← Emily Hsu

Special Insight 3: Wisdom of Emptiness (23 October 2011)

Emily Hsu · 23 October 2011 · 2 h 7 min · Tse Chen Ling via Internet Archive

Download audio

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

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

Key passages

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

  • 8:51

    I prostrate to the Arya Triple Gem. Thus did I hear at one time, the Bhagavan was dwelling on Mass Vulture's mountain in Rajgriya, together with a great community of monks and a great community of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Bhagavan was absorbed in the concentration on the categories of phenomena called profound perception. Also at that time, the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara looked upon the very practice of the profound perfection of wisdom and beheld those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature.

  • 19:29

    Does that make sense? All right, then Lama Tsongkhapa says we can use the same reasoning that we use to refute the self of persons, to refute the self of phenomena, the reasoning of sameness and difference. So to refute

  • 20:45

    The king of reasonings. So the body does not inherently exist because it is a dependent arising. The body does not inherently exist because it is a dependent arising. This is considered the king of reasonings. So why? So inherently existent and dependent are said to be contradictory. But in our minds, they're not.

  • 56:05

    So this is the balance, right? This is the difficult middle way that we need to achieve. Nothing at all. There is nothing at all findable from its own side. And... Actions give rise to results.

0:00 Leo Moon is awful, Chucky has it too, and we're both like, we get our little more little feelings hurt very easily. Yeah, well, cancers do too. We have a flair for entertaining. Cancers do, yeah. Lewis is cancer rising. Report an error

0:22 Kai is a double cancer. Oh, wow. Wow, that's a lot of feelings. Well, His Holiness is a cancer. That's a good point. Oh, that's right, he is a cancer. He is a cancer, full-on cancer. Cancer boar. You know what I am. Report an error

0:51 I'm near the snake, which is interesting. Your birthday, Joe, is like just a few days before mine. What is it? The 14th. Oh. Yes. Our birthdays are... So what does that mean? It makes you my soul brother. Report an error

1:11 See that? Another octave lower. Soul brother. It's true. It's true. Report an error

1:15 Wait, 14th of what? February. February 65. We are the very tree snake. Wood snake. Wood snake. Sounds like a heavy metal band. Yeah, right? Yeah, that ouching has a great name for me. Wood snake. And Louis is a metal dog. I don't know. Sometimes it seems like it's a metal dog. Oh, you're both dog. Dog and dog love each other. Report an error

1:43 found your own champion? you. Snakes like each other, but worse as snakes. Report an error

1:51 When I Report an error

1:58 was really little, I had a speech and I couldn't say S's. I would say, Tom, pick it on me. You sound like that, right? And so I had to take this therapy and say a lot of S's. Because I Report an error

2:26 would never have been able to say it. she is. Report an error

· · ·

2:27 The characteristics of our hilarious. Report an error

2:37 vain, wise, terrible marriage dress. why I'm sick on. Report an error

2:47 part of it? Very beautiful. We'd like to hang sour. We'd like to get our show. Report an error

3:00 know, I've always told her why no one finds me as lovely as I find myself. Why does nobody want to marry me? Who's this me? Report an error

3:14 I'm happy for myself. Report an error

3:22 But who is this me anyway? That's why I like this class. Report an error

3:44 Bigger than it has been. Chimpa's back. Chimpa's back. Shane's here. Report an error

3:55 See, we notice everybody's absence in this class and presence. Report an error

4:14 Welcome, you guys. Nice to have you all here. I Report an error

4:25 just had a klutz accident. Report an error

4:37 All right, so let's start by meditating on our breath and settling our minds. And Report an error

· · ·

6:05 to set our motivation for tonight, seeing if we can make it as expansive as possible. Report an error

· · ·

6:56 Let's start with a praise to Manjushri in the white book on the first page. Report an error

7:11 Obeisance to my guru and protector Manjushri, who holds to his heart a scriptural text symbolic of his seeing all things as they are, whose intelligence shines forth as the sun unclouded by delusions or traces of ignorance, who teaches in sixty ways with a loving compassion for a father for his only son. Report an error

7:29 All creatures caught in the prison of saṃsāra, confused in the darkness of their ignorance, overwhelmed by their suffering. You whose dragon thunder-like proclamation of Dharma arouses us from the stupor of our delusions and frees us from the iron chains of our karma, who wields the sword of wisdom hewing down suffering wherever it sprouts, clearing away the darkness of ignorance. Report an error

7:51 You whose princely body is adorned with the 112 marks of a Buddha, who has completed the ten stage highest perfection of a bodhisattva. Report an error

8:11 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

8:31 And page 76 in the Gold Book, the Heart Sūtra. Report an error

8:38 I really stumbled over reading it that time. Yeah, I did that with the Heart Sūtra. It's just there. Report an error

8:51 I prostrate to the Arya Triple Gem. Thus did I hear at one time, the Bhagavan was dwelling on Mass Vulture's mountain in Rajgriya, together with a great community of monks and a great community of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Bhagavan was absorbed in the concentration on the categories of phenomena called profound perception. Report an error

9:12 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 Ashuriputra 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

9:39 He said that and the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokiteshvara said this to the venerable Sharivadiputra. Sharivadiputra, 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

