Special Insight 3: Wisdom of Emptiness (18 October 2011)

· · · silence, 1 minute

0:49 The survivors of this class. It's Report an error in the passage at 0:49 Highlight the passage at 0:49

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

1:23 Yeah, what to do. You can't control people. Report an error in the passage at 1:23 Highlight the passage at 1:23

1:39 Yeah, it's great. Report an error in the passage at 1:39 Highlight the passage at 1:39

1:52 That's the emptiness. Yeah, the emptiness. I don't know, it's just, maybe it's just going on too long for people. I don't know. Report an error in the passage at 1:52 Highlight the passage at 1:52

2:09 It's a feel-good. Report an error in the passage at 2:09 Highlight the passage at 2:09

2:16 feel good Well, emptiness is really popular in the first six weeks, and then the interest starts to dwindle. It's like, ooh, this stuff is hard. You mean it applies to me? Report an error in the passage at 2:16 Highlight the passage at 2:16

2:31 I had that question. This guy came to one of my study group, and we did a meditation on trying to find the solid me, and he looked stunned at the end. He said, you mean this applies to me, too? Report an error in the passage at 2:31 Highlight the passage at 2:31

2:49 Like, yeah, that's the point. Report an error in the passage at 2:49 Highlight the passage at 2:49

2:59 On the recording, so I shouldn't say things. All right. Okay, let's set our motivation. Maybe first meditate on our breath and settle our minds a little bit. And Report an error in the passage at 2:59 Highlight the passage at 2:59

· · · silence, 1 minute

4:12 let's see if we can develop a bodhicitta motivation or at least a motivation to benefit others. Report an error in the passage at 4:12 Highlight the passage at 4:12

· · · silence, 1 minute

5:38 So we'll start with the praise to Manjushri on the first page of the white book. Report an error in the passage at 5:38 Highlight the passage at 5:38

5:50 Obeisance to my guru and protector Manjushri, who holds to his heart a scriptural text symbolic of his seeing all things as they are, whose intelligence shines forth as a sun, unclouded by delusions or traces of ignorance, who teaches in sixty ways with the loving compassion of a father for his only son, all creatures caught in the prison of saṃsāra, confused in the darkness of their ignorance, overwhelmed by their suffering. Report an error in the passage at 5:50 Highlight the passage at 5:50

6:15 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 it sprouts a clear, 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 6:15 Highlight the passage at 6:15

6:54 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. Report an error in the passage at 6:54 Highlight the passage at 6:54

7:09 And then the Heart Sūtra on page 76. Report an error in the passage at 7:09 Highlight the passage at 7:09

7:25 I prostrate to the Arya Triple Gem. Thus did I hear at one time, the Bhagavan was dwelling on Mass Vultures Mountain in Rajkriya, together with a great community of monks and a great community of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Bhagavan was absorbed in the concentration on the categories of phenomena called profound perception. Report an error in the passage at 7:25 Highlight the passage at 7:25

7:46 Also at that time, the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara looked upon the very practice of the profound perfection of wisdom and beheld those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature. Then through the power of Buddha, the venerable Shariputra said this to the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara, How should any son of the lineage train who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom? Report an error in the passage at 7:46 Highlight the passage at 7:46

8:12 He said that, and the Bodhisattva Maha Sattva Arya Avalokiteshvara said this to the Venable Sharivadiputra. Shariputra, any son of the lineage or daughter of the lineage who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom should look upon it like this, correctly and repeatedly beholding those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature. Report an error in the passage at 8:12 Highlight the passage at 8:12

8:34 Form is empty, emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form. Form is also not other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors and consciousness are empty. Shariputra, likewise all phenomena are emptiness, without characteristic, unproduced, unceased, stainless, not without stain, not deficient, not fulfilled. Report an error in the passage at 8:34 Highlight the passage at 8:34

8:59 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 time. Report an error in the passage at 8:59 Highlight the passage at 8:59

9:18 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 9:18 Highlight the passage at 9:18

9:45 Shariputra, therefore, because there is no attainment, bodhisattvas rely on and dwell in the perfection of wisdom, the mind without obscuration and without fear. Having completely passed beyond error, they reach the end point of nirvāṇa. All the Buddhas who dwell in the three times also manifestly completely awaken to unsurpassable, perfect, complete enlightenment in reliance on the perfection of wisdom. Report an error in the passage at 9:45 Highlight the passage at 9:45

10:10 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 true since it is not false. The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is declared. The Bodhisattva Mahasattva should train in the profound perfection of wisdom like that. Report an error in the passage at 10:10 Highlight the passage at 10:10

10:39 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 Tathatagas rejoice. Report an error in the passage at 10:39 Highlight the passage at 10:39

10:59 The Bhagavan having thus spoken the venerable Sharivadiputra, the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalokiteshvara, and those surrounding in their entirety, along with the world of gods, humans, Asuras, and Gandharvas, were overjoyed and highly praised that spoken by the Bhagavan. Report an error in the passage at 10:59 Highlight the passage at 10:59

11:17 All right, and then Refuge and Bodhicitta on page 98. Report an error in the passage at 11:17 Highlight the passage at 11:17

11:27 I go for refuge until I am enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Supreme Assembly. By the merits I create through listening to the Dharma, may I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings. I go for refuge until I am enlightened. To the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme Assembly. By the merits I create through listening to the Dharma, may I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings. Report an error in the passage at 11:27 Highlight the passage at 11:27

11:52 I go for refuge until I am enlightened. To the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme Assembly. By the merits I create through listening to the Dharma, may I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings. Report an error in the passage at 11:52 Highlight the passage at 11:52

12:14 So I was thinking this week about how I think most of us think that the ups and downs of life, the difficulties, the worries, the anxiety, the fear, the dissatisfaction are unavoidable. Report an error in the passage at 12:14 Highlight the passage at 12:14

12:39 But... In fact, all of those emotions are optional. They're just needless suffering, jealousy, desire, irritation. Report an error in the passage at 12:39 Highlight the passage at 12:39

13:00 They're not intrinsic to the mind, right? They're just the clouds that are passing through. And they're based on a belief in an existence that's more solid than it is. And they're mostly based on a belief in a real me and mine. So we can remove those emotions forever. We can remove them such that the mind is completely at peace, completely satisfied, forever, completely content. Report an error in the passage at 13:00 Highlight the passage at 13:00

13:41 And how do we do that? Realizing emptiness. That's like, that's... The solution, that's the ticket out of all of these difficulties forever. So when we get that, when we get glimpses of that, then it's amazing that we have the karma to have met these teachings, these authentic teachings that will get us, free us from suffering forever. Report an error in the passage at 13:41 Highlight the passage at 13:41

14:19 So all of our suffering is caused by thoughts. Thoughts. Report an error in the passage at 14:19 Highlight the passage at 14:19

14:32 It all comes down to ultimately to the conceptual mind, to thinking. Report an error in the passage at 14:32 Highlight the passage at 14:32

14:40 There's so much data that comes into our awareness, sights and sounds and odors, tastes. Report an error in the passage at 14:40 Highlight the passage at 14:40

14:53 But what we do with that data, the way we interpret that data is what's going to lead to happiness or suffering. It's just data. It's just appearances. Report an error in the passage at 14:53 Highlight the passage at 14:53

15:11 But what we do with those appearances, what we do with that data, how we interpret that data is what's going to lead to more and more happiness or more and more suffering. Report an error in the passage at 15:11 Highlight the passage at 15:11

15:23 So it's our conceptual mind that creates so many problems. Not to say conceptual mind is bad, all together, right? There's very useful conceptual minds, like the cultivation of compassion, the cultivation of... Report an error in the passage at 15:23 Highlight the passage at 15:23

15:46 Love, the cultivation of an intellectual understanding of emptiness. And then there's the needless suffering that we create by grasping on to things that can never bring us happiness. Report an error in the passage at 15:46 Highlight the passage at 15:46

16:02 Ever. Can never last. Those relationships, those jobs, the money, the possessions. None of them. Will bring us lasting happiness. Report an error in the passage at 16:02 Highlight the passage at 16:02

16:22 We spend so much time and energy in our lives running on the hamster wheel. Either just to sustain what we have or to accumulate things that we're just going to end up losing anyway. Report an error in the passage at 16:22 Highlight the passage at 16:22

16:44 So much time and energy to eat. To feed our bodies, to keep our bodies healthy, to pay the rent or the mortgage, to cultivate friendships, relationships, develop financial security, worldly success that we're all going to lose. All of those things we're going to end up losing. So what will bring us lasting happiness? Report an error in the passage at 16:44 Highlight the passage at 16:44

17:18 Well, what will bring us temporary happiness is practicing virtue. Practicing virtue, practicing generosity, practicing kindness, practicing love and compassion will bring us happiness within saṃsāra. Report an error in the passage at 17:18 Highlight the passage at 17:18

17:39 But what will bring us ultimate happiness, lasting happiness, Report an error in the passage at 17:39 Highlight the passage at 17:39

17:49 wisdom of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 17:49 Highlight the passage at 17:49

17:56 So every little drop we put in our bucket to increase our understanding of emptiness is putting a drop. Toward our lasting happiness, our ultimate happiness. Report an error in the passage at 17:56 Highlight the passage at 17:56

