way. She's got a writing story. She's got a writing story. She's got a writing story. Yeah, this is... Thank you. teaching a short story. I really love it. Yes. Say it in heaven for me. I love it, yes. It's going to be better. I'm just going to do it. It's an ensemble, you know, here two days a week. Okay, fine. Okay. You're not using that? Yeah, I'm using that. I'm just going to figure it out. Report an error in the passage at 1:01 Highlight the passage at 1:01

1:27 It's more like home taking. Yeah, I'm Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:27 Highlight the passage at 1:27

2:00 something. Report an error in the passage at 2:00 Highlight the passage at 2:00

2:08 Mark Brian Wilson Yeah, there you Report an error in the passage at 2:08 Highlight the passage at 2:08

2:30 He's banana, he's banana. Report an error in the passage at 2:30 Highlight the passage at 2:30

2:41 Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 2:41 Highlight the passage at 2:41

2:48 Oh, I have to see it. I can see it here. What's good is he's making it cool for guys to feel like they can be good friends, which I think is Yeah, yeah. Do we Report an error in the passage at 2:48 Highlight the passage at 2:48

3:07 have Report an error in the passage at 3:07 Highlight the passage at 3:07

3:25 everyone? Get Report an error in the passage at 3:25 Highlight the passage at 3:25

· · · silence, 1 minute

4:24 started. There's a Medicine Buddha puja that's going to start soon, I think, or maybe already started. So there's a little activity. Report an error in the passage at 4:24 Highlight the passage at 4:24

4:36 All right, so let's start settling our minds, Report an error in the passage at 4:36 Highlight the passage at 4:36

5:09 putting our attention on the inhalation and the exhalation of the breath. Report an error in the passage at 5:09 Highlight the passage at 5:09

5:36 Letting the thoughts fade into the background and Report an error in the passage at 5:36 Highlight the passage at 5:36

· · · silence, 1 minute

6:58 then trying to set a bodhicitta motivation to Report an error in the passage at 6:58 Highlight the passage at 6:58

7:06 these beings around us inevitably. Report an error in the passage at 7:06 Highlight the passage at 7:06

· · · silence, 1 minute

8:17 So developing compassion, the plight of sentient beings, Report an error in the passage at 8:17 Highlight the passage at 8:17

8:28 needless suffering that occurs. Report an error in the passage at 8:28 Highlight the passage at 8:28

8:39 I wish to free all these beings. Report an error in the passage at 8:39 Highlight the passage at 8:39

· · · silence, 1 minute

9:28 We will start with the praise to Manjushri in the white book on the first page. Report an error in the passage at 9:28 Highlight the passage at 9:28

9:49 Obey sense to my guru and protector Manjushri. Who holds to his heart a scriptural text symbolic of his seeing all things as they are. Whose intelligence shines forth as a sun, unclouded by delusions or traces of ignorance. Who teaches in sixty ways with the loving compassion of a father for his only son. All creatures caught in the prison of saṃsāra, confused in the darkness of their ignorance, overwhelmed by their suffering. Report an error in the passage at 9:49 Highlight the passage at 9:49

10:15 You whose dragon thunder like proclamation of Dharma. Arouses us from the stupor of our delusions and frees us from the iron chains of our karma, who wields the sword of wisdom hewing down suffering wherever its sprouts appear, clearing away the darkness of ignorance. You, whose princely body is adorned with the 112 marks of a Buddha, who has completed the stages achieving the highest perfection of a bodhisattva, who has been pure from the beginning, I bow down to you, O Manjushri. Report an error in the passage at 10:15 Highlight the passage at 10:15

10:55 With the brilliance of your wisdom, O compassionate one, illuminate the darkness in closing my mind. Enlighten my intelligence and wisdom so that I may gain insight into Buddha's words and the texts that explain them. And then the Heart Sūtra on page 76. Report an error in the passage at 10:55 Highlight the passage at 10:55

11:20 76, Heart Sūtra. I Report an error in the passage at 11:20 Highlight the passage at 11:20

11:31 prostrate to the Arya Triple Gem. Thus did I hear at one time, the Bhagavan was dwelling on Massavulture's mountain in Rajgriya, together with a great community of monks and a great community of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Bhagavan was absorbed in the concentration on the categories of phenomena called profound perception. Also at that time, the bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalokitesvara, 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 11:31 Highlight the passage at 11:31

12:03 Then through the power of Buddha, the venerable Shariputra said this to the bodhisattva, mahasattva, Arya Avalokitesvara. 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 Avalokitesvara said this to the venerable Sharivadiputra. Report an error in the passage at 12:03 Highlight the passage at 12:03

12:25 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 12:25 Highlight the passage at 12:25

12:53 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, no visual form, no sound, no odor, no taste, no object of touch and no phenomenon. Report an error in the passage at 12:53 Highlight the passage at 12:53

13:24 There is no I element and so on, up to and including no mind element and no mental consciousness element. There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance and so on, up to and including no aging and death and no extinction of aging and death. Similarly, there is no suffering, origination, cessation and path. There is no exalted wisdom, no attainment and also no non-attainment. Report an error in the passage at 13:24 Highlight the passage at 13:24

13:49 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 three times also manifestly completely awaken to unsurpassable, perfect, complete enlightenment in reliance on the perfection of wisdom. Report an error in the passage at 13:49 Highlight the passage at 13:49

14:15 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. Thayata om gate gate paragate parasam gate bodhisoha. Report an error in the passage at 14:15 Highlight the passage at 14:15

14:38 Shariputra, 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. It is like that. One should practice the profound perfection of wisdom just as you have indicated. Even the Tadattagas rejoice. Report an error in the passage at 14:38 Highlight the passage at 14:38

15:03 The Bhagavan having thus spoken, the venerable Sharivadiputra, the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalokiteshvara, and those surrounding in the entirety, along with the world of gods, humans, asuras, and Gandharvas, were overjoyed and highly praised that spoken by the Bhagavan. And then on page 98 is refuge in bodhicitta. Report an error in the passage at 15:03 Highlight the passage at 15:03

15:35 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. Report an error in the passage at 15:35 Highlight the passage at 15:35

16:00 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 16:00 Highlight the passage at 16:00

16:22 So we've been talking about emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 16:22 Highlight the passage at 16:22

16:28 So, you know, when we go for refuge in the three jewels, what's the real refuge out of those three? The Buddha, the Dharma and Saṅgha. It's the Dharma, right? And there's two aspects of the Dharma. There's the scriptural Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha. And then there's the realizations of the Dharma. So ultimately we're taking refuge in the realizations of the Dharma. Report an error in the passage at 16:28 Highlight the passage at 16:28

17:01 And what is the big realization? Emptiness. Yeah, exactly. So we're taking refuge actually in the... Realization of the Dharma, the realization of emptiness in our own minds, our future or our present realization of emptiness, where we are. Report an error in the passage at 17:01 Highlight the passage at 17:01

17:28 And the Saṅgha, technically speaking, are the Arya Saṅgha, the Saṅgha that have directly realized emptiness. And the Buddhas are always abiding in the direct realization of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 17:28 Highlight the passage at 17:28

17:48 Emptiness is a big theme here, right? When we're taking refuge, we're really taking refuge deeply in the ultimate mode that things exist, that they don't exist the way we think they exist, right? They don't exist so solidly, so concretely. They don't exist self-existently in Report an error in the passage at 17:48 Highlight the passage at 17:48

18:18 and of themselves. They exist dependently. Report an error in the passage at 18:18 Highlight the passage at 18:18

18:27 Everything exists dependent on causes and conditions, Report an error in the passage at 18:27 Highlight the passage at 18:27

18:37 imputation by the conceptual mind, imputation by thought. And nothing exists at all that is not dependent. There is nothing at all that is not dependent on causes and conditions, parts and conceptual imputation. So nothing exists. And the most subtle, right? The level of dependent arising is the conceptual imputation. So nothing exists independent of conception. Report an error in the passage at 18:37 Highlight the passage at 18:37

19:20 So we talked about when we meditate on emptiness, we start with the object of refutation, start by clearly identifying the object of refutation, and then we identify the options, and then we search. Well, if it's the person, we search within the body and mind, and we search separate from the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 19:20 Highlight the passage at 19:20

19:43 And we end up, if we've done it correctly, we end up with a not finding, right? We cannot find the object of refutation. We cannot find that real solid self. And so we're only focused on emptiness, right? So during meditation on emptiness, only emptiness appears. Report an error in the passage at 19:43 Highlight the passage at 19:43

20:06 So then last time we talked about, okay, well then what about post-meditation? So in meditation on emptiness, especially a direct realization of emptiness, only emptiness appears. No conventional phenomena appear at all. Only emptiness appears. Then we arise from that meditation. And if we have a realization of emptiness, then when we arise, things appear as illusory. Report an error in the passage at 20:06 Highlight the passage at 20:06

20:35 They appear as being, yeah, like an illusion. So we started talking about, well, what does that mean last week, right? Report an error in the passage at 20:35 Highlight the passage at 20:35

20:51 So Lama Tsongkhapa cited examples like a mirage, illusion, a dream, right? Because those appear, but we know that they don't exist the way they appear, right? Like in a dream, things appear to be real, but they don't actually exist as being real. So to understand correctly, Report an error in the passage at 20:51 Highlight the passage at 20:51

21:18 The view that things are like an illusion, there are two factors. An appearance, and technically a mistaken appearance, and then an understanding that it's empty of existing that way. It's empty of existing from its own side. Empty of existing intrinsically. So there's an appearance, and then there's an understanding of empty. Report an error in the passage at 21:18 Highlight the passage at 21:18