18:19 So ignorance is the basis of all of our mental distress. So Lama Tsongkhapa talked about the two kinds of ignorance, the self, grasping at a self of persons and grasping at a self of phenomena. Report an error in the passage at 18:19 Highlight the passage at 18:19

18:37 And so we refuted the self of persons, right? How did we refute the self of persons? What kind of reasoning did we use to refute the self of persons? Report an error in the passage at 18:37 Highlight the passage at 18:37

18:55 Yay! Four point analysis. The reasoning of one and many. Or the reasoning of sameness and difference is another way of putting it. Report an error in the passage at 18:55 Highlight the passage at 18:55

19:11 So we refuted the self of persons. And then we talked about how when you arise from that meditation on emptiness, then things appear as like illusions. don't get it, really? Report an error in the passage at 19:11 Highlight the passage at 19:11

19:24 So they still appear in the same way to the sense consciousness, but the mental consciousness no longer believes that that's true. Report an error in the passage at 19:24 Highlight the passage at 19:24

19:39 So earlier Lama Tsongkhapa quoted Nagarjuna who said, so we realize the self of persons before we realize the self of phenomena, but actually the grasping of self of phenomena comes first and then the grasping of the self of Persons. The grasping of the self of phenomena comes first and then the grasping of the self of persons. So what does that mean? Report an error in the passage at 19:39 Highlight the passage at 19:39

20:07 So when we see a person, we see their body or if we hear a person, we hear their voice. And we first conceive of that body or that voice is existing from its own side. The aggregates as existing from their own side, as if they're real in and of themselves. And then based on that, then we impute a real person. Report an error in the passage at 20:07 Highlight the passage at 20:07

20:37 So it's only based on seeing one or more of the aggregates or perceiving one or more of the aggregates that we perceive a person. Report an error in the passage at 20:37 Highlight the passage at 20:37

20:47 So the aggregates are phenomena, person is a person. So does that make sense? So only based on perceiving the aggregates do we perceive a person. And first we perceive the aggregates, right, the body and her mind, as being solidly existing, and then we perceive the person based on the aggregates, right? Report an error in the passage at 20:47 Highlight the passage at 20:47

21:28 So actually, before we move on, I want to go through the true-false on the homework last week. Did anybody do it? All right. All right. Report an error in the passage at 21:28 Highlight the passage at 21:28

21:43 True or false? Persons and phenomena are like illusions, so they don't exist. Report an error in the passage at 21:43 Highlight the passage at 21:43

21:54 True or false? Seeing things as translucent is the meaning of illusory appearance. Report an error in the passage at 21:54 Highlight the passage at 21:54

22:07 After arising from realizing emptiness, phenomena appear differently to the sense consciousness of sentient beings. Report an error in the passage at 22:07 Highlight the passage at 22:07

22:26 After arising from realizing emptiness, phenomena appear the same to sense consciousnesses of sentient beings, but the mental consciousness does not believe in that appearance. Report an error in the passage at 22:26 Highlight the passage at 22:26

22:44 After realizing emptiness, inherent existence no longer appears to the sense consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 22:44 Highlight the passage at 22:44

22:58 False. Inherent existence still appears to the sense consciousness until we become a Buddha. Report an error in the passage at 22:58 Highlight the passage at 22:58

23:12 Persons are empty. the sense consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 23:12 Highlight the passage at 23:12

23:14 But there is a person that exists and accumulates karma. True. Emptiness exists inherently. Report an error in the passage at 23:14 Highlight the passage at 23:14

23:32 H. Emptiness comes into existence when it's realized. You guys are good. Ding, ding, ding, ding. 100%. I'm impressed. Report an error in the passage at 23:32 Highlight the passage at 23:32

23:49 All right. On that note, we've passed so we can move on. All right. Report an error in the passage at 23:49 Highlight the passage at 23:49

24:00 So when we talked about illusory appearance, we were talking about... The two factors, right? Emptiness and appearance. Things are utterly, totally, completely empty of existing from their own side. And they appear and function. Completely unfindable. Report an error in the passage at 24:00 Highlight the passage at 24:00

24:26 Down to the smallest particle. And it exists. It does exist. So that's the tricky part, is getting emptiness and appearance. Utter, complete, negating every bit of existence from its own side. And it appears it exists conventionally and it functions. Report an error in the passage at 24:26 Highlight the passage at 24:26

25:06 So I'm going to read this quote and then, so Gish is jump a tech joke or Kinzer jump a tech joke. This is a quote from him. Report an error in the passage at 25:06 Highlight the passage at 25:06

25:18 He says, it is said that when we seek the correct view of emptiness, it is very difficult to place our mind on phenomena being empty of true existence because we have such strong familiarity with grasping at true existence. Our mind is so habituated to conceiving true existence that we cannot come close to the correct way of thinking. Also, when we ascertain emptiness for the first time, it is difficult to posit appearance. Report an error in the passage at 25:18 Highlight the passage at 25:18

25:49 On one side it is empty and yet it appears. It is difficult to reconcile empty with function and appearance. After some time, however, we realize the side of emptiness and the side of appearance support each other. We are able to understand that phenomena are able to appear and function because they are empty and that they are empty of true existence because They are able to appear and function. Report an error in the passage at 25:49 Highlight the passage at 25:49

26:28 So phenomena are able to appear and function because they are empty and that they are empty of true existence because they are able to appear and function. Noodle Report an error in the passage at 26:28 Highlight the passage at 26:28

26:45 that. Report an error in the passage at 26:45 Highlight the passage at 26:45

26:52 So there is no me that's findable at all. There is no me that's findable on the body and mind. They're separate from the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 26:52 Highlight the passage at 26:52

27:10 There's no real essence of me. Report an error in the passage at 27:10 Highlight the passage at 27:10

27:16 There is no me that exists in and of itself. There is no me that exists separate from the thought me. And Report an error in the passage at 27:16 Highlight the passage at 27:16

27:40 that is why I can accumulate karma and get enlightened and realize emptiness. If Report an error in the passage at 27:40 Highlight the passage at 27:40

27:56 there was a me that existed in and of itself, I Report an error in the passage at 27:56 Highlight the passage at 27:56

28:05 couldn't change. I couldn't get enlightened. Report an error in the passage at 28:05 Highlight the passage at 28:05

28:13 So Report an error in the passage at 28:13 Highlight the passage at 28:13

28:22 something to think about. Report an error in the passage at 28:22 Highlight the passage at 28:22

28:30 Not easy. Jess had a question. Do you still have a question? And then Joe. Report an error in the passage at 28:30 Highlight the passage at 28:30

28:39 I wanted to see if I understood the concept of the horns on the rabbit appropriately. Because I was reading that in the reading. And is it that it said that once you realizing that there's no such thing as horns on a rabbit. Is a belief that's based in your understanding of the physical world. And that when you realize that, that is not an experience of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 28:39 Highlight the passage at 28:39

29:12 Because understanding that is based on your belief in the physical world and not based on the non Report an error in the passage at 29:12 Highlight the passage at 29:12

29:32 -existence of the rabbit. Even the rabbit from its own side, let alone the horns on the rabbit. So I think that came in the context of when they talked about phenomena as being like illusions, like dreams, etc., etc., right? Report an error in the passage at 29:32 Highlight the passage at 29:32

29:58 So the examples are similar in that the way that the dream... Object or the dream person exists is different from the way or the way that it appears is different from the way that it exists. The way that appears is different the way that it exists. Report an error in the passage at 29:58 Highlight the passage at 29:58

30:22 That's the similarity, right? Illusions, dreams, etc. But realizing that that dream object is just a dream object and not real is not a realization of emptiness, right? Because realization of emptiness is realizing something very specific, right? The emptiness of it existing from its own side. Not just the emptiness of it existing the way it appears, but the emptiness of it existing from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 30:22 Highlight the passage at 30:22

30:55 So it's not a physical thing so much. It's just a matter of a subtlety that you're realizing, right? Okay, thank you. Report an error in the passage at 30:55 Highlight the passage at 30:55

31:10 Jo, do you still have a question? Report an error in the passage at 31:10 Highlight the passage at 31:10

31:16 Trivia, I'm not good at trivia. Report an error in the passage at 31:16 Highlight the passage at 31:16

31:23 I don't, you probably turned it off. Report an error in the passage at 31:23 Highlight the passage at 31:23

· · · silence, 1 minute

32:16 Yeah, I can. Report an error in the passage at 32:16 Highlight the passage at 32:16

32:20 Anyway, let's focus. When we were talking about things that are empty and don't have inherent existence, I found myself asking what are the things that do have inherent existence? Weren't there a few things that we learned about that were said to have? Nothing at all. Nothing at all. Report an error in the passage at 32:20 Highlight the passage at 32:20

32:44 Nothing at all. Nothing. Yeah, there's some things that are permanent, not changing from moment to moment, but there's nothing that's inherently existent. So we're going to move on to refuting other things as being inherently existent. So far we've refuted persons, you know, the me as being inherently existent. Then we're going to refute everything else as being inherently existent. Report an error in the passage at 32:44 Highlight the passage at 32:44

33:15 All right? Okay. So Peter has a question. Report an error in the passage at 33:15 Highlight the passage at 33:15

33:27 So just speak loudly and I'll repeat. I'll try to repeat it. So my question is about, Report an error in the passage at 33:27 Highlight the passage at 33:27

33:41 is it about hell Report an error in the passage at 33:41 Highlight the passage at 33:41

33:59 by the same token also don't really exist from their own side? How is this all reconciled with these very kind of, Report an error in the passage at 33:59 Highlight the passage at 33:59

34:13 which really go into some amazing detail? So hell realms don't exist from their own side and pure lands don't exist from their own side. How can that be reconciled with? Emptiness. So there are hell realms and there are pure lands. There are very valid experiences of huge amounts of suffering and there are very valid experiences of huge amounts of bliss. Report an error in the passage at 34:13 Highlight the passage at 34:13

34:46 Those are caused. If we create the causes for hell, we experience immense suffering. If we create the causes of happiness and bliss, we create that, right? We experience that. If it existed from its own side, you couldn't create the causes for that, right? If you were in the hell realm and it existed from its own side, you would always experience suffering every moment of every day forever, right? Report an error in the passage at 34:46 Highlight the passage at 34:46

35:22 There wouldn't be. No, but the hell of an unrelenting torment has a beginning and it has an end. It's very long, they say, but it has an end. So it's just an effect of a non-virtuous action or more than one non-virtuous action. Report an error in the passage at 35:22 Highlight the passage at 35:22

36:00 It could just be the Report an error in the passage at 36:00 Highlight the passage at 36:00

36:05 Well, okay, so the unending part. Well, see, the unending part, the unending is different from inherent existence, right? Enlightenment is an unending experience. Liberation is unending. It will be, once you achieve that, it is irreversible. You will never, ever fall back into saṃsāra ever again. So it's forever, but it doesn't exist from its own side. So there's eternal because we've removed the causes of suffering forever from their root. Report an error in the passage at 36:05 Highlight the passage at 36:05

36:50 There are no causes for suffering at all in your continuum anymore. They've been completely eradicated, so you're liberated forever. You're free from suffering forever. Report an error in the passage at 36:50 Highlight the passage at 36:50

37:07 And the reason you could achieve that state is because it's empty from its own side. But yeah, I mean, it's tough, right? It's tough. Oftentimes it seems, right? It seems that things are being reified. Report an error in the passage at 37:07 Highlight the passage at 37:07

37:27 I mean, they're vivid. They're vivid. Just like our experience here in the human realm is very vivid, right? Our happiness is very vivid. Our pleasure is very vivid. And our suffering is very vivid and detailed. detailed. And And it's created by causes and conditions and it can be removed and it doesn't exist from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 37:27 Highlight the passage at 37:27

37:53 So there's an experience, right? There's still data. There's still experience. It Report an error in the passage at 37:53 Highlight the passage at 37:53

38:03 doesn't exist in and of itself through its own power. It comes into being through causes and conditions. My theory about the hell realms is that they're just trying to scare the bejesus out of you so that you behave yourself, so that they have these very gronguignol descriptions of all these tortures, you know, like a Hieronymus Bosch painting. Report an error in the passage at 38:03 Highlight the passage at 38:03

38:28 But really, isn't that more of a mental state? We can be in hell, not have to be in a physical hell in order to be in hell. Yeah. Well, for sure it's a mental state, right? It could be a physical place, too, right? Report an error in the passage at 38:28 Highlight the passage at 38:28

38:49 Yeah, so... Report an error in the passage at 38:49 Highlight the passage at 38:49

38:57 Well, I mean, you know, like you said, like here, it's as real or unreal, if you want to say it, as here. That's how I take it. And I think, to me, it's, you know, possibly a teaching method because it's easy for us to see, most of us anyway, you know, human realm and animal realm, but it's much harder to think of a kind of a... Report an error in the passage at 38:57 Highlight the passage at 38:57

39:26 Concrete existence of some kind of the other realms. And so, you know, when you hear them repeat it and repeat it, then you start thinking about it and thinking, you know, it sort of, yeah, it works that way. Like you start realizing it's got to be, because it's also sometimes hard for me to think of it as this like physical thing, but the more I thought about it, you know, like. Report an error in the passage at 39:26 Highlight the passage at 39:26

39:51 Why not? Why not as real as this? Because the more you think about this, it's like. Yeah, exactly. And when we understand that things are empty, existing from their own side, we understand that hell realms are very possible. I mean, as you were saying, this realm itself is a hell realm for a lot of people, right? Report an error in the passage at 39:51 Highlight the passage at 39:51

40:16 Just go down the street, right? Look at the homeless people. Look at the people who are drugged out. There's so much. Hell happening. Or if you look at the, I'm sorry, the lobster being thrown into a vat of boiling water alive. Report an error in the passage at 40:16 Highlight the passage at 40:16

40:37 Hell realm right there for the lobster. Imagine being thrown into a vat of boiling water, you know. So, you know, the realm we're in is dependent on our experience. Right? So, yeah, sure. Yeah, so the hell realms are tough. tough and it was. Sorry. Report an error in the passage at 40:37 Highlight the passage at 40:37

41:05 All right. Okay. So actually, hopefully we're going to address that a little bit more in this refuting the selflessness of phenomena. I mean, refuting the self of phenomena. Report an error in the passage at 41:05 Highlight the passage at 41:05

41:22 Oh, okay. But before we get to that, the last bit that we didn't cover last time is on page 277 in the Corco translation in the middle. Report an error in the passage at 41:22 Highlight the passage at 41:22

41:39 To review. Report an error in the passage at 41:39 Highlight the passage at 41:39

41:49 To review, so he says, Lama Tsongkhapa says, put simply and easy to understand, the method for seeking this ascertainment of appearance and emptiness is as follows. As explained earlier, you should cause the generality of the object of negation by reasoning to appear well. Consider well the way ignorance in one's continuum superimposes inherent existence and identify it. Report an error in the passage at 41:49 Highlight the passage at 41:49

42:20 So we cause the generality or the mental image of the object of negation to appear well, clearly, right? So that real I, that real, solidly existent, inherently existent I to appear clearly to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 42:20 Highlight the passage at 42:20

42:44 So the mental image, what does that look like? And also he says to cause it to appear by reasoning. Report an error in the passage at 42:44 Highlight the passage at 42:44

42:58 So, not only seeing how it appears in our mind when an emotional situation arises, like when somebody accuses me of something, like, I can't believe you accused me of doing that. Like, there's a real me here. Then also think, okay, well, if it inherently existed that way, then that means that it would have to exist. Report an error in the passage at 42:58 Highlight the passage at 42:58

43:32 As something independent, something not changing. So think about the implications of what an inherently existent I is. Report an error in the passage at 43:32 Highlight the passage at 43:32

43:47 Then next we consider how if there is such inherent existence, it will not be beyond oneness and difference. And how thinking about it, there's damage done to assertions of it as either. So we have the object of refutation and then we think, okay, well what are the possibilities? If it existed, it would have to exist as the same as the aggregates or different from the aggregates. Report an error in the passage at 43:47 Highlight the passage at 43:47

44:13 Same as the body and mind or different from the body and mind. And then we see that it can't be the same and it can't be different. So then we see that the person lacks even the least bit of inherent Report an error in the passage at 44:13 Highlight the passage at 44:13

44:32 Existence from its own side. And then like that, you should train in the factor of emptiness a lot. Sometimes people think, okay, it's just a matter of, okay, I need to think about emptiness, I need to meditate on emptiness, and then when I get it, then I can move on to something else. Report an error in the passage at 44:32 Highlight the passage at 44:32

44:52 And the thing is, in the beginning, we just try to get an intellectual understanding. And then we get an experience, right? Some sort of ephemeral experience. And then we try to stabilize that experience, right? So then over time, eventually we'll be able to bring up the experience at will whenever we sit down and meditate, whenever we want, right? Report an error in the passage at 44:52 Highlight the passage at 44:52

45:25 And then we use calm, abiding and special insight to make that experience more powerful. And then we realize emptiness directly. So we have to just do it every day until we become a Buddha. Report an error in the passage at 45:25 Highlight the passage at 45:25

45:44 And then Lama Tsongkhapa says, how do we cause the persons to appear illusion-like without forgetting emptiness? He says, then you should let the undeniable appearance of the designation of person arise as the object of your mind. So then you let the person... Arise to your mind. Attend to the interdependent factors of positing it as the accumulator of karma and experiencer of results. Report an error in the passage at 45:44 Highlight the passage at 45:44

46:16 So then we refute the person, every particle of the person from existing from its own side. And then we let the person arise and not. In appearance, right? Conventional appearance. And then we think about how that person does exist. It does accumulate karma. It does experience results. So back and forth like that, right? Emptiness, appearance, functionality, right? Report an error in the passage at 46:16 Highlight the passage at 46:16

46:48 And then gain certainty concerning the ways in which interdependence is valid in the absence of inherent existence. So the tough part, right? Gaining certainty. Report an error in the passage at 46:48 Highlight the passage at 46:48

47:01 So emptiness and then appearance and functionality. Report an error in the passage at 47:01 Highlight the passage at 47:01

47:12 Then, settling the selflessness of phenomena. So we refute that there's a person, a real person, existing from its own side, a real person in the body and mind, or separate from the body and mind. So we refute the person, so there's no person at all, there's no me at all, on this body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 47:12 Highlight the passage at 47:12

47:38 Next, we need to refute the body as being inherently existent and the mind as being inherently existent. Not only is there not a real person, there's not a real body either, and there's not a real mind either. Report an error in the passage at 47:38 Highlight the passage at 47:38