21:51 So everything, until we become... Well, until we directly realize emptiness, everything has always appeared mistakenly. Everything appears to exist from their own side, solidly, concretely. Report an error in the passage at 21:51 Highlight the passage at 21:51

22:10 So do we all get that? That there seems to be a real cup in my hand. There seems to be a real person sitting here. There seems to be a real table in here. And it seems like... These would exist even if nobody was looking. It seems like there would still be a real cup, a table, a person. Report an error in the passage at 22:10 Highlight the passage at 22:10

22:40 Objectively, right? Regardless of whether anybody's looking. We believe this, right? But things don't exist that way. Things are organized, right? Data is organized and grouped into objects by concepts. Report an error in the passage at 22:40 Highlight the passage at 22:40

23:06 There Report an error in the passage at 23:06 Highlight the passage at 23:06

23:11 is no perspective-less existence. Nothing exists independent of a perspective. Report an error in the passage at 23:11 Highlight the passage at 23:11

23:32 So we talked about how things are like an illusion in that things appear to exist from their own side. But we no longer believe that they do exist that way. We understand their emptiness. Once we've realized emptiness, they still appear exactly the same to our sense consciousness. Once we've realized emptiness, they still appear exactly the same. They still appear as being inherently existent. But our conceptual mind no longer believes in that. Report an error in the passage at 23:32 Highlight the passage at 23:32

24:14 So it's like... A mirage, right? You see, you know, the shiny bit on the ground and you think it's water, right? Then you investigate and you see, oh, it's not water. But it still looks the same, right? It still looks like water, but you understand that it's not. Report an error in the passage at 24:14 Highlight the passage at 24:14

24:38 I was trying to think of another example. It's like, you know, like in those Japanese restaurants, sometimes they have these. Report an error in the passage at 24:38 Highlight the passage at 24:38

24:45 Bowls of udon noodles, right? That are made out of plastic, right? And if you don't look closely, you're like, ooh, that looks really good. Oh, that's plastic, right? So before you know that it's fake, right? We think, ooh, that really looks tasty, right? I don't know if you guys have ever been fooled by one of those, but I have. And then you investigate and you see that it's... Report an error in the passage at 24:45 Highlight the passage at 24:45

25:16 Just plastic, right? And so your desire for that object disappears, right? It still appears the same to your eye consciousness, but conceptually we know it's not real. And so that undercuts any attachment we have to it because it's not real. Report an error in the passage at 25:16 Highlight the passage at 25:16

25:43 So similarly with emptiness, you know, things will still appear the same way. But once we've realized emptiness, we no longer believe that appearance, believe that it's real. Report an error in the passage at 25:43 Highlight the passage at 25:43

26:07 So we also talked about how, Report an error in the passage at 26:07 Highlight the passage at 26:07

26:13 so even though nothing at all exists from its own side, not even a particle, not any tiny iota of existence from its own side, it still exists. Conventionally. There's no existence at all from the side of the object and it still exists conventionally by mere name, by being imputed by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 26:13 Highlight the passage at 26:13

27:00 So finding that balance. So there's no person at all on this body and mind. No person at all. Not even a tiny little bit. Report an error in the passage at 27:00 Highlight the passage at 27:00

27:15 And that person exists and functions conventionally. That's Report an error in the passage at 27:15 Highlight the passage at 27:15

27:21 the tricky part. Report an error in the passage at 27:21 Highlight the passage at 27:21

27:34 Okay, so Lama Tsongkhapa talked about the correct way of understanding that things appear like an illusion, right? And then the incorrect way on page 274 in the middle. Report an error in the passage at 27:34 Highlight the passage at 27:34

27:56 He says, if the measure of the object of negation explained earlier has not been grasped well, And the object is analyzed by means of reasoning and broken up. The thought that object does not exist will first come up. Report an error in the passage at 27:56 Highlight the passage at 27:56

28:17 So if we haven't identified clearly what the object of negation is, right? The object of refutation is, right? That self-existent I that appears to exist, that we believe exists with every pore of our being. Well, maybe 99 % pores. If we haven't clearly identified that, then when we meditate on emptiness and we find nothing, then the thought will come, oh, that it doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 28:17 Highlight the passage at 28:17

28:58 The I doesn't exist at all. Report an error in the passage at 28:58 Highlight the passage at 28:58

29:05 So we think, okay, the I doesn't exist. Nothing exists at all from its own side. And then we invalidate. Conventional existence. We think, oh, well, nothing exists at all. We can do anything that I want. Okay, we can call this a cup. We can call it a chair. We can call it a table. It doesn't exist at all. That's incorrect, right? Report an error in the passage at 29:05 Highlight the passage at 29:05

29:33 That's incorrect. So that step of identifying the object of refutation, I mean, I've said it many times, but that's really critical, right? We have to understand how it is that we think the... Things exist and then search for that and when we don't find it, then we understand that things don't exist in that way. Report an error in the passage at 29:33 Highlight the passage at 29:33

30:00 They don't exist from their own side, but it doesn't refute existence altogether. Report an error in the passage at 30:00 Highlight the passage at 30:00

30:13 So there's a mistake there because that person is not differentiating between inherent existence and mere existence. Report an error in the passage at 30:13 Highlight the passage at 30:13

30:30 We need to differentiate between inherent existence and conventional existence. So important. But the problem is that until we've realized emptiness, conventional existence and inherent existence have always appeared together. And Report an error in the passage at 30:30 Highlight the passage at 30:30

30:52 it's not until we realize emptiness that we can start to distinguish between inherent existence and conventional existence. So we're just taking off that layer of inherent existence, but we're leaving conventional existence. And conventional existence, right? What does it mean to exist conventionally? Report an error in the passage at 30:52 Highlight the passage at 30:52

31:17 What does it mean to exist conventionally? Report an error in the passage at 31:17 Highlight the passage at 31:17

31:25 Yeah, where's the mic? Report an error in the passage at 31:25 Highlight the passage at 31:25

31:35 Well, we have, for the means of convenience, we have names that we call each other and things that we agree that we call the things that we use. In this world that we live in to survive as the bodies we inhabit. So it's just a convention. It's just a convention, an agreement. Anything else? Anybody else? Report an error in the passage at 31:35 Highlight the passage at 31:35

32:11 There's a certain function, I think. I don't know if that's always the case. I'll say it is. I'll jump in a few minutes. I don't know. Report an error in the passage at 32:11 Highlight the passage at 32:11

32:29 Yeah, there's an aspect to them and then there's this function to most things. Is there one function? Report an error in the passage at 32:29 Highlight the passage at 32:29

32:42 No. I guess the function's also a label, but it's so tricky. I don't know. I just jumped on that one because that seems to be often how we decide. I don't know. Report an error in the passage at 32:42 Highlight the passage at 32:42

33:01 You know, we're going to label something as according to, and think that, well, probably for me that seems to make it, you know, as if it's truly existent because it has a certain function. Report an error in the passage at 33:01 Highlight the passage at 33:01

33:18 Yeah, see that's a tricky one, right? I mean, oftentimes it's said, yeah, and it functions, it functions, it functions, and it's true, right? But where does the function reside? Within the side of the object? Or? Report an error in the passage at 33:18 Highlight the passage at 33:18

33:35 on Report an error in the passage at 33:35 Highlight the passage at 33:35

33:43 It's the imputation because you're drinking out of that, but I might use it to put flowers in. So it may or may not be a cup depending on you or I's perspective on it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, I mean, function depends on a perspective too, right? If I'm drinking out of it, it functions as a cup. Report an error in the passage at 33:43 Highlight the passage at 33:43

34:07 It can also function as a vase. It can also function as a scoop. It can function as something to build a paperweight or something to build sandcastles with. Or if we're really creative, which I'm not, we could think of a lot of other different functions and valid labels for it. So function is part of... Report an error in the passage at 34:07 Highlight the passage at 34:07

34:39 This is my own thinking, but function is also part of that worldly convention. Report an error in the passage at 34:39 Highlight the passage at 34:39

34:54 We can validly call this a cup because it functions for us as a cup, right? And if it was 10 feet in diameter, it wouldn't function as a cup for us anymore. So we wouldn't call it a cup. But it's not that it has a function from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 34:54 Highlight the passage at 34:54

35:24 The mic goes to the back row. Report an error in the passage at 35:24 Highlight the passage at 35:24

35:31 I mean, yeah, I'm not really saying that it's not from our own side, but what I meant was not a specific function, but the fact that something has some function in a sense. I'm just trying to... It's really hard to get to the object of negation for me. And so I was trying to think, well, like if it in general had a function in a sense that gives it some kind of coloring of existing, you know, in a way that I think is sort of solid, but, or from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 35:31 Highlight the passage at 35:31

36:10 You know, and then when I put it into words, I know that sounds so, but it's, yeah, it's just... Just identifying the object of negation is huge to me. You know, from time to time it just slips away. It just becomes something else and I realize how undefined it is in everyday life, at least for most of us. Report an error in the passage at 36:10 Highlight the passage at 36:10

36:36 Yeah, yeah. I agree. It is. I mean, I think that's a great insight is that just identifying that object of negation is huge. Report an error in the passage at 36:36 Highlight the passage at 36:36

36:47 It's huge. You know, usually we pass over that step. Okay, let's refute it, right? But if we haven't identified it first, then the refutation doesn't have any impact. Report an error in the passage at 36:47 Highlight the passage at 36:47

37:01 So it's so interesting to try to identify the object of refutation, and it can take years, right? Report an error in the passage at 37:01 Highlight the passage at 37:01

37:16 When I was understanding functioning before, I was thinking function, not like function. That had any meaning to me, but function like matter interacting with other matter, like gravity or electricity or magnetism or this exerts a weight on this other thing, whether or not I call it a book or no matter whether I even look at it, it's still doing it. Report an error in the passage at 37:16 Highlight the passage at 37:16