47:59 So we refute the inherent existence of what they call the basis of designation, the basis of imputation, the body and mind, or the five aggregates, or the six elements. Report an error in the passage at 47:59 Highlight the passage at 47:59

48:15 Okay, so how do we do that? So among the aggregates, right, there are the two types. There's the physical aggregate and then there's the mental aggregates, right? There's the body and there's the mind. So Lama Tsongkhapa says with the physical phenomena, right, the body, you examine both their parts in the various cardinal directions such as east and that which possesses the parts. Report an error in the passage at 48:15 Highlight the passage at 48:15

48:46 So how do we refute the inherent existence of the body? Report an error in the passage at 48:46 Highlight the passage at 48:46

48:53 Sorry. Just to back up a little bit. So we're going to use the reasoning that we already presented to refute the inherent existence of the body and mind, and then Lama Tsongkhapa is going to use different reasoning as well. So to refute the inherent existence of the body with the reasoning we presented earlier, you see that the body is also... Report an error in the passage at 48:53 Highlight the passage at 48:53

49:21 Neither the same as its parts nor different from its parts. So we think that there's a solid body here covering its parts, right? Covering the head and the torso and the arms and the legs, right? There seems to be a solid body here covering these atoms, right? Subatomic particles. So is that body the same? Report an error in the passage at 49:21 Highlight the passage at 49:21

49:54 Let's say as that collection of atoms, or is it different from the collection of atoms? Report an error in the passage at 49:54 Highlight the passage at 49:54

50:07 Or maybe we can say, is it the same as the hairs and the eyes and the nose and the ears and the mouth and the tongue, etc.? Or is it different? Report an error in the passage at 50:07 Highlight the passage at 50:07

50:24 So it would have to be either inherently the same or inherently different, right? So if we say it's the same, inherently the same, right? If it was inherently existent. It would have to be either inherently the same or inherently different. If it was inherently the same as the body, Report an error in the passage at 50:24 Highlight the passage at 50:24

50:48 then one of the absurd consequences would be there would be many bodies. Those are many parts. There are many atoms. There are many two eyeballs and two ears, etc. If they were the same, if they were inherently the same, then they would be identical. Report an error in the passage at 50:48 Highlight the passage at 50:48

51:14 Because there are many parts, then there must be many bodies. That would be an absurd consequence if the body was the same as the parts. Report an error in the passage at 51:14 Highlight the passage at 51:14

51:33 Or sometimes we think that the collection of the parts is the body, right? That one's a hard one to let go of. The collection of the parts is the body, right? Report an error in the passage at 51:33 Highlight the passage at 51:33

51:47 If the collection of the parts, well, there's a couple of things. If the collection of the parts was the body, then I could put... The two ears on a pile and the nose in a pile and the brain and the heart and the lungs and pile up that collection of parts of the body. And that would be the body. Is that the body? It's the collection of the parts, but it's not the body, right? Report an error in the passage at 51:47 Highlight the passage at 51:47

52:21 So it said the collection. Bring up your doubts. I don't have a doubt. I just wanted to say, couldn't you stipulate it is the collection of the parts in a particular configuration? So what is that configuration? Whatever the body, I mean, you know what I mean? So let's say, okay, so that's another refutation is some people say it's the shape of the collection of the parts. Report an error in the passage at 52:21 Highlight the passage at 52:21

52:52 So which shape? Is it this shape? Is it that shape? Right, right. Right? Report an error in the passage at 52:52 Highlight the passage at 52:52

53:02 Which shape is it? Okay. It's imputed to the collection. It's imputed to, we can even say, the shape of the collection. But it isn't the shape, right? We'd have to identify exactly what the shape is. Okay. It's also like if someone doesn't have a body part. They're missing an arm. They still have a body. Exactly. So we don't differentiate that. Right. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 53:02 Highlight the passage at 53:02

53:37 Because if we say it's the collection of the parts or the shape of the collection of the parts. Okay. The collection of which parts? If you take away the arm, is it still the body? If you take away, you know, the foot, is it still the body? If you take away the heart, is it still the body? Okay. Okay. That one works for me better. If you swap out the heart. Report an error in the passage at 53:37 Highlight the passage at 53:37

53:54 Because I feel like you could define a shape on some conventional level, right? We have an agreed upon sort of this is a human body, but that one helps me. Which one is, you know, if you take parts away, that one helps me a little bit more. I don't know. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 53:54 Highlight the passage at 53:54

54:17 So it's interesting what you just said. We could define, we could agree upon a shape, right? Conventional. Imputed by the mind, right? Because that's what we do. We look at something and the mind decides, oh, is that a body or not? If it was a body from its own side, the mind wouldn't have to impute it. The mind wouldn't. Report an error in the passage at 54:17 Highlight the passage at 54:17

54:44 Need to have any part in it at all. It would just be a body from its own side. But we decide, right? Report an error in the passage at 54:44 Highlight the passage at 54:44

54:54 So last week we were talking about how things change too and how your body, actually like all the cells in your body replenish themselves within seven years or something like that. So the body is always changing every millisecond. So it can't be existent from its own side. Just for that very reason, if we follow the logic we discussed last week. Yeah, exactly. There's a lot of reasons, right, why the body can't exist from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 54:54 Highlight the passage at 54:54

55:27 The body is merely imputed in dependence on this ever-changing collection of parts, right, just labeled on this collection of parts. And that thing that seems to be covering the parts, right, there seems to be... A body covering the parts. Does that exist? Is there something that's some cohesive entity that's tying all of those things together? Report an error in the passage at 55:27 Highlight the passage at 55:27

56:04 Like that butter, right? That butter that's covering, like the spread covering. It's just a figment of our imagination, right? Report an error in the passage at 56:04 Highlight the passage at 56:04

56:15 So the body also doesn't exist from its own side. So no person... From its own sight, no body from its own sight. Then the mind is more difficult. The mind, refuting that the mind exists from its own sight. Because it seems like the mind is this, well first of all we have to figure out what the mind is, right? That's a big first step. What is this mind, right? Report an error in the passage at 56:15 Highlight the passage at 56:15

56:44 That which is clear and knowing. This space in which thoughts arise and perceptions arise, right? It's just a space. Has no form, no physicality at all, according to the Dharma. Report an error in the passage at 56:44 Highlight the passage at 56:44

57:06 And thoughts, perceptions, feelings appear, arise within that space. Report an error in the passage at 57:06 Highlight the passage at 57:06

57:18 So first of all, we have to understand, you know, at least conventionally what the mind is, right? And then the mind has many moments, right? Some moments of peace and some moments of irritation and some moments of... Joy and some moments of confusion and some moments of feeling alert and some moments of feeling dull and sleepy. Report an error in the passage at 57:18 Highlight the passage at 57:18

57:44 It's this constantly changing stream of moments. So is the mind one with those many moments? Inherently one or is it different? Report an error in the passage at 57:44 Highlight the passage at 57:44

58:10 If the mind inherently existed it would either have to be Inherently one with those moments or inherently different from those moments. Report an error in the passage at 58:10 Highlight the passage at 58:10

58:24 So then we refute that it's inherently one and we refute that it's inherently different. Report an error in the passage at 58:24 Highlight the passage at 58:24

58:32 So that one takes quite some work. Report an error in the passage at 58:32 Highlight the passage at 58:32

58:42 All right, so I'm going to read from His Holiness the Dalai Lama's. He wrote a text on emptiness called Key to the Middle Way. So I'm going to read from that. He's talking about someone named Lucky. He says, right, when Lucky's mind is happy, The entity of that mind is what is to be analyzed. If it is divided into indivisible moments, there is no mass that is a composite of the many former and later moments. Report an error in the passage at 58:42 Highlight the passage at 58:42

59:29 At the time of the later moments, the former moments have ceased. no mass is a composite of the many former and later moments. Report an error in the passage at 59:29 Highlight the passage at 59:29

59:35 Therefore, the former ones have gone and their conscious entity has disappeared. Because the future moments have not yet been produced, they are not existing now. Report an error in the passage at 59:35 Highlight the passage at 59:35

59:51 Also, the single present moment is not separate from what has already been produced and what has not yet been produced. Therefore, when it is sought thus, Report an error in the passage at 59:51 Highlight the passage at 59:51

1:00:06 one is unable to establish a present consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:06 Highlight the passage at 1:00:06

1:00:14 When the happy mind, which is the object discussed in his mind is happy, is sought, it is utterly unfindable. In short, happy and unhappy minds and so forth are designated to a mere collection of their own former and future moments. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:14 Highlight the passage at 1:00:14

1:00:37 Even the shortest moment is imputed to its parts. It has the individual parts of a beginning and an end. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:37 Highlight the passage at 1:00:37

1:00:54 So there are these many moments of mind. There's no mass that's a composite of all those moments. The Report an error in the passage at 1:00:54 Highlight the passage at 1:00:54

1:01:10 past moments of mind don't exist anymore. The future have yet to arise. It's the conceptual mind that ties those together into something we call the mind. But Report an error in the passage at 1:01:10 Highlight the passage at 1:01:10

1:01:35 even the present moment is divided into many moments. Sub-moments. There's no shortest moment of consciousness, right? Remember how Vibashika says there are shortest moments of consciousness? Report an error in the passage at 1:01:35 Highlight the passage at 1:01:35

1:01:55 Yeah, higher schools. No! Because even those can be divided and divided and divided and divided at infinitum. So there's no even present moment that's findable. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:55 Highlight the passage at 1:01:55

1:02:12 So the mind is utterly unfindable within the moments. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:12 Highlight the passage at 1:02:12

1:02:21 Can the mind exist as different from those moments? Report an error in the passage at 1:02:21 Highlight the passage at 1:02:21

1:02:29 If we have moments of unhappy mind, right? Moments of unhappy consciousness. Can there be a happy mind even though the moments are unhappy? Report an error in the passage at 1:02:29 Highlight the passage at 1:02:29

1:02:44 If they were different, inherently different, then the moments could be unhappy and the mind could be happy. Doesn't make sense, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:02:44 Highlight the passage at 1:02:44

1:03:02 If they were inherently different, Then they could have different characteristics. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:02 Highlight the passage at 1:03:02

1:03:13 And same with the body. I forgot to do that with the body, right? So the body isn't the collection of the parts of the body. And it's also not different, inherently different, right? Because if so, then the parts of the body could be fat and the person could be thin. Or the body could be thin, sorry. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:13 Highlight the passage at 1:03:13

1:03:36 The parts could be fat and the body could be thin if they were inherently different. Then they could have different characteristics. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:36 Highlight the passage at 1:03:36

1:03:50 Eric. So we need to think about that, right? So we refute the person first, then we refute turn off the cell phone, and we refute the body as being inherently existent, we refute the mind as being inherently existent. So then we have nothing to hold on to. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:50 Highlight the passage at 1:03:50

1:04:15 Because the thing is, when we refute the person as being inherently existent, we can still hang on to something as being inherently existent, the body, the mind, the smallest particles, something, energy, something. But anything that we hang on to, Report an error in the passage at 1:04:15 Highlight the passage at 1:04:15

1:04:38 not findable. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:38 Highlight the passage at 1:04:38

1:04:45 So that's how we refute the body as being inherently existent, the mind as being inherently existent, through the reasoning of... You know sameness and difference through the same reasoning we used to refute the person. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:45 Highlight the passage at 1:04:45

1:05:03 So next Lama Tsongkhapa is going to get into a different reasoning using the reasoning of dependent arising to refute. So I think that's a good time for a break and then after the break we'll go into that. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:03 Highlight the passage at 1:05:03

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:05:48 that would be nice. I don't need a new tea bag, just some hot water. Do you want me to leave the tea bag there? Yeah, that would be good. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:48 Highlight the passage at 1:05:48

1:05:57 Flavored hot water? Yes. Thanks for doing that, Mike. It's an ongoing challenge, isn't it, with the battery? Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:57 Highlight the passage at 1:05:57

1:06:09 Thank God. You need. So I was really glad to see those. So I put them in. Okay. Go ahead. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:09 Highlight the passage at 1:06:09

1:06:26 Are they double A's or what are they? Double A's. Double A's. You know, I might have some double A's. Rechargeable ones I could donate to the center. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:26 Highlight the passage at 1:06:26

1:06:42 I have to go back to my hamster wheel in midterms. All right. Good luck with that. More clear now at least. Thank you. Yeah. Just hot water? Yeah, just hot water. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:42 Highlight the passage at 1:06:42

1:07:08 Can I ask Report an error in the passage at 1:07:08 Highlight the passage at 1:07:08

1:07:32 you a question? Thanks. Sure. Maybe it's too long of a question, so we can always talk about it later, but I've always wondered. I know there's some teachings on it, but I haven't really. it. What does the Dharma say about the connection between the mind and the brain? I've heard that there's some discussion on this, but I don't know. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:32 Highlight the passage at 1:07:32

1:07:56 I've never really known anything other than there's some theoretical discipline. like how they were portioned together. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:56 Highlight the passage at 1:07:56

1:08:00 description of it, but, yeah. In some of those mind-life conferences with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, that stuff is discussed. I don't have a detailed understanding at all of what that is. My understanding is that His Holiness has said that there's a connection between the grosser levels of mind and the brain. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:00 Highlight the passage at 1:08:00

1:08:25 And my sense is that it's something like the mind is like an emerging property of the brain. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:25 Highlight the passage at 1:08:25

1:08:36 So the grosser levels of mind can't function without the brain. But the mind isn't the brain, it's like an emerging property of the brain. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:36 Highlight the passage at 1:08:36

1:08:52 I Report an error in the passage at 1:08:52 Highlight the passage at 1:08:52

1:08:57 can't think of an example right now. Right, right. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:57 Highlight the passage at 1:08:57

1:08:59 So... For example, just for us to be able to think, the brain needs to function. For us to perceive, see things and hear things. Sense perception, we need the brain. So there's clearly a connection between sense perception and Report an error in the passage at 1:08:59 Highlight the passage at 1:08:59

1:09:25 somehow. Yeah. I'm just curious. It's interesting. Because they're doing a lot of... They do a lot of studies these days with meditators and measuring. So clearly there's a relationship between the brain and the mind, the mind state. But then at the time of death, the grosser levels of mind dissolve and then there's the subtle level, the extremely subtle level of mind doesn't require the brain function. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:25 Highlight the passage at 1:09:25

1:10:08 So, yeah, so I can't tell you much more. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:08 Highlight the passage at 1:10:08

1:10:16 Yeah, Report an error in the passage at 1:10:16 Highlight the passage at 1:10:16

1:10:23 wouldn't that be amazing? Yeah, really. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:23 Highlight the passage at 1:10:23

1:10:30 Oh, you should do it, yeah. You know, because a friend of mine is married to the guy who heads the Mind Life. No way. Yeah, and so she's been to some of those, and some of those are open to people. Report an error in the passage at 1:10:30 Highlight the passage at 1:10:30

1:11:19 Because you're in neuroscience, right? I mean that's perfect. Yeah, I mean that's my training. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:19 Highlight the passage at 1:11:19

1:11:28 So one that's in the United States, just make it an aspiration and then go with Report an error in the passage at 1:11:28 Highlight the passage at 1:11:28

1:11:39 Betty and see what she says. Yeah, that'd be cool. About how that could happen. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:39 Highlight the passage at 1:11:39

1:11:53 I was like in the front row because I was like, you know, of course, like, get out of my way. Just kidding. But no, it was really cool. It was Report an error in the passage at 1:11:53 Highlight the passage at 1:11:53

1:12:07 part Report an error in the passage at 1:12:07 Highlight the passage at 1:12:07

1:12:12 of the neuroscience. Well, I mean, that's, that's huge. It's huge for that to even be open to a religious person, right? Right, I know. I mean, that's why I was so excited about it. It was years ago. I think it was the second time. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:12 Highlight the passage at 1:12:12

1:12:32 Yeah. Yeah, I know, I know. So they've done some amazing work with meditators and MRI scans and, you know, like you brought up, I don't know, is it you that brought up after Rick Harden maybe? We talked about a little bit of the emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:32 Highlight the passage at 1:12:32

1:12:48 He's done a lot of the studies, I guess, the physiological studies. Right, right. Yeah, yeah, exactly. I'm just curious. It's interesting. Uh-huh. Yeah. It is. I'm trying to think of specific book that addresses that. don't remember which one. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:48 Highlight the passage at 1:12:48

1:13:14 of the worries if you come across something or think of it. Yeah. I would love for you to go one of those. You're right, it should just be like aspiration, you know, it's kind of like one of those things. I know, and it's probably beyond what you think is possible. No, but it's so true that that's, that's so true, because it's like a venerable, or I guess it's Lama Tsongkhapa, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:13:14 Highlight the passage at 1:13:14

1:13:39 Yeah, but of Report an error in the passage at 1:13:39 Highlight the passage at 1:13:39

1:13:48 course you can. You know what I mean? Like I never really thought that I wanted, so. And you've got the perfect qualifications, right? You've got the science and you've got the Dharma. Yeah, yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:48 Highlight the passage at 1:13:48

1:14:08 Yeah, it isn't much. Because I think there's some complex, like, stuff that the Dharma. For sure, for sure. And I, I mean, it's amazing to read those sections because his understanding of science is amazing. And what I love, Report an error in the passage at 1:14:08 Highlight the passage at 1:14:08

1:14:44 this part of, Report an error in the passage at 1:14:44 Highlight the passage at 1:14:44

1:14:48 you know, like the original Buddhism Report an error in the passage at 1:14:48 Highlight the passage at 1:14:48

1:14:54 have been revised. Funny. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:54 Highlight the passage at 1:14:54

1:15:16 Right, it's not dogma. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, which was something Report an error in the passage at 1:15:16 Highlight the passage at 1:15:16

1:15:26 that was Report an error in the passage at 1:15:26 Highlight the passage at 1:15:26

1:15:32 rational, the logical side, you know? Right, right. Aspiration. Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean... The book Buddha's Brain is not very scientific, but there's a little bit in there. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:32 Highlight the passage at 1:15:32

1:15:53 Good, yeah. I mean, it talks more about neuroplasticity and stuff, but it's, you know, not so much the relationship between the brain and the mind, but a little bit. You know, it's good to just go for that. I actually have that book. I lent it to somebody, but I'll lend it to you when I get it back. Okay, whenever. All right. Thanks. Okay. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:53 Highlight the passage at 1:15:53