37:43 It's empty, whether or not I observe it, it's not somebody else observes it or nobody observes it. The universe is going on out there and we look out there to see what's going on. It's happening with or without us, but that's still empty, but it's functioning, right? Is that still, is that a way to understand it? Report an error in the passage at 37:43 Highlight the passage at 37:43

38:01 Like things interacting, regardless of the label that I put on it, they're still functioning in an empty way. They're empty but functioning. Is that, am I not getting it? Report an error in the passage at 38:01 Highlight the passage at 38:01

38:17 That's a tricky question. I think that's a question for Geshe Dagpa. I mean, you hear different things from different Lamas on that. Report an error in the passage at 38:17 Highlight the passage at 38:17

38:32 So Report an error in the passage at 38:32 Highlight the passage at 38:32

38:37 I think things are functioning, yeah. I mean, things are disintegrating from moment to moment. And it doesn't have to have somebody looking at it, right, for it to be disintegrating. Report an error in the passage at 38:37 Highlight the passage at 38:37

38:55 The stars, etc., you know, everything. Report an error in the passage at 38:55 Highlight the passage at 38:55

39:01 Yeah, so function. Report an error in the passage at 39:01 Highlight the passage at 39:01

39:09 So those are things we would say like conventionally existing and functioning but empty. We could say that about the stars or the planets that we don't know about. Yeah, they conventionally exist and they're empty and they're changing from moment to moment. You can say that. But you can't posit what that function is. Report an error in the passage at 39:09 Highlight the passage at 39:09

39:36 Without a conception. Report an error in the passage at 39:36 Highlight the passage at 39:36

39:45 That's my position. Don't hold to it. That's useful to me. Yeah, exactly. Don't be grasping onto that one, but that's my temporary position. That helps me because I think of the universe happening out there and I think that things are going on. And things are interacting and stuff, I may not understand it or see it or be aware of it or anything like that. But I could become aware of it and put a label on it. But it's... Report an error in the passage at 39:45 Highlight the passage at 39:45

40:17 Yeah. It helps me to like not deny things don't exist that I don't look at. Right, right, right. Somehow it's out there and it's existing in a conventional way. Report an error in the passage at 40:17 Highlight the passage at 40:17

40:32 Yeah, yeah. Yeah, because we can't say that, right, before quarks... We're discovered they didn't exist, right? Before we had a label, they didn't exist. But they didn't exist as quirks. But we can't say that there was nothing my position. Just Emily. Sure. Report an error in the passage at 40:32 Highlight the passage at 40:32

41:01 Things exist dependently and all of that. But it's not that things come into existence because somebody imputed it. It became that because somebody imputed that. But it's not that it didn't exist at all before it was imputed, right? It's not what we're saying. Like if on the day that Joe was born, the parents hadn't figured out what name to give Joe and it wasn't until day five that they named him Joe. Report an error in the passage at 41:01 Highlight the passage at 41:01

41:40 Does that mean day one Joe didn't exist? No, it's not that Joe came into existence on day five, but Joe had the potential to be labeled Joe. There was a basis, a valid basis that was later labeled. So it gets complicated. So anyway, this is tricky and I can't say that I'm 100 % confident that I'm understanding it correctly. Report an error in the passage at 41:40 Highlight the passage at 41:40

42:10 So this is my view at the moment. Okay. Report an error in the passage at 42:10 Highlight the passage at 42:10

42:25 But you didn't become Joe until you were named Joe. But it doesn't mean that that person didn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 42:25 Highlight the passage at 42:25

42:40 You guys are tough. Yeah. So. Report an error in the passage at 42:40 Highlight the passage at 42:40

42:51 Exactly. Tough from your own side. Tough from my perspective. Report an error in the passage at 42:51 Highlight the passage at 42:51

43:00 Keeping me on my toes. So. Right. So back to the text. If we haven't identified the object of negation well. you. Thank you. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 43:00 Highlight the passage at 43:00

43:13 When we refute it, then it's easy to think that there's nothing that exists at all, right? And we aren't able to discern between valid conventional existence, invalid conventional existence, right? Report an error in the passage at 43:13 Highlight the passage at 43:13

43:33 Nothing exists from its own side, but it's still valid to call this a cup and it's not valid to call it a bicycle. Report an error in the passage at 43:33 Highlight the passage at 43:33

43:42 Why? Because it's a cup from its own side? No, right? It's because Conventionally, we don't have the agreement to call this a bicycle, to put it very generally. Report an error in the passage at 43:42 Highlight the passage at 43:42

44:03 Okay, so then Lama Tsongkhapa says that Report an error in the passage at 44:03 Highlight the passage at 44:03

44:15 emptiness that refutes existence altogether then destroys dependent arising. It destroys valid existence, right? And that is not... That is not the correct meaning of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 44:15 Highlight the passage at 44:15

44:36 Even though, let's say, we refuted existence altogether and maybe we arise and things appear to us as being vague, not so solid, that is not the correct meaning of existing like an illusion. Report an error in the passage at 44:36 Highlight the passage at 44:36

44:58 If we think nothing exists at all and yet there's this vague appearance. All right. So. Lama Tsongkhapa is saying it's not difficult to think, oh, well, yeah, after you search, think that, oh, it seems, right, that nothing exists from its own side. It's not that difficult, right? We get that... We search for a solid eye, we look within the body, we look within the mind, we look separate from the body and mind and we see that it's unfindable, right? Report an error in the passage at 44:58 Highlight the passage at 44:58

45:34 It's not that difficult to do that. Report an error in the passage at 45:34 Highlight the passage at 45:34

45:39 But what is difficult, Lama Tsongkhapa says, the difficult point is to achieve certainty from the depths about refuting all inherent existence and Positing those inherently non-existent persons and so forth as accumulators of karma, experiencers of results and so forth. So what's difficult is to refute every particle of inherent existence leaving nothing from its own side and positing valid conventional existence, functions. Report an error in the passage at 45:39 Highlight the passage at 45:39

46:33 Accumulators of karma, experiencers of results. That is what's very difficult, right? To refute everything from its own side completely, with certainty, from the depths, right? Without any doubt at all. And to see that things do exist validly, conventionally and function. And there is a person that accumulates karma and experiences the results. Report an error in the passage at 46:33 Highlight the passage at 46:33

47:07 Because initially it seems, well this is a very difficult point, right? And it seems that if nothing existed at all from its own side, then how could it exist? How could it function? If you can't find it, how can it possibly exist? Report an error in the passage at 47:07 Highlight the passage at 47:07

47:29 And then, you know, if we think about it enough, eventually, I think then we understand that if it existed inherently, it couldn't function. Report an error in the passage at 47:29 Highlight the passage at 47:29

47:44 Because it's empty, that's why it can function. Because it's empty, it can function. If it had its own self-existence, it wouldn't be able to change. It wouldn't be able to function. Report an error in the passage at 47:44 Highlight the passage at 47:44

48:09 But because things are empty, that is why they can. Report an error in the passage at 48:09 Highlight the passage at 48:09

48:17 A self-existent person would not be able to accumulate karma. But Report an error in the passage at 48:17 Highlight the passage at 48:17

48:26 that's difficult, right? Because we always thought that it could. Report an error in the passage at 48:26 Highlight the passage at 48:26

48:33 I always thought that we were self-existent and that we could function. Report an error in the passage at 48:33 Highlight the passage at 48:33

48:42 So I'll read that point again. Lama Tsongkhapa says, the difficult point is to achieve certainty from the depths about refuting all inherent existence established by way of its own entity and positing those inherently non-existent persons and so forth as accumulators of karma, experiencers of results and so forth. Report an error in the passage at 48:42 Highlight the passage at 48:42

49:08 Since that collection of those two that enables one to posit them is next to impossible, it is extremely difficult to acquire the Madi Mika view. Report an error in the passage at 49:08 Highlight the passage at 49:08

49:21 So very difficult to get those two points. We're Report an error in the passage at 49:21 Highlight the passage at 49:21

49:36 okay with that so far? Report an error in the passage at 49:36 Highlight the passage at 49:36

49:44 Okay, the two points that there is nothing, first point, nothing existing from its own side at all. Nothing. At all. No real essence at all. No real essence of me at all that is independent. No real essence at all. No inherent existence at all. First point. Second point exists and functions. Or Report an error in the passage at 49:44 Highlight the passage at 49:44

50:25 I should put it more technically. Report an error in the passage at 50:25 Highlight the passage at 50:25

50:32 Here is, there is this non-inherently existent person. Report an error in the passage at 50:32 Highlight the passage at 50:32

50:43 That accumulates karma and experiences the results. Report an error in the passage at 50:43 Highlight the passage at 50:43

50:57 So those two points, emptiness of inherent existence, emptiness, empty of existing from its own side at all, and existing conventionally, accumulating karma, experiencing results. Report an error in the passage at 50:57 Highlight the passage at 50:57

51:25 All right, Eric. Report an error in the passage at 51:25 Highlight the passage at 51:25

51:29 Yeah, Report an error in the passage at 51:29 Highlight the passage at 51:29

51:40 when they're nodding off, that'll get them. Report an error in the passage at 51:40 Highlight the passage at 51:40

51:48 I heard what you said, but what about the cup and the clock? They're not accumulating karma. Right, yeah. So what about them? Yeah. So no clock at all from its own side. Not a single atom of clock here. And it exists conventionally and functions as a clock. Oh, okay. Got it. It doesn't accumulate karma. Report an error in the passage at 51:48 Highlight the passage at 51:48

52:12 No. You're just talking about the person. Yeah, I was talking about the person because we're in the refutation of the person. But yeah, good question. Yeah, and the cup. Still, I can drink out of it, even though it's not a cup at all from its own side, and I can drink out of it. Report an error in the passage at 52:12 Highlight the passage at 52:12

52:35 Well, that's the point that I was going to ask you about, is that after you said that and then you went on to this idea of function, that it has to be... Non-existent in order to function. Can you or I misread you? Yeah, so it has to be non-inherently existent. It has to be empty in order to function. So this, I mean, this is a very profound point and we have to think about it. Yeah. But if it existed from its own side independently, it wouldn't be able to change. Report an error in the passage at 52:35 Highlight the passage at 52:35

53:10 Okay. So that's something to think about. If it existed. Report an error in the passage at 53:10 Highlight the passage at 53:10

53:21 If it existed from its own side, as a clock, real clock, independently, it wouldn't be able to tell time. It wouldn't be able to change. Right. And if it couldn't change, it certainly wouldn't tell you what time it is. Uh-huh. So in order for something to function, it has to change. Okay. There's no functioning without changing, right? Report an error in the passage at 53:21 Highlight the passage at 53:21

53:57 Like if... Like the car, if the car, you couldn't start the car and if it couldn't move, then it wouldn't function. Report an error in the passage at 53:57 Highlight the passage at 53:57

54:24 The porcelain in that cup came from somewhere, but if the porcelain was unable to change and become curved or malleable into a cup, right? Because if it existed from its own side, the porcelain can never become a cup. Exactly. Exactly. Right. And if it existed from its own side... You could never break it if it was a cup from its own side. It could never become not a cup, right? Report an error in the passage at 54:24 Highlight the passage at 54:24

54:57 It never would have been anything other than a cup, right? Report an error in the passage at 54:57 Highlight the passage at 54:57

55:07 It's like the process of production is very interesting. I mean, Lama Tsongkhapa doesn't get into it in this text, but it's like, well, if we go back to the cup, it used to be porcelain. Just a hunk of material that was then formed. I don't even know the process. Is it baked? It's baked. It's clay. And then it's formed. And then it's glazed. Report an error in the passage at 55:07 Highlight the passage at 55:07

55:46 And then it's baked. At what point did it become a cup? Report an error in the passage at 55:46 Highlight the passage at 55:46

55:55 Was it a cup before it was baked? Report an error in the passage at 55:55 Highlight the passage at 55:55

56:02 Was it a cup before it was glazed? Report an error in the passage at 56:02 Highlight the passage at 56:02

56:14 So yeah, so then we see, right, that analysis, that at a certain point we just called it a cup, right? It's not like it's clearly, like if you analyze the beginning of the cup, you can't find it, right, in that continuum. Report an error in the passage at 56:14 Highlight the passage at 56:14

56:37 But if it was inherently existent as a cup, then it would have always been a cup, right? Report an error in the passage at 56:37 Highlight the passage at 56:37

57:05 So getting those two things. No existence at all from its own sight and conventionally existent functions. Report an error in the passage at 57:05 Highlight the passage at 57:05

57:23 Alright, so then Lama Tsongkhapa says, Therefore the apprehension of appearances as something illusion-like, interdependent and merely existent is not a faulty apprehension of illusions. Or it's a correct. It's correct if we see things as being like illusions. As being interdependent, or dependent arising, as merely existent, meaning merely imputed by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 57:23 Highlight the passage at 57:23

57:59 Correct understanding of illusory. But if we think that these illusion-like appearances are established by way of their own entity, truly existent, then that's incorrect. Report an error in the passage at 57:59 Highlight the passage at 57:59

58:18 So Lama Tsongkhapa quotes the King of Concentration Sūtra. It says, going through cyclic existence is like a dream. All appearances are mistaken. Everything we've ever perceived is mistaken. It has an element of mistake. Going through cyclic existence is like a dream. No one is born there, nor does anyone die. So inherently, right? Report an error in the passage at 58:18 Highlight the passage at 58:18

58:54 No one's inherently born, no one inherently dies. No sentient beings or humans nor life can be found. These phenomena are like foam, hollow trees, like illusions, Report an error in the passage at 58:54 Highlight the passage at 58:54

59:19 lightning in the sky, like the moon in water, like a mirage, Report an error in the passage at 59:19 Highlight the passage at 59:19

59:31 no real essence. Even after one dies here in this world, one does not move on to another world. Still, actions done aren't lost. They're white and black fruit, ripe and encyclic existence. There's no contradiction. Report an error in the passage at 59:31 Highlight the passage at 59:31

59:56 So there's no real person, no Report an error in the passage at 59:56 Highlight the passage at 59:56

1:00:02 real essence of a person, no real person that's born, no real person that dies. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:02 Highlight the passage at 1:00:02

1:00:14 And karma isn't lost. They're right. Virtuous and non-virtuous fruit or result will be experienced and there's no contradiction. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:14 Highlight the passage at 1:00:14

1:00:35 So Lama Tsongkhapa says, when sought with the reasonings analyzing suchness, the likes of persons that are born die and transmigrate and that withstand analysis are not found, not one particle. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:35 Highlight the passage at 1:00:35

1:00:53 Nevertheless, positive and negative effects occur relative to illusion-like phenomena. You need to arrive at an understanding of such statements. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:53 Highlight the passage at 1:00:53

1:01:05 So this is so profound, right? Because if we think about it, right? The vibashikas say, yeah, everything can be broken down to these smallest individual particles, right? So, yeah, you break everything down. But, yeah, you have these smallest particles that you can hang on to as being solidly existing. But in prasangikas, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:01:05 Highlight the passage at 1:01:05

1:01:32 You break down the body into atoms. Break those down. You can get broken down further and further and further ad infinitum. There is nothing at all to hang on to. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:32 Highlight the passage at 1:01:32

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:02:29 You can say something. I find this profoundly useful. This idea that I cannot inherently exist because if I did, then I wouldn't be able to learn or change, experience karma, you know, accumulate karma, experience the effects. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:29 Highlight the passage at 1:02:29

1:02:53 That is extremely important to me because if I had known that, I mean, there was a period in my life when it was very difficult for me. I went through a lot of depression and grief, you know, and tried to commit suicide a couple of times because it felt like... It was so real, the pain and the grief that it would never get better. I just wanted it to end. If I had been able to appreciate the fact that it has to be able to end, do you know what I mean? Report an error in the passage at 1:02:53 Highlight the passage at 1:02:53

1:03:22 Like I can change. I can be really profoundly depressed today and I can become happy in the future. If I could truly believe that, that really lightens things up a lot. That changes your whole life. So this seems really profound to me. Yeah, it is. It's the key. Because, yeah, I mean, where did that depression come from? Report an error in the passage at 1:03:22 Highlight the passage at 1:03:22

1:03:52 It was just a thought. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:52 Highlight the passage at 1:03:52

1:03:58 It was a belief, a thought. I mean, it's just, right, we have bazillions of thoughts every day. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but we have so many thoughts every day. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:58 Highlight the passage at 1:03:58

1:04:13 Thoughts create. Happiness for us or they create suffering, only dependent on thought, whether we're happy or not. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:13 Highlight the passage at 1:04:13

1:04:28 It is pretty cool. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:28 Highlight the passage at 1:04:28

1:04:42 Yeah, right? Nothing all exists from its own side. Our negative self-image, completely a figment of our imagination. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:42 Highlight the passage at 1:04:42

1:04:57 Problems, our mind created the problem, right? It's not a problem from its own side. So this gives us right. Infinite power, infinite power to change, infinite power to create lasting, ultimate happiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:57 Highlight the passage at 1:04:57

1:05:26 This is it. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:26 Highlight the passage at 1:05:26

1:05:34 Yeah, it's pretty. And the fact that we have the karma to receive any teachings on emptiness at all, well, any correct teachings on emptiness is mind-blowing because this is our ticket. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:34 Highlight the passage at 1:05:34

1:06:08 So we'll just finish this, the next paragraph. So Lama Tsongkhapa is just in the next paragraph. I'm on page 276 if anybody's following the text. Okay, another incorrect view of illusory appearance is if you're like a mistaken way of meditating on emptiness is thinking is meditating on nothing. I think that some people think meditating on nothing is meditating on emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:08 Highlight the passage at 1:06:08

1:06:41 And so you can concentrate really hard on nothing. And then when you arise from it, it says, well, things may appear as being less substantial as before, like a rainbow or something. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:41 Highlight the passage at 1:06:41

1:07:08 Not obstructive, not hard and obstructive, but they appear insubstantial like a rainbow or thin smoke. But this is also not the illusion-like appearance explained in the scriptures. It is just an appearance of objects as being empty of gross obstructiveness rather than an appearance that these empty objects, an appearance of... Report an error in the passage at 1:07:08 Highlight the passage at 1:07:08

1:07:44 Objects that are empty of inherent existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:44 Highlight the passage at 1:07:44

1:07:51 So Lama Tsongkhapa says, rather than an appearance, that the apparent objects are empty of being inherently established. And because the meaning of emptiness, which is absence of inherent existence, cannot be the non-existence of obstructive hardness. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:51 Highlight the passage at 1:07:51

1:08:10 So the meaning of the absence of inherent existence is more profound than, oh, it's just not hard and substantial. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:10 Highlight the passage at 1:08:10

1:08:22 Otherwise, there would be the fallacies that when apprehending rainbows and the like as substrata, it would be impossible for the apprehension of true existence to arise. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:22 Highlight the passage at 1:08:22

1:08:36 So things like rainbows, we know that they're not substantial and hard objects, but it's not that we understand that rainbows are empty of inherent existence. We just understand that they're not. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:36 Highlight the passage at 1:08:36

· · · silence, 2 minutes

1:10:46 die, I'm just to work on some Report an error in the passage at 1:10:46 Highlight the passage at 1:10:46