1:16:25 That's okay. It's... It's Tuesday night after a long day at work, probably. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:25 Highlight the passage at 1:16:25

1:16:40 So, yeah, but this stuff is hard, you know, it's hard to come when you're tired already and then try to twist your brain around this stuff at the end of the day. Then have to convince yourself of it. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:40 Highlight the passage at 1:16:40

1:16:57 Aw. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:57 Highlight the passage at 1:16:57

1:17:06 I notice when I try to prepare for class, if I haven't gotten a good night's sleep, forget it. This will be pretty alert. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:06 Highlight the passage at 1:17:06

1:17:21 Okay, well, we're in pretty, yeah, well, thank you for coming. We're in pretty heavy-duty stuff, right? Difficult. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:21 Highlight the passage at 1:17:21

1:17:34 While you're awake. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:34 Highlight the passage at 1:17:34

1:17:42 Yeah, that's what we have to do, even if we don't understand it, right? We just keep coming. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:42 Highlight the passage at 1:17:42

1:18:03 Right. Yeah, okay. So, yeah. Yeah, I mean, this stuff, right? There are many classes, right, when we get into stuff like this that we don't... Get it when it's first presented, right? But slowly, slowly, it becomes, it makes more sense. I mean, I can't tell you how many classes, like in the years of my study, how many hundreds of classes I sat through that I didn't understand what was being talked about, you know, but over time, it's like, oh, that's what they meant. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:03 Highlight the passage at 1:18:03

1:18:44 So, anyway. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:44 Highlight the passage at 1:18:44

1:18:58 the, uh, the Samkis, all that, yeah, it's all Report an error in the passage at 1:18:58 Highlight the passage at 1:18:58

1:19:05 yeah right so okay So now we've refuted the person and the body and the mind as being inherently existent through the reasoning of one and different, right? Sameness and difference. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:05 Highlight the passage at 1:19:05

1:19:26 Then we go on to dependent arising. So Lama Tsongkhapa quotes the sūtra requested by Sagara Mati. It says, that which originates interdependently does not exist by way of its entity. So dependent arising, that's considered the king of reasoning, right? Things cannot be inherently existent because They're dependent arisings. So if it was inherently existent, it would have to exist through its own power, in and of itself, independently. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:26 Highlight the passage at 1:19:26

1:20:17 If it existed, Report an error in the passage at 1:20:17 Highlight the passage at 1:20:17

1:20:25 if this was really a cup, it wouldn't need causes and conditions to create it because it's really a cup. If the essence of it was really a cup. From its own side, it wouldn't need, it would always have been a cup. It could never be anything else because it really is a cup. If it really was a cup, it could never be anything else. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:25 Highlight the passage at 1:20:25

1:20:59 It really is a cup and it wouldn't need causes and conditions. It wouldn't have needed someone to make it. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:59 Highlight the passage at 1:20:59

1:21:10 So this is difficult. But this is the reasoning of dependent origination. Things are empty. The cup is empty of inherent existence because it's a dependent arising. I'm going to put this up as a syllogism. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:10 Highlight the passage at 1:21:10

1:21:45 The word Report an error in the passage at 1:21:45 Highlight the passage at 1:21:45

1:22:13 syllogism is intimidating, but all it is is a thesis. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:13 Highlight the passage at 1:22:13

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:23:12 You probably can't read all this, but anyway. So what we're trying to do is prove the thesis, right? We're trying to prove that the cup is not inherently existent, right? That's what we're trying to establish. That's what we're trying to prove, that the cup is not inherently existent. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:12 Highlight the passage at 1:23:12

1:23:38 What reasoning are we using in this case? Because it is a dependent arising. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:38 Highlight the passage at 1:23:38

1:23:51 A dependent arising or dependently arisen, however you want to say it. Because it arises dependently or it exists dependently. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:51 Highlight the passage at 1:23:51

1:24:06 So we can have lots of different reasons. We could say the cup is not inherently existent. Because it exists neither one with its parts nor separate from its parts. So that's the reasoning we were using before. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:06 Highlight the passage at 1:24:06

1:24:21 But in this case with dependent arising, we're using that as the reasoning. And this is considered the king of reasonings. And this reasoning only works for a person who understands that if it is a dependent arising, it necessarily does not inherently exist. If it exists dependently, then it necessarily cannot inherently exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:21 Highlight the passage at 1:24:21

1:24:58 And this requires thinking, right? This requires a lot of thought. If it's dependent arising, then it cannot inherently exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:58 Highlight the passage at 1:24:58

1:25:10 So here in the sūtra, Report an error in the passage at 1:25:10 Highlight the passage at 1:25:10

1:25:22 so the sūtra requested by Anavapati, I don't know how to pronounce that, says whatever is born from conditions, Is not born. It is not born by way of its entity. Whatever is born from conditions is not inherently born. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:22 Highlight the passage at 1:25:22

1:25:48 So let's look at that. Let's look at this cup. We talked about this last time, right? So this started off as clay, I assume, and then it was formed into a particular shape. Then it was glazed. Then it was baked. This is the birth or the production of the cup. It's through this process that we label creation of a cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:48 Highlight the passage at 1:25:48

1:26:31 There is this process and at a certain point in that process we label it cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:31 Highlight the passage at 1:26:31

1:26:47 That shows it doesn't inherently exist as a cup. There's this process which we label cup. We label creation of a cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:47 Highlight the passage at 1:26:47

1:27:13 Similarly, the birth of a baby. What happens? There's a baby in the womb. It comes out in different possible ways. And we call that birth. We call this process Birth. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:13 Highlight the passage at 1:27:13

1:27:41 Is it birth from its own side? There Report an error in the passage at 1:27:41 Highlight the passage at 1:27:41

1:27:50 are many different moments that we then call birth. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:50 Highlight the passage at 1:27:50

1:28:00 What is the moment of birth? What is the time of birth? Report an error in the passage at 1:28:00 Highlight the passage at 1:28:00

1:28:08 It's somewhat arbitrary, isn't it? Is it the moment that the umbilical cord was cut? Was it the moment it came out of the womb? Was it the second before? Was it the second after? Report an error in the passage at 1:28:08 Highlight the passage at 1:28:08

1:28:24 There's this process and then at some point we call it birth. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:24 Highlight the passage at 1:28:24

1:28:38 It's not birth from its own side. It's imputed by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:38 Highlight the passage at 1:28:38

1:28:48 So if it is born from conditions, it cannot be inherently born. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:48 Highlight the passage at 1:28:48

1:28:59 Whatever depends on conditions is said to be empty. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:59 Highlight the passage at 1:28:59

1:29:10 How are we doing so far? Report an error in the passage at 1:29:10 Highlight the passage at 1:29:10

1:29:21 So Report an error in the passage at 1:29:21 Highlight the passage at 1:29:21

1:29:26 this third line, whatever depends on conditions is said to be empty. Lama Tsongkhapa explains that dependence and reliance on conditions is the meaning of being empty of establishment by way of its own entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:26 Highlight the passage at 1:29:26

1:29:44 This indicates that the emptiness of inherent establishment is the meaning of dependent origination, whereas an emptiness of performing functions that would negate mere birth is not. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:44 Highlight the passage at 1:29:44

1:29:59 So being dependent on causes and conditions means that it must be empty of an inherent existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:59 Highlight the passage at 1:29:59

1:30:11 It doesn't mean that things are not born at all. They're just not born inherently. They're merely imputed as being born. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:11 Highlight the passage at 1:30:11

1:30:25 There is a transformation. There is change and then we impute birth. That's one way of looking at it. We impute birth. We can also impute death, you know, like when the seed turns into the sprout, the birth of the sprout or the death of the seed, right? Different ways of looking at it. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:25 Highlight the passage at 1:30:25

1:31:09 So by reason of arising dependently, it is pacified or empty of establishment by way of its entity. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:09 Highlight the passage at 1:31:09

1:31:23 then Sonkapa gets into... Report an error in the passage at 1:31:23 Highlight the passage at 1:31:23

1:31:34 we realize that... Phenomena arise in dependence, then we don't fall into the extremes. We don't fall into extreme views. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:34 Highlight the passage at 1:31:34

1:31:50 So what are the extreme views? The view of, it's called permanence or superimposition, Report an error in the passage at 1:31:50 Highlight the passage at 1:31:50

1:32:09 view of annihilation. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:09 Highlight the passage at 1:32:09

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:33:09 So we have to, to find the correct view, we have to find the middle way, the middle way between the two extremes. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:09 Highlight the passage at 1:33:09

1:33:21 The view of permanence or superimposition. So all of us fall into one or both of these extremes until we get the correct view. We all fall into this until we get the correct view. So the view of permanence or superimposition is a view that things inherently exist, that there's a real essence of things, that things exist from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:21 Highlight the passage at 1:33:21

1:33:54 So this is the extreme that we all fall into in the beginning. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:54 Highlight the passage at 1:33:54

1:34:05 And then the other extreme is the view of annihilation or deprecation. The view that if it didn't inherently exist, then it cannot exist at all. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:05 Highlight the passage at 1:34:05

1:34:20 This is the view that we can get into if we don't correctly identify the object of refutation first, and then we search and we find nothing. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:20 Highlight the passage at 1:34:20

1:34:32 Then it becomes a danger to think, okay, then nothing exists at all. Because I couldn't find it analytically, then it can't exist at all. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:32 Highlight the passage at 1:34:32