1:11:11 know, each of these parts is like now, like so, you know, re-born, you know, two of these parts, two of the old, two of them, two of them, two of them, two of them. This is really gross. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:11 Highlight the passage at 1:11:11

1:11:34 Well, this is a very profound subject, right? How karma continues. First of all, karma doesn't attach to physical particles, right? Yes, so, yeah. It's the mind, right? The mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:34 Highlight the passage at 1:11:34

1:11:56 Okay, so Emily's take on this. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:56 Highlight the passage at 1:11:56

1:12:06 Karma is actually intention. It's a mental factor of intention. The mind, where the mind is directing the action, the mind that wants to help somebody versus the mind that wants to hurt somebody. So every action has an effect on the mind thereafter. The mind is constantly changing. And so we can say on a gross level, Report an error in the passage at 1:12:06 Highlight the passage at 1:12:06

1:12:44 I can say loosely that karma is connected to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:44 Highlight the passage at 1:12:44

1:12:52 Is the mind something substantial that goes from on? No. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:52 Highlight the passage at 1:12:52

1:13:00 It's like Report an error in the passage at 1:13:00 Highlight the passage at 1:13:00

1:13:08 the... Report an error in the passage at 1:13:08 Highlight the passage at 1:13:08

1:13:16 It's not like it's like a step screen, but it's just like... Report an error in the passage at 1:13:16 Highlight the passage at 1:13:16

1:13:22 kind of like dots, like a moment, you know, like nothing that's continuous, but it looks continuous, but it's not, you know, it's like a moment for a moment. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:22 Highlight the passage at 1:13:22

1:13:36 Yeah, I mean, one moment goes into the next one. But even those dots, I mean, that's imposing a level of solidity to it, right? Because there's not even a moment in which things stay the same, right? It's like a continuous stream, right? But it's not like... A substantial stream. You know, I've given the example of the storm, right? The temperature of the air, the temperature of the water, the direction of the wind, you know, everything is constantly changing and affected. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:36 Highlight the passage at 1:13:36

1:14:12 And we call that thing a storm, right? But there's no, like, real thing. And the mind is similar. There are all of these things happening, right? These thoughts and these perceptions and these opinions and these... Right? And then we call that a mind stream. Right. Or mind. And those actions, right, the karma, it's like the wind and the rain and, you know, like conditions that affect that storm. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:12 Highlight the passage at 1:14:12

1:14:47 Right? So the actions, the karma, affects all of the, Report an error in the passage at 1:14:47 Highlight the passage at 1:14:47

1:15:00 right, like the mind, like if we hadn't, we had never, let's say, done, like, Report an error in the passage at 1:15:00 Highlight the passage at 1:15:00

1:15:11 Yelled at our mother when we were five years old. The mind stream would be different than it is now. The mind stream is forever affected by every action that we've ever done. Because the current mind is a product of everything that's happened before. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:11 Highlight the passage at 1:15:11

1:15:33 So does that mean there's something substantial that's holding all of those actions? No, right? But the current moment of mind is affected by... Everything that you ever thought, everything that you've ever done. kind of like we can keep Report an error in the passage at 1:15:33 Highlight the passage at 1:15:33

1:15:51 put all these things together, all these things, and boom, the cake appears. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:51 Highlight the passage at 1:15:51

1:16:05 it's like, I guess my point is, I have to go on cover and say, how does it work? Report an error in the passage at 1:16:05 Highlight the passage at 1:16:05

1:16:14 Okay, because, and so, because it continues, it still continues whether, you know, you are in the sense of what that or not. Yeah. Yeah. I see, and then it gets, you know, when you look on a physical basis, then you get out and out. It's the same thing. Exactly the same You know, just to get to the end of the day, it looks then there's one on the next slide. Mm-hmm. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:14 Highlight the passage at 1:16:14

1:16:45 Thank you. What appears to be a big one versus a man. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:45 Highlight the passage at 1:16:45

1:16:56 is it the whole thing? Report an error in the passage at 1:16:56 Highlight the passage at 1:16:56

1:17:23 Thank you. Thank you. knows it will actually somehow be striking this kind of balance. I mean, how does that work? Extr Extremely subtle phenomenon. How that works, yeah. It's a very difficult question. How does it work? I think that's only in the realm of Buddhas. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:23 Highlight the passage at 1:17:23

1:17:52 Karma is said to ripen. Into a subsequent experience. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:52 Highlight the passage at 1:17:52

1:18:02 So a positive action will result in a happy experience. The mind will experience happiness. It's something the mind experiences. It's not something necessarily like external. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:02 Highlight the passage at 1:18:02

1:18:22 It's experience. experience. So. . Report an error in the passage at 1:18:22 Highlight the passage at 1:18:22

1:18:36 . We'll try that. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:36 Highlight the passage at 1:18:36

1:18:41 got to have this right now. So what's going on in the case of the mindless experience is that we're still charging a suicide man. How much of a night is it? Report an error in the passage at 1:18:41 Highlight the passage at 1:18:41

1:19:12 Well, but conventionally you are being killed, right? Conventionally you're being killed. And other beings will see that you're being killed. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:12 Highlight the passage at 1:19:12

1:19:23 I can't answer your question. No, it's very difficult, right, to see how that works, how that manifests in the physical world, right? I mean, I can understand it on the mental level, right, that you have a lot of negative thoughts that will result in unhappiness, right, suffering. We can see that on a mental level. How that manifests in a physical world. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:23 Highlight the passage at 1:19:23

1:19:54 Well, exactly. It's because everything that appears is a karmic appearance. It appears that way because you have the karma for it to appear that way. Does it exist from its own side that way? No. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:54 Highlight the passage at 1:19:54

1:20:13 So it is like being in a dream. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:13 Highlight the passage at 1:20:13

1:20:22 You can actually cut up that and share that with people. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:22 Highlight the passage at 1:20:22

1:20:38 Thank you. can just concentrate on your stuff and you can do it. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:38 Highlight the passage at 1:20:38

1:20:45 and now we just, you guys got email today. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:45 Highlight the passage at 1:20:45

1:21:03 killed in here before, and then I think topic, the kind of healing, and then I think the topic, the kind of healing, and the healing, Report an error in the passage at 1:21:03 Highlight the passage at 1:21:03

1:21:28 I'm sure about next week I'll be like Report an error in the passage at 1:21:28 Highlight the passage at 1:21:28

1:21:34 think about that one. I have to do that one? Yeah, it's true. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:34 Highlight the passage at 1:21:34

1:21:42 Thank you. and I there's an online recording in this module, and that's a harder one to hear, because know, every other place comes in as a place, right? Yeah. So it's nice to come here. I wanted to say, I couldn't do it, I couldn't do it, I couldn't do it, I couldn't do it, I couldn't do it. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:42 Highlight the passage at 1:21:42

1:22:07 Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:07 Highlight the passage at 1:22:07

1:22:15 -study, don't do a flip-flop. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:15 Highlight the passage at 1:22:15

1:22:33 Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:33 Highlight the passage at 1:22:33

1:22:46 Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:46 Highlight the passage at 1:22:46

1:22:58 Thank you. Yeah, if he's doing it, look at her. Oh, look at that. Oh, my mom would love to do it. So you'd be sickle with it, right? said, guy said, oh. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:58 Highlight the passage at 1:22:58

1:23:20 they appear? Oh, yeah. He said to try to your toes and do it. Yes. Do that and stickle. yes Report an error in the passage at 1:23:20 Highlight the passage at 1:23:20

1:23:39 Oh, Margaret didn't buy it. And then we'll... And then we'll resume. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:39 Highlight the passage at 1:23:39

1:24:08 a Margaret bat. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:08 Highlight the passage at 1:24:08

1:24:13 Okay, so... Report an error in the passage at 1:24:13 Highlight the passage at 1:24:13

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:24:47 I'll start. Then there's this question that arises. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:47 Highlight the passage at 1:24:47

1:24:55 Well then, what has to be done for illusory objects to appear correctly? So last time we talked about that magician's illusion that's often talked about in the teachings, right? The horse and the elephant, right? The pebble and the stone. Magician casts a spell and they appear as a horse and an elephant. So that's the example used, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:24:55 Highlight the passage at 1:24:55

1:25:23 In that example, in dependence on seeing the illusory horses and elephants with one's eye consciousness and then ascertaining with one's mental consciousness that no horses or elephants in accordance with the appearances exist, the ascertainment arises that this appearance of horses and elephants is an illusory or false appearance. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:23 Highlight the passage at 1:25:23

1:25:53 So that's like a movie, right? We go to a movie. People appear on the screen. They really appear as if they exist, right? But to our eye consciousness, to our ear consciousness, right, to our sense consciousness, they appear as if they really exist. But our mental consciousness knows that they don't, right? It knows that it's a real movie. A real movie. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:53 Highlight the passage at 1:25:53

1:26:26 Where did I get that? It knows that it's just a movie. But they don't really exist. So it's similar. Likewise, independence on both the undeniable appearance of persons and so forth to one's conventional mind and one's ascertainment by means of a reasoning consciousness that they are empty of an inherent existence established by way of its own entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:26 Highlight the passage at 1:26:26

1:26:55 The ascertainment arises that those persons are illusory or false appearances. So to a conventional mind, I mean, mostly to our senses, so to our mental consciousness, but let's say to the senses in general. So the senses, there are definitely appearances that arise, right, to our senses, and they appear to exist from their own side, but Report an error in the passage at 1:26:55 Highlight the passage at 1:26:55

1:27:30 then with our reasoning consciousness or our conceptual consciousness, knowing that they are empty of existing that way, knowing that they're... Empty of existing from their own side. So appearance to the sense consciousnesses as being inherently existent. And with the mental consciousness, the reasoning consciousness, the conceptual consciousness, knowing that they're empty of existing that way. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:30 Highlight the passage at 1:27:30