1:34:46 That's the view of annihilation. This is the more dangerous place to fall into, because this is when we think, okay, nothing exists at all, so I can do whatever I want. There's no cause and effect. You know, I can be, you know, I can just be selfish and, you know, hurt others and there's no consequences because nothing really exists. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:46 Highlight the passage at 1:34:46

1:35:15 So it said, right, when we're trying to get the correct view, if we start falling into the view of annihilation, then, you know, back up, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:35:15 Highlight the passage at 1:35:15

1:35:25 It's better to fall into the view of permanence or superimposition. So this is a view of permanence or inherent existence is what this means. Permanence in this context. Or superimposition, superimposing a mode of existence, superimposing a way of existing on top of what actually exists. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:25 Highlight the passage at 1:35:25

1:35:48 Superimposing inherent existence or real existence or true existence on top of conventional existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:48 Highlight the passage at 1:35:48

1:36:12 The reasoning of dependent arising, it's said to be the king of reasonings because it refutes both extremes simultaneously. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:12 Highlight the passage at 1:36:12

1:36:25 Because things are dependent, you know, so we have the two words, right? Dependent arising. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:25 Highlight the passage at 1:36:25

1:36:37 Dependent refutes permanence, right? Because things are dependent, then they cannot be inherently existent. Because They're dependent. They cannot exist in and of themselves through their own power from their own side. Because things are dependent, they cannot exist from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:37 Highlight the passage at 1:36:37

1:37:08 Arising refutes the view of annihilation, right? That nothing exists at all, right? Just that word arising means that something exists, right? It's not that nothing exists at all. So that's the... Traditional way of saying how dependent arising refutes the two extremes. Then Lama Tsongkhapa says, oh, but, Report an error in the passage at 1:37:08 Highlight the passage at 1:37:08

1:37:37 you know, the more profound understanding is that dependent refutes the view of annihilation and arising refutes the view of permanence. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:37 Highlight the passage at 1:37:37

1:37:56 So because things are dependent, there's right. Obviously something exists, right? It's not that things are non-existent. Because they're arisings, they arise, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:37:56 Highlight the passage at 1:37:56

1:38:15 They're arising, changing, dependently. Well, I shouldn't use the word dependent. They're arising dependent on causes and conditions, right? They arise due to causes and conditions. So they can't be permanent or inherently existent. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:15 Highlight the passage at 1:38:15

1:38:49 Could you explain that? How dependence refutes the view of annihilation again for us. So it's dependent, right? So the view of annihilation is what? That things don't exist at all. At all. It's just a nihilistic void. Right. Right. So if it's dependent, it exists, right? It can't be dependent if it doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:49 Highlight the passage at 1:38:49

1:39:28 Can you give us an example? Report an error in the passage at 1:39:28 Highlight the passage at 1:39:28

1:39:39 That's the more profound way of understanding this. So let's think about that. We'll think about that. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:39 Highlight the passage at 1:39:39

1:39:53 So Lama Tsongkhapa also says, right, so based on this argument of Report an error in the passage at 1:39:53 Highlight the passage at 1:39:53

1:40:02 dependent arising, right, the syllogism, the cup is not inherently existent because it is a dependent arising. So the two extremes are abandoned, also abandoned through this syllogism. It says through ascertainment of the argument, the view of annihilation is radically refuted, and through ascertaining the meaning of the thesis, the view of permanence is eradicated. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:02 Highlight the passage at 1:40:02

1:40:34 So through understanding the reason that it's a dependent arising, that refutes the view of annihilation. It being a dependent arising refutes that nothing exists at all. Because if it's a dependent arising, then something must exist. So that refutes annihilation, non-existence. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:34 Highlight the passage at 1:40:34

1:41:07 Through ascertaining or understanding the meaning of the thesis, the cup is not inherently existent, then we refute the view of permanence. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:07 Highlight the passage at 1:41:07

1:41:18 The view of inherent existence is refuted by understanding that it's not inherently existent. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:18 Highlight the passage at 1:41:18

1:41:34 How are we doing so far? Tired. Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:34 Highlight the passage at 1:41:34

1:41:45 So I'm just going to go a little bit further and then we'll take a break. I mean, take a break. Do a meditation. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:45 Highlight the passage at 1:41:45

1:41:54 Or maybe we should just do the meditation now. I just want to cover a tiny little bit more of, okay, what does dependent arising mean for lower schools, particularly Lama Tsongkhapa says chitta mantra versus madhyamika or madhyamika. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:54 Highlight the passage at 1:41:54

1:42:15 So the chitta matras, the mind only school and those below, they all agree that things are, well, impermanent things are dependent arisings in the sense of being dependent on causes and conditions. And he says external things such as sprouts, so sprouts, plants, flowers, right? All the schools agree that they are dependent arisings and that they depend on causes and conditions, right? The sun, the seed, the rain, the fertilizer, the soil, etc., right? Report an error in the passage at 1:42:15 Highlight the passage at 1:42:15

1:42:59 All the schools agree. And he says, in particular, Shida mantra. And internal things, such as compositional factors. So he's talking about... Like mental factors, right? Anger arises dependent on causes and conditions. Ignorance arises dependent on causes and conditions. Attachment arises dependent on causes and conditions. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:59 Highlight the passage at 1:42:59

1:43:20 So that's the common presentation. Whereas only the Prasangikas say that Report an error in the passage at 1:43:20 Highlight the passage at 1:43:20

1:43:37 inherent existence and being dependent on causes and conditions are contradictory. If it's dependent on causes and conditions, it cannot be inherently existent. This is what the lower schools don't believe that. They think if it's dependent on causes and conditions, that proves that things exist from their own side. If it depends on causes and conditions, it proves that things exist from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:37 Highlight the passage at 1:43:37

1:44:10 It proves that there's some real thing that's being produced, is what the lower schools would say. Or is it only the Prasangikas say, if it's dependent on causes and conditions, that proves that it doesn't exist from its own side, that it doesn't exist inherently. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:10 Highlight the passage at 1:44:10

1:44:35 So this is difficult, right? It's very, very difficult. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:35 Highlight the passage at 1:44:35

1:44:43 So we have to think about it. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:43 Highlight the passage at 1:44:43

1:44:50 So Lama Tsongkhapa says, if that is so, right, if they were... Dependent on causes and conditions. Their establishment through own characteristics is inadmissible because if they were established through their own entities, they would necessarily be established through their own inherent nature, capable of setting them up under their own power for themselves. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:50 Highlight the passage at 1:44:50

1:45:20 So their dependence on causes and conditions would be contradictory. So if they existed... By way of their own characteristics, through their own power, Report an error in the passage at 1:45:20 Highlight the passage at 1:45:20

1:45:40 they wouldn't need causes and conditions to arise. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:40 Highlight the passage at 1:45:40

1:46:03 So he quotes Arya Deva. That which exists, arisen dependently, does not have autonomy. All these lack autonomy. Hence the self does not exist inherently. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:03 Highlight the passage at 1:46:03

1:46:23 Have I lost everybody now? No. Okay. It cannot exist from its own side. It cannot. Exist autonomously if it exists dependently. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:23 Highlight the passage at 1:46:23

1:46:42 So through this you should understand that since persons and pots and the like are also imputed in dependence on their own collection of parts, they lack inherent establishment. Those are the two presentations of the argument of dependent origination. So Lama Tsongkhapa is presenting two levels of dependent origination, dependent on causes and conditions, and dependent... Report an error in the passage at 1:46:42 Highlight the passage at 1:46:42

1:47:08 On imputation on the collection of parts. The cup arises through causes and conditions and arises through being imputed on the collection of the parts of the cup. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:08 Highlight the passage at 1:47:08

1:47:33 The body arises in dependence on causes and conditions, right? Mother, father, etc. And arises in dependence on imputation. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:33 Highlight the passage at 1:47:33

1:47:49 On the collection of the parts of the body. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:49 Highlight the passage at 1:47:49

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:48:30 Okay, so I want to do a similar meditation to one we've done before. Good to just familiarize ourselves with them. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:30 Highlight the passage at 1:48:30

1:48:42 So starting by meditating on the breath and Report an error in the passage at 1:48:42 Highlight the passage at 1:48:42

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:49:24 then bringing up the object of refutation of the me. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:24 Highlight the passage at 1:49:24

1:49:31 So thinking about the me that wants to be liked, Report an error in the passage at 1:49:31 Highlight the passage at 1:49:31

1:49:43 wants to be loved, Report an error in the passage at 1:49:43 Highlight the passage at 1:49:43

1:49:52 that wants to be thought well of. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:52 Highlight the passage at 1:49:52

1:50:06 Noticing that we do have this sense of a real me. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:06 Highlight the passage at 1:50:06

1:50:29 Noticing that sense, Report an error in the passage at 1:50:29 Highlight the passage at 1:50:29

1:50:49 noticing how that me seems Report an error in the passage at 1:50:49 Highlight the passage at 1:50:49

1:50:55 to be solid, a Report an error in the passage at 1:50:55 Highlight the passage at 1:50:55

1:51:05 single thing, one thing, seems Report an error in the passage at 1:51:05 Highlight the passage at 1:51:05

1:51:32 to be enduring, Report an error in the passage at 1:51:32 Highlight the passage at 1:51:32

1:51:37 passing away in a split second, but something more lasting. Report an error in the passage at 1:51:37 Highlight the passage at 1:51:37