1:28:08 How illusion-like appearances arise. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:08 Highlight the passage at 1:28:08

1:28:18 So we've talked about in the past, right, about the process. Right, of imputation, right? Colors and shapes appear to the eye consciousness. The conceptual consciousness organizes that data, right? Searches the data bank and labels that. Oh, that looks like the cup that's in my mind, right? The image of a cup that's in my mind. So the conceptual consciousness labels it cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:18 Highlight the passage at 1:28:18

1:28:53 Then it immediately appears back as if it was a cup from its own side. Independent of conception. It appears as if there's a cup here projecting its image to your mind. And then we believe in that appearance. Then we believe that it exists that way. We exist as a cup from its own side. Exists as a person, a real person from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:53 Highlight the passage at 1:28:53

1:29:28 Or same thing with annoying person, right? Colors, shapes, sounds appear. We label that annoying and then the person appears back as if they were annoying from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:28 Highlight the passage at 1:29:28

1:29:50 Independent of what I labeled, right, independent of my experience, they appear back as if they're annoying from their own side. And then we believe it. Well, they really are annoying. Just ask anybody, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:29:50 Highlight the passage at 1:29:50

1:30:09 Forgetting it came from our mind, right? Colors, shapes, sounds, data appeared. Our conceptual mind is what made that person annoying. It wasn't contrary to popular belief. It wasn't the colors and shapes and sounds that were annoying. It was our conceptual mind. That decided it was annoying and Report an error in the passage at 1:30:09 Highlight the passage at 1:30:09

1:30:44 then it appears back as if they are really annoying from their own side and then we believe that. So the belief in it is what we're working with here in the illusion like the illusory appearance. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:44 Highlight the passage at 1:30:44

1:31:09 Things will still appear as existing from their own side. We will just not believe it. We're working with that belief. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:09 Highlight the passage at 1:31:09

1:31:29 I love that example of the annoying person because people can usually relate to that one. You broke it down, but you can build it back up. So this is a class on the wisdom of emptiness that's just appearing to be a class of the wisdom of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:29 Highlight the passage at 1:31:29

1:31:48 Because that's how the data is coming in. I believe that that's what is happening right now, right? So it's conceptual as well, right? And the emotions that are attached to the cup and all the other causes and conditions and everything else. All of that. So all this, like basically everything's just being played at me as an illusion. Your experience. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:48 Highlight the passage at 1:31:48

1:32:13 My experience. Yeah. Yeah. Everything is your interpretation of the experience. I mean, your reality is your interpretation of the experience, right? Yeah. So it is like the major. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:13 Highlight the passage at 1:32:13

1:32:25 The Matrix. It's quite similar. Yeah. Okay. Interesting. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:25 Highlight the passage at 1:32:25

1:32:39 So, wait, I had a comment on that. I just lost. Yeah, so, no, so, yeah, so to us in this room, we're experiencing what's happening here as a class on emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:39 Highlight the passage at 1:32:39

1:33:00 If Bodhi the cat walked in. Totally different reality, right? Be all these people sitting there not petting me, right? Making noise and not petting me would probably be, you know, just as valid of an experience, right? For the cat, that's a valid experience. For us, a class on emptiness is a valid experience. Both are valid. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:00 Highlight the passage at 1:33:00

1:33:40 Is it a class on emptiness from its own side? Report an error in the passage at 1:33:40 Highlight the passage at 1:33:40

1:33:51 Sorry to delay things a bit more. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:51 Highlight the passage at 1:33:51

1:33:58 Okay, you bring up the annoying person and kind of get that. Then I was thinking about virtue and non-virtue. Obviously they don't exist from their own side and yet somehow that becomes a big thing in Buddhism. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:58 Highlight the passage at 1:33:58

1:34:17 Virtue is what, you know, non-virtue creates the suffering. It's almost as if it's built up, you know, for me, you know, it's like, oh, that exists. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:17 Highlight the passage at 1:34:17

1:34:30 And then I know it doesn't, but is it kind of like a parallel to, okay, the snake, you know, that's a valid name on something? I've got to think about this. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:30 Highlight the passage at 1:34:30

1:34:44 You know, the rope and the snake, and so it's valid to call it the one we've all agreed on. Is that what virtue is over and above what an annoying person is? You know what I mean? I guess not. You know, it seemed like we were so easily tearing down that, okay, they're not annoying from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:44 Highlight the passage at 1:34:44

1:35:12 And yet, so often we all agree on, well, that's... Non-virtuous because we can see it suffering. But maybe every single one of us in this room can agree so-and-so is an annoying person. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:12 Highlight the passage at 1:35:12

1:35:27 So it's tempting to say it's almost the same. I know I've kind of gone off on this. I'll think about it. But anyway, they're all empty. They're all empty. And virtue isn't... Just a consensus, right? Virtuous actions function to bring about happiness or pleasure. And that's why it's called virtue is because it functions to bring about a future pleasurable result. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:27 Highlight the passage at 1:35:27

1:36:10 Non-virtue functions to bring about a future suffering or painful. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:10 Highlight the passage at 1:36:10

1:36:21 I think that's where I kind of went off on a tangent because, you know, I was thinking of examples of people who, through their actions, kind of like non-virtuous, like say they're on a murderous rampage, most people might think, oh, this is a, quote, bad person. But I can see that, you know, they're not from their own side a bad person. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:21 Highlight the passage at 1:36:21

1:36:48 It came kind of close in my mind to non-virtuous behavior equals annoying person. Anyway, Report an error in the passage at 1:36:48 Highlight the passage at 1:36:48

1:37:04 I've taken enough time on that. I think I get it. I'm Report an error in the passage at 1:37:04 Highlight the passage at 1:37:04

1:37:31 not sure what to say about that. Yeah, please. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:31 Highlight the passage at 1:37:31

1:37:40 Well, you know, they say until you're enlightened, you don't really know. keep the engine. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:40 Highlight the passage at 1:37:40

1:37:45 To judge other people's virtue and non-virtue anyway. It's like, you know, it appears and we have a convention that it's non-virtuous to be a murderer, obviously, and I'm not suggesting anyone go down that path, but it's not really for us to... Conventionally we would judge and have rules or laws or, you know, obviously we don't want to make that okay on a conventional level, but ultimately, until we're enlightened, we really don't know. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:45 Highlight the passage at 1:37:45

1:38:13 There could be this... Incredibly good reason that Dick Cheney, for example, did the things that I happen to think were war crimes, right? But I don't have the, sorry, I've lost the word, but I don't have, yeah, I don't have the wisdom. I was thinking of another word, the clairvoyance. I don't have the clairvoyance, I don't have the wisdom. I really can't judge. I mean, on the other hand, on a conventional level, I have a duty as a... Report an error in the passage at 1:38:13 Highlight the passage at 1:38:13

1:38:43 citizen to make some judgments and that's that's like you know being on a jury and Getting evidence and you know making an action. That's like the function part. We function as a society. We make choices We make judgments right, but ultimately don't know anyway. That's my little commentary Report an error in the passage at 1:38:43 Highlight the passage at 1:38:43

1:39:03 a complicated subject. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:03 Highlight the passage at 1:39:03

1:39:08 Isn't there that story about, I don't know if it's the Buddha in one of his lives or something, who killed the man on the ship or something because he knew that he would rather take the bad karma of killing that one person then that other being take on all the negative karma of killing everyone on the ship or something so similar to what you're saying you Yeah, Report an error in the passage at 1:39:08 Highlight the passage at 1:39:08

1:39:44 and virtue and non-virtue, right? you know we would see that action and see the killing the guy and say that's a murderer and he's really bad but you can't I mean I think that just reminded me of what you were saying yeah and Report an error in the passage at 1:39:44 Highlight the passage at 1:39:44

1:39:47 A virtuous action or a non-virtuous action is dependent on, whether it's virtuous or non-virtuous, is primarily dependent on the mind, the intention. Technically, action or karma is the mental factor of intention. So if the intention is to benefit others, then it will bring about a happy, pleasurable result. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:47 Highlight the passage at 1:39:47

1:40:16 In general, if the intention is to harm somebody, then it will bring about a painful result. And I see that as being quite separate from this whole annoying person thing, right? Because, I mean, there can be some relationship in our mind, but annoying person, to me, is just a label we put on something that we find displeasing. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:16 Highlight the passage at 1:40:16

1:40:48 If I don't like it... Then I find it annoying. You know, it has completely to do with my mind and the way that my conceptual mind views the world and what should be, right? And what I'm attached to as being the right way of doing things, right? The right way to be. So I see that as being, you know, maybe related to virtue and non-virtue, but not the same. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:48 Highlight the passage at 1:40:48

1:41:24 Your rules you just made up. With your mind. Sorry. I mean, and there's some, you know, probably some validity to it. But it's still a product of a conceptual mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:24 Highlight the passage at 1:41:24

1:41:45 You know, what in our society we view as being correct and incorrect. Like the whole example of honking your horn. Right? In this society, that is seen as being impolite. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:45 Highlight the passage at 1:41:45

1:42:03 In India, in much of the third world, in Asia, that's the polite thing to do is honk your horn to warn people that you're coming. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:03 Highlight the passage at 1:42:03

1:42:18 It's completely dependent on what this society has decided. It's completely a concept. It's an artificial concept. It's the same data. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:18 Highlight the passage at 1:42:18

1:42:35 Two different societies view it in a completely different way. And that's what we do all the time. We're brought up with certain ideas of how things should be according to our society. And they don't exist that way from their own side at all. It's just, you know, it's a way that functions for a society. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:35 Highlight the passage at 1:42:35

1:43:03 Is it the right way of Report an error in the passage at 1:43:03 Highlight the passage at 1:43:03

1:43:11 opinion? Report an error in the passage at 1:43:11 Highlight the passage at 1:43:11

1:43:17 So we were brought, we just being brought up in a society, we're full of conceptual constructs of right and wrong that we've become convinced that are right and wrong as opposed to just a convention by this society. Very Report an error in the passage at 1:43:17 Highlight the passage at 1:43:17

1:43:40 interesting to see how much stuff we've got in there. All Report an error in the passage at 1:43:40 Highlight the passage at 1:43:40

1:43:50 right, so there was a hand, Peter Lewis and then Joe. Well, this is just apropos of whether something is virtuous or non-virtuous based on our intention. What about the case of somebody who's delusional, who like kills their whole family thinking that he's going to send them to heaven? There have been cases like this and really sincerely believes it. What's the karma in that case? Is it mitigated by the fact that there's mental illness? Report an error in the passage at 1:43:50 Highlight the passage at 1:43:50

1:44:21 Well, what I've heard is it would be a mixed karma, right? what I've... Yeah. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:21 Highlight the passage at 1:44:21

1:44:29 If the intention is genuinely to benefit, then there's a, I mean really honestly genuinely to benefit, then there's some positive karma being created, virtuous karma being created. But the fact that it functions to end the human rebirth of other beings, then that's non-virtuous, right? So it's mixed. And then, I mean to your question about, okay, Because he's delusional, right? It's like the difference between a two-year-old doing something because they don't know any better, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:44:29 Highlight the passage at 1:44:29

1:45:06 And an adult doing the same thing, knowing better. The two-year-old would create less strong, less powerful karma than the person who knows, right? Knows that you shouldn't steal from somebody else, but does it anyway. It's a more conscious decision to do something harmful, right? Similar like in a dream versus in the awakened state, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:45:06 Highlight the passage at 1:45:06

1:45:37 The karma created is different. I don't know, does that answer your question? Report an error in the passage at 1:45:37 Highlight the passage at 1:45:37

1:45:47 Yeah, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:47 Highlight the passage at 1:45:47

1:45:52 There are certain karmic questions where it's kind of a little bit of this and a little bit of that and that's kind of one of them that I was curious about. I think that most of the karma that we create is mixed. Personally, Emily's theory. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:52 Highlight the passage at 1:45:52

1:46:10 Today or yesterday was National Coming Out Day. And there's a lovely example of just what we were talking about before. A little comedy skit by Catherine Tate. It was like this Irish family and the son comes home and he's like, I'm a gay mom now. And the whole joke was, the mom's like, what? He's like, I'm gay? He comes out to his mom. She's like... Report an error in the passage at 1:46:10 Highlight the passage at 1:46:10

1:46:36 That's fantastic. We've got a gay son. Like that was the whole joke. Like, you know, like she acted like she was going to be like this, you know, a devastating news. But then it turns out that she was extremely pleased to have a gay son who would have this unique perspective in the family, unlike anybody else. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:36 Highlight the passage at 1:46:36

1:46:56 They could ask him fashion questions, you know, like he was asking, this was the joke, you know. But like it sort of illustrated, like, you know, that Whether he was gay or not was the fact, and her whole experience of it depended entirely on how she perceived it. And like 90 % of people would be devastated and angry and hurt and all that kind of stuff, but the joke was she wasn't. She was ecstatic. I thought that was just a lovely illustration, actually, of what we were just talking about. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:56 Highlight the passage at 1:46:56

1:47:26 Yeah, exactly. It's not right or wrong or anything from its own side. It just depends on how you see it. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:26 Highlight the passage at 1:47:26

1:47:36 So I just wanted to share one perspective, which was like there's this, I guess, group of people, when you had mentioned that we have so many concepts that we, you know, have in this society, there's this group of people in a part of Asia, I think it's a part of Pakistan, where... It's the norm to be extremely cruel to other people. And these are human beings. It's normal and expected to be very, very cruel and it's okay to kill other people. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:36 Highlight the passage at 1:47:36

1:48:11 And when you're actually not as cruel, people look down on that. That's actually a bad thing. And so you have children crying because they were punished for not being cruel enough to other people. And this is modern day, it's a very small tribe, but so the norm is to be very harmful, which we're like, wow, that's just so horrible. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:11 Highlight the passage at 1:48:11

1:48:36 But that's their perspective of what's normal, you know, and what's good, their version of what's good and bad. Perspective is just so different from where we're at too, you know. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:36 Highlight the passage at 1:48:36

1:48:50 Yeah. Yeah. That would be some funky karma, right, to be born there. Yeah, yeah. Because, I mean, but the thing is, you know, there's a convention, right, to be cruel and things. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:50 Highlight the passage at 1:48:50

1:49:10 But independent of that, there is still virtue and non-virtue being created. So if you're actually intending to harm somebody, you're still creating non-virtue, even if you think it's, right, reinforced by society, right, the right way to... So that would be very unfortunate karma, right? To be brought up in a society that reinforces that kind of thing. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:10 Highlight the passage at 1:49:10

1:49:37 I mean, we are brought up in a society that reinforces a lot of negative actions, right? Negative actions, you know, against animals, insects, prisoners, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:49:37 Highlight the passage at 1:49:37

1:49:52 Quote-unquote criminals, right? That reinforces selfish behavior. Yeah. All right. Okay, lots of good discussion today. All right, so let's, yeah, so we'll just Report an error in the passage at 1:49:52 Highlight the passage at 1:49:52

1:50:17 finish, I think we've pretty much finished this section almost, right? So Report an error in the passage at 1:50:17 Highlight the passage at 1:50:17

1:50:29 illusory appearance means things still appear as inherently existent to the sense consciousness, but our mental consciousness does not. Believe. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:29 Highlight the passage at 1:50:29

1:50:51 So there's a lot of mistaken understandings of illusory appearance, right? People think, oh yeah, well things just appear insubstantial. That's the meaning of illusory appearance. That is not the meaning of illusory appearance in this context. Things still appear the same way. It's just that the mental consciousness doesn't believe it anymore. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:51 Highlight the passage at 1:50:51

1:51:28 So thus... Report an error in the passage at 1:51:28 Highlight the passage at 1:51:28

1:51:33 So due to that, if the meditative equipoise on space-like emptiness in which the object aims for apprehending attributes does not even exist one bit, so when that hits home, an illusion-like emptiness will appear when you look at object appearances in the subsequent attainment period after you have arisen from that equipoise. Report an error in the passage at 1:51:33 Highlight the passage at 1:51:33

1:52:00 So when we meditate on emptiness... Correctly, and only emptiness appears. There's no existence from its own side that appears one bit. When we arise from that, this illusion-like appearance will just automatically occur. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:00 Highlight the passage at 1:52:00

1:52:22 This disbelief in appearances, right? Like His Holiness the Dalai Lama says, right? You know you're making progress on emptiness if things start to appear as like illusions. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:22 Highlight the passage at 1:52:22

1:52:39 Not as illusions, right? It's not an illusion. It's just like an illusion because it doesn't exist the way it appears to exist, but it still does exist conventionally in that almost not existing kind of way. Just merely imputed by the mind. Just very light. So we need to analyze phenomena a lot. With the reasoning, analyzing whether or not they're established by way of their own entities. And then we generate a very strong certainty with respect to their lack of inherent existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:39 Highlight the passage at 1:52:39

1:53:23 Then subsequently, when you look at appearances arising, they will appear like illusions. There is no separate way of settling the illusion like emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:23 Highlight the passage at 1:53:23

1:53:34 So this is a process, right? We do this meditation on emptiness. Today, tomorrow, the next day, the next day, the next day. We develop more and more certainty that things don't exist from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:34 Highlight the passage at 1:53:34

1:53:51 And that the stronger that becomes, then when we arise, then we don't believe in those appearances anymore. It appears like there's a real Effie sitting there in the corner. I know it doesn't exist that way, right? There's just an illusory appearance of Effie. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:51 Highlight the passage at 1:53:51

1:54:26 So therefore, even when engaging in the side of conduct such as prostrations and circumambulations, you engage in them affected by the ascertainment of your analysis as explained earlier. Report an error in the passage at 1:54:26 Highlight the passage at 1:54:26

1:54:38 Thereby, you should train in illusion-like appearance and do them from within that. Once you have trained in it, they will appear like illusions even through the mere recollection of the view. So then, even when we engage in all sorts of other practices like prostrations, then it's flavored by our understanding of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:54:38 Highlight the passage at 1:54:38

1:55:05 We do these virtuous actions, but understanding that they don't exist from their own side. They don't exist intrinsically. Report an error in the passage at 1:55:05 Highlight the passage at 1:55:05

1:55:24 They do create merit. They do affect the mind. But they don't exist from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:55:24 Highlight the passage at 1:55:24

1:55:34 So that's like we hear sometimes about how when we do virtuous actions, we try to see the emptiness of the three spheres, right? Remember, right? So we do our prostrations. We see that I am not empty from my own side, right? The prostration is not. What did I say? I do not exist from its own side. The prostration doesn't exist from its own side. Action, the agent action. Report an error in the passage at 1:55:34 Highlight the passage at 1:55:34

1:56:08 What would the third sphere be in that? I guess then the merit created would also not exist from its own side. And the Buddhas that you're prostrating to would also not exist from their own side. So they are merely illusory appearances. They're merely conventionally existent. Even Buddhas don't exist from their own side. Even enlightenment doesn't exist from its own side. Merely labeled by the mind and prostrating to them creates virtue. Report an error in the passage at 1:56:08 Highlight the passage at 1:56:08