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:52:28 So see if we can get a clear appearance of this real me. It's Report an error in the passage at 1:52:28 Highlight the passage at 1:52:28

1:52:42 to be liked, it's to be loved, Report an error in the passage at 1:52:42 Highlight the passage at 1:52:42

1:52:49 it wants to be thought well of. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:49 Highlight the passage at 1:52:49

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:53:34 Noticing how it seems to be something that's really there. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:34 Highlight the passage at 1:53:34

1:53:44 And Report an error in the passage at 1:53:44 Highlight the passage at 1:53:44

1:54:06 we search for it, keeping part of our mind on this sense of a real me. And with the other part of our mind, searching if it really existed, it must be findable within the body and mind, or separate from the body and mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:54:06 Highlight the passage at 1:54:06

1:54:39 So searching within the body first, Report an error in the passage at 1:54:39 Highlight the passage at 1:54:39

1:55:00 from our head down to our toes, or Report an error in the passage at 1:55:00 Highlight the passage at 1:55:00

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:56:06 as this real me that wants to be liked, etc. Is it the mind? When Report an error in the passage at 1:56:06 Highlight the passage at 1:56:06

1:56:33 I'm happy? When Report an error in the passage at 1:56:33 Highlight the passage at 1:56:33

1:56:41 I'm tired? Report an error in the passage at 1:56:41 Highlight the passage at 1:56:41

1:56:49 Which moment of mind is it? Mind is constantly changing. Report an error in the passage at 1:56:49 Highlight the passage at 1:56:49

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:57:56 This me that wants to be liked, Report an error in the passage at 1:57:56 Highlight the passage at 1:57:56

1:58:02 separate from the body and mind. Is Report an error in the passage at 1:58:02 Highlight the passage at 1:58:02

1:58:08 it like a little marble in the center of our chest? Report an error in the passage at 1:58:08 Highlight the passage at 1:58:08

1:58:18 If so, I should be able to take away the body, Report an error in the passage at 1:58:18 Highlight the passage at 1:58:18

1:58:24 take away the mind. There Report an error in the passage at 1:58:24 Highlight the passage at 1:58:24

1:58:28 should be something left. Report an error in the passage at 1:58:28 Highlight the passage at 1:58:28

1:58:36 There's something left when I take away the body and the mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:58:36 Highlight the passage at 1:58:36

1:58:56 Not here. Report an error in the passage at 1:58:56 Highlight the passage at 1:58:56

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:59:52 That real me wants to be liked. Report an error in the passage at 1:59:52 Highlight the passage at 1:59:52

2:00:03 And we focus on that non-finding, the absence. Focus Report an error in the passage at 2:00:03 Highlight the passage at 2:00:03

2:00:16 on that single-pointedly. That's the emptiness of that real me. Report an error in the passage at 2:00:16 Highlight the passage at 2:00:16

2:00:25 Put all the power of our concentration on that absence, that non-findability. Report an error in the passage at 2:00:25 Highlight the passage at 2:00:25

2:00:46 Not just space, but the non-findability of that real solid person that wants to be liked. Report an error in the passage at 2:00:46 Highlight the passage at 2:00:46

· · · silence, 2 minutes

2:03:05 Questions, comments? Report an error in the passage at 2:03:05 Highlight the passage at 2:03:05

2:03:22 Is that a useful one, that object of refutation, that one in particular? I particularly find that one useful for me. I still think I'm in my mind. Okay, good. But what was good was going through the different moments. Is it this moment? Is it that moment? Is it that moment? And then you start realizing how much you're constantly changing. Report an error in the passage at 2:03:22 Highlight the passage at 2:03:22

2:03:50 You know, throughout the day. But I definitely tend to live in my head and see myself as my brain as me. And so that's my object to be refuted. So this helps. Yeah, good, good. So, yeah. So that's really good because I think that we do tend to hang on to something, right? So then it's useful to break down the mind. Is the mind a mass, a solid mass of anything? Report an error in the passage at 2:03:50 Highlight the passage at 2:03:50

2:04:21 Meditate on the nature of the mind. Or if you think it's the brain, is the brain one thing? We notice that object of refutation, that sense of self, seems to be one solid thing. Not something composed of many parts. So is the brain one solid thing? It's composed of many, many parts. And neurons are firing all the time. Report an error in the passage at 2:04:21 Highlight the passage at 2:04:21

2:04:52 I shouldn't even talk about that with a neuroscientist in the room. Report an error in the passage at 2:04:52 Highlight the passage at 2:04:52

2:04:58 Yeah, it revealed my ignorance of the brain. But anyway, huh? Okay, I keep it at that. So anyway, so I'm glad you brought that up because oftentimes we say, oh, well, yeah, okay, yeah, that's refuted. But actually, we're still hanging on to things, right? Otherwise, we'd have a realization of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 2:04:58 Highlight the passage at 2:04:58

2:05:23 Right. Okay. So we'll dedicate. But also before we do that, I know I've lost your attention, but I'm thinking about having a practice day. Report an error in the passage at 2:05:23 Highlight the passage at 2:05:23

2:05:37 I'm thinking about just doing like a general emptiness and a practice day on emptiness sometime. And maybe it could be open to people in this class as well as the people in the Wednesday class since they've been covering. Emptiness as well. And wondering how many people might be interested in doing a day long, like on a Saturday. Report an error in the passage at 2:05:37 Highlight the passage at 2:05:37

2:06:03 Not much interest. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:03 Highlight the passage at 2:06:03

2:06:08 Yeah, so I mean basically like a day of retreat, a day of meditating on emptiness. Not teachings on emptiness. We get a lot of teachings. But a day of doing different meditations. Not just on emptiness, but some purification and some... But a day of practice all around emptiness. I just feel like that's so important to bring it from the intellectual level where we get the words right, but it doesn't touch our experience, doesn't touch our lives so much, to really making inroads into changing the way we perceive things. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:08 Highlight the passage at 2:06:08

2:06:55 That's so starry. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:55 Highlight the passage at 2:06:55

2:07:01 So it sounds like only a couple people are interested. Report an error in the passage at 2:07:01 Highlight the passage at 2:07:01

2:07:08 Okay. In December maybe? Like one of the first weekends in December? A Saturday? Not toward the holidays, but earlier in December? That's difficult. Well, okay. I'll check the calendar. Report an error in the passage at 2:07:08 Highlight the passage at 2:07:08

2:07:31 The reason I don't want to do it in class is because it's only two hours and it's the evening and people are already tired and you don't get... much into it, you know, for just two hours. But if we do a day, a day thing. So we'll Report an error in the passage at 2:07:31 Highlight the passage at 2:07:31

2:07:50 dedicate, Report an error in the passage at 2:07:50 Highlight the passage at 2:07:50

2:08:03 but actually, you know what, I want to dedicate, if you guys can spend a couple of minutes, I want to read you a lamrim prayer, because we can lose track of the entire path when we dive so deeply into this. So maybe you can just meditate while I read this. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:03 Highlight the passage at 2:08:03

2:08:27 This is called The Complete Path by the Seventh Dalai Lama. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:27 Highlight the passage at 2:08:27

2:08:33 Whatever you want for yourself and others, with a human form, is easily attained. Disengage yourself from meaningless efforts. Strive to accomplish the highest goals. Because all things composite are impermanent, life changes and never abides. That change is the basis of suffering. For the samsaric mind fills with frustration on watching its creations continually fade. The higher you climb in saṃsāra, the higher the cliff on which you perch. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:33 Highlight the passage at 2:08:33

2:09:16 The more things you own, the tighter you are bound. The dearer you hold someone, the greater the chance he will hurt you. The faster you subdue enemies, the faster their numbers increase. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:16 Highlight the passage at 2:09:16

2:09:35 This body is a thing borrowed for a moment and possessions are things stored for others. Now we dally with them, but quickly are they lost and misused and only are sources of misery. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:35 Highlight the passage at 2:09:35

2:09:55 Therefore no worldly possession is worth the effort of gaining. Turn your back on that which only handicaps, an unburdened mind. Is joy supreme. The pinnacle of aims is to follow this path. Body, speech and mind kept stainless with pure self-discipline. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:55 Highlight the passage at 2:09:55

2:10:22 Mind held in samādhi, blissful and clear. And wisdom seeing all realities of every situation. The mother beings wandering in the six realms. To me, their son, are pieces of my heart. Report an error in the passage at 2:10:22 Highlight the passage at 2:10:22

2:10:43 For many times have they soothed my troubles and in infinite ways have they brought me joy. These infinite beings, so kind, are covered by the fog of ignorance, constantly slashed by whips of delusions. They have no chance to lay down the burden of misery from their minds. Therefore, whenever you meet anyone, greet them with eyes smiling with love. Report an error in the passage at 2:10:43 Highlight the passage at 2:10:43

2:11:19 Why mention that you should not even consider holding evil intentions or deceptive thoughts? The way people and things seem to be other than projected labels is a distortion created by deluded mind. Report an error in the passage at 2:11:19 Highlight the passage at 2:11:19

2:11:39 If we look at the root of things, emptiness is clearly understood. And in the vast space of perception of emptiness, mental grasping for ultimate subsides. Then one looks into the face of the world, everything is seen. Report an error in the passage at 2:11:39 Highlight the passage at 2:11:39