1:56:56 So the question is, isn't that because of your faith? Partly, but there's also that concept of the power of the holy object. There is a power that they have, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:56:56 Highlight the passage at 1:56:56

1:57:13 if I have faith Faith that Bodhi is an enlightened being, is it the same? If I prostrate to Bodhi as if I prostrate to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Bodhi. Yeah, right. So if Bodhi is a real, right, is just an ordinary cat, right? Even if I have faith, is it the same? It'd be hard to say it's the same, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:57:13 Highlight the passage at 1:57:13

1:57:30 yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:57:30 Highlight the passage at 1:57:30

1:57:48 Though there is that story of the, right, the relic and the dog's tooth, right, the guy who was on. Yeah, so faith plays a huge part in the amount of, my Report an error in the passage at 1:57:48 Highlight the passage at 1:57:48

1:58:07 own position is maybe it's not the same. But Report an error in the passage at 1:58:07 Highlight the passage at 1:58:07

1:58:16 yeah, things get complicated. Report an error in the passage at 1:58:16 Highlight the passage at 1:58:16

1:58:25 Okay, so then, to put simply and easy to understand. So Lama Tsongkhapa reviews, the method for seeking this ascertainment is as follows. First of all, we should cause the generality of the object of negation to appear well. First of all, invoke the object of negation or object of refutation. Consider well the way ignorance in one's continuum superimposes inherent existence and identify it. Report an error in the passage at 1:58:25 Highlight the passage at 1:58:25

1:58:59 So notice what that... Object of refutation looks like. Notice what that eye, solid concrete eye, looks like. Spend a lot of time noticing. A lot of time noticing. Report an error in the passage at 1:58:59 Highlight the passage at 1:58:59

1:59:27 And then we consider how if there was such an inherent existence, it will not be beyond oneness and difference. So the four-point analysis. Report an error in the passage at 1:59:27 Highlight the passage at 1:59:27

1:59:40 That I really solidly existed, it would have to exist the same as the body and our mind or different from the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:59:40 Highlight the passage at 1:59:40

1:59:52 Then we see how thinking about it, there's damage done to assertions of either. If that solid existent I was the body, there are all sorts of absurd consequences. If it was the mind, all sorts of absurd consequences. If it's separate from the body and mind, absurd consequences. If it's the brain, absurd consequences. Report an error in the passage at 1:59:52 Highlight the passage at 1:59:52

2:00:25 If it's the mental consciousness, absurd consequences. It can't be any of those. And we went through why. Why can't the mental consciousness be the I? Report an error in the passage at 2:00:25 Highlight the passage at 2:00:25

2:00:45 At which moment? Report an error in the passage at 2:00:45 Highlight the passage at 2:00:45

2:00:52 Okay. So that's because it's constantly changing. But what if I think, oh, well, but the I is constantly changing. Mental consciousness is the I. Yeah, the I. On some level, I believe the I is constantly changing, right? So then what would be the absurd consequences of the I being the mental consciousness? Report an error in the passage at 2:00:52 Highlight the passage at 2:00:52

2:01:13 Because that's, I mean, because this one's a really difficult one to extricate ourselves from, right? Because that belief that that I is the mental consciousness. It comes up again and again. Report an error in the passage at 2:01:13 Highlight the passage at 2:01:13

2:01:32 If you're constantly changing many eyes, Report an error in the passage at 2:01:32 Highlight the passage at 2:01:32

2:01:38 okay? Okay. So I would be a totally different person than yesterday, right? Because my mental consciousness, let's say yesterday when I was angry, you know, and this moment that I'm happy, they're two totally different mental consciousnesses, right? So. Report an error in the passage at 2:01:38 Highlight the passage at 2:01:38

2:02:11 It would be two totally different people. Okay? That's a good one. Report an error in the passage at 2:02:11 Highlight the passage at 2:02:11

2:02:25 Like, I think you've said before, like, can I be here sitting, or in here, my mental consciousness is in here, but my body is sitting in the other room? I mean, that's one thing that you've said. So if it's just your mental consciousness, if I is just your mental consciousness, then you could say something like, I'm here, but my body is in the other room. Report an error in the passage at 2:02:25 Highlight the passage at 2:02:25

2:02:49 Right? I mean, you know, there's... Report an error in the passage at 2:02:49 Highlight the passage at 2:02:49

2:02:54 Yeah. Well, see, that's not quite the example that I use. That's the example I use if the eye was separate from the mind and the body. Right. Right. Because my mind could be on vacation right now and my body could be in Sechenling, I think, quite validly. Right. Right. Okay. I see what you're saying. Yeah. But kind of related to that, right? Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 2:02:54 Highlight the passage at 2:02:54

2:03:27 If the mental consciousness was the I, Report an error in the passage at 2:03:27 Highlight the passage at 2:03:27

2:03:34 then I could say the mental consciousness is sitting. Because I am sitting, I could say the mental consciousness is sitting. And that doesn't really make sense, right? Report an error in the passage at 2:03:34 Highlight the passage at 2:03:34

2:03:54 So many absurd consequences of the mental consciousness. Any others that people remember? Report an error in the passage at 2:03:54 Highlight the passage at 2:03:54

2:04:12 It's useful to have it kind of... At the tip of our consciousness. So we remember when that belief comes, because it does come, right? Yeah, yeah. So what about, His Holiness the Dalai Lama uses this one. What about when we get frustrated with our mind? Report an error in the passage at 2:04:12 Highlight the passage at 2:04:12

2:04:38 And you think, oh gosh, but only I could exchange my mind with His Holiness' mind. We Report an error in the passage at 2:04:38 Highlight the passage at 2:04:38

2:04:49 still think it's the same I, but it would have a different mind, a different mental consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 2:04:49 Highlight the passage at 2:04:49

2:04:56 So that shows that we think that I am separate from the mind. I have a mental consciousness. It's not that I am the mental consciousness. I really believe that I have a mental consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 2:04:56 Highlight the passage at 2:04:56

2:05:17 I would love to exchange my mind with His Holiness' mind. Report an error in the passage at 2:05:17 Highlight the passage at 2:05:17

2:05:24 But I think that it would still be me. Taking on another preferred mind. Instead of thinking I have a, would it be, should we think that I have a mental consciousness or is it there is a mental consciousness or is that kind of going too far, like kind of distancing too much? Report an error in the passage at 2:05:24 Highlight the passage at 2:05:24

2:05:52 You mean in one sense how we should think about it? Yeah, and like thinking, okay, so this mind is not the I. And it's like, okay, thinking about that and how if I were going to merge my mind with that of His Holinesses, then they would be still uniquely different. Therefore, my mind cannot, this mind cannot be the I. So I guess my question is, should we look at it as like, oh, my mind, consciousness, this. Report an error in the passage at 2:05:52 Highlight the passage at 2:05:52

2:06:29 business. This. . I have this mind consciousness rather than just more of a neutral, this mind consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:29 Highlight the passage at 2:06:29

2:06:44 Because it's almost like, at least when I heard that, I was thinking, oh, if I say my mind consciousness, it's almost like there's a reference point of still, like, mine. You know what I mean? I don't know if I'm dispensing too much. My is tricky. It's hard for my to arise without... A belief in a real me, an inherently existent me. Because the way that it exists is that, you know, mental consciousness arises and the I is labeled on that mental consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:44 Highlight the passage at 2:06:44

2:07:22 Body, body sitting, so then I can label I am sitting. There's no I at all that's separate from the body and the mind, right? There's no I at all that, all that. Has a body and mind. I mean, we can kind of say conventionally, yeah, there's merely puted, I has a body and mind. But it's hard for that ownership thing to occur without believing in an inherently distant I. Report an error in the passage at 2:07:22 Highlight the passage at 2:07:22

2:08:07 Okay, so we've run out of time. I was going to do a meditation, but. So I sent out the homework through email. I have. Oh, I haven't added you to the list yet. I'm sorry. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:07 Highlight the passage at 2:08:07

2:08:31 So I don't have that many hard copies, but if you want a hard copy, that's it. So the practice homework is to continue to try to identify your object of refutation, that real I that seems to exist, and do your meditation on emptiness. And as you walk around, try to remember things don't exist the way they appear. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:31 Highlight the passage at 2:08:31

2:08:55 They don't exist the way they appear. They don't exist the way they appear. They are merely imputed by the mind. So as we're saying, this is a cup, but it's not a cup from its own side. Imputed as a cup, not a cup from its own side. Imputed as right or wrong, not right or wrong from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:55 Highlight the passage at 2:08:55

2:09:28 I've lost you guys. All right, so we'll dedicate. Okay, I'm sorry because I've already gone over. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:28 Highlight the passage at 2:09:28

2:09:43 But it functions. Let's do page 240. We'll just do the first three. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:43 Highlight the passage at 2:09:43

2:09:59 Page 240. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:59 Highlight the passage at 2:09:59

2:10:05 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 2:10:05 Highlight the passage at 2:10:05

2:10:27 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 2:10:27 Highlight the passage at 2:10:27

2:10:54 So also dedicating for the quick recovery of Lama Tsongkhapa Rinpoche from his manifested stroke. Long Report an error in the passage at 2:10:54 Highlight the passage at 2:10:54

2:11:05 life of Geshe Dagpa, Lama Tsongkhapa Rinpoche. His Holiness the Dalai Lama and all of our spiritual masters. Report an error in the passage at 2:11:05 Highlight the passage at 2:11:05

2:11:39 Thank you. Thanks for your patience with me. Report an error in the passage at 2:11:39 Highlight the passage at 2:11:39

2:11:49 Do you have the same email addresses before? Yeah, I remember. But why don't you... Report an error in the passage at 2:11:49 Highlight the passage at 2:11:49