10:02 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 efficient, not fulfilled. Report an error

10:27 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. There is no object of touch and no phenomenon. There is no I element and so on up to and including no mind element and no mental consciousness element. Report an error

10:54 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. Shariputra, therefore, because there is no attainment, bodhisattvas rely on and dwell in the perfection of wisdom, the mind without obscuration and without fear. Report an error

11:22 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. Therefore, the mantra of the perfection of wisdom. The mantra of great knowledge, the unsurpassed mantra, the mantra equal to the unequaled, the mantra that thoroughly pacifies all suffering, should be known as truth since it is not false. Report an error

11:52 The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is declared, tayata om gate gate paragate parasam gate bodhisoha. Shariputra, the bodhisattva, mahasattva should train in the profound perfection of wisdom like that. The Bhagavan arose from that concentration and commended the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalokiteshvara, saying, Well said, well said, son of the lineage, it is like that. Report an error

12:19 It is like that. One should practice the profound perfection of wisdom just as you have indicated. Even the didacticas rejoice, the Bhagavan having thus spoken. The venerable Sharivadiputra, the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalokiteshvara, and those surrounding in their entirety, along with the world of gods, humans, asuras, and Gandharvas, were overjoyed and highly praised that spoken by the Bhagavan. Report an error

12:45 And then refuge in bodhicitta on page 98. I Report an error

12:55 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

13:19 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

13:36 Okay, so we've been talking about the fact that all of our problems, all of our difficulties arise from ignorance, right, at its root, right, an incorrect way of viewing things, right, the belief that things exist really, they exist solidly. Like substantially, as if there really are things and people. And so ignorance has two divisions, I guess, the self of person and the self of phenomena, which is believing in a real me and other people and beings and a real phenomena other than that, a real mind, a real body, real everything else. Report an error

14:34 That exists independent of imputation, independent of causes and conditions, parts and imputation. So then we refuted the self of persons through the reasoning of one and different, sameness and difference, or using the four-point analysis. Report an error

14:58 So now we move on. Well, then we talked about... All phenomena are like illusions. So when we realize emptiness, we perceive a lack, an utter and total lack of findability. And then when we arise from that, things still appear. But we no longer believe that they exist that way. We no longer believe that they exist in and of themselves as real. Report an error

15:33 Solid entities. So with illusory-like appearance, there are the two aspects, right? Understanding emptiness and appearance, right? Emptiness and appearance. Things are empty and they appear and function. So the middle way. Then we moved on last time to refuting the self of phenomena. So what are phenomena in this context? Report an error

16:11 Things. Report an error

16:16 Am I a phenomena? Report an error

16:27 Okay, are people phenomena in general? Yes, in general. In this context, are people phenomena? Report an error

16:41 In the context of refuting the self of phenomena. We have self of persons and self of phenomena. So what's phenomena in this context? Report an error

16:52 Are people not people? Report an error

17:03 Okay. Lewis thinks that people are phenomena. Report an error

17:17 The selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena. If people are appearances just like objects, if I cut off your arm, that's not you. That's an object, which would be part of your arm. So anything that doesn't refer to me, myself, that's a good question. I just think people are phenomena. What else are they? Okay. Yeah, so in general, people are phenomena. Report an error

17:47 But in this context, when we have this dichotomy, right, the self of persons and self of phenomena, or selflessness of persons, selflessness of phenomena, phenomena in this context refer to things that exist other than persons, other than beings. Everything other than beings are persons, okay, just in this context. But in general, yeah, you're right that persons are phenomena in general. Report an error

18:17 But just in this context, we're talking about phenomena other than persons. And primarily what we're talking about here is refuting, right? We've refuted the person. Now we're going to refute the basis of designation of the person, right? The body and the mind. Or... The six elements that are composed of the body, you know, that compose the body and the mind, right? The earth, fire, water, etc. So when we realize emptiness, we need to not only refute that there's a real person here, but there's not even a real body and there's not a real mind either. Report an error

19:03 Because we need to do that, right? Otherwise, we're hanging on to something if we think, okay, there's no real person, but there's a real body and mind, right? So we need to refute the basis of designation as well. So those are the primary phenomena we're talking about and then we refute all other phenomena as well of being inherently existing. Report an error

19:29 Does that make sense? Report an error

19:41 All right, then Lama Tsongkhapa says we can use the same reasoning that we use to refute the self of persons, to refute the self of phenomena, the reasoning of sameness and difference. So to refute The inherent existence of the body, Report an error

20:04 okay, if the body was inherently existent, it would have to be either the same as its parts or inherently different from the parts. Either inherently the same or different, right? If the body exists inherently, that would be the same as its parts or different from its parts, inherently. Report an error

20:27 And same with the mind. If the mind inherently existed, it would have to be either the same as its parts Or inherently different from its parts. So we refute it that way. Then the second reasoning that Lama Tsongkhapa uses is the reasoning of dependent arising. The king of reasonings. So the body does not inherently exist because it is a dependent arising. Report an error

20:57 The body does not inherently exist because it is a dependent arising. This is considered the king of reasonings. So why? Report an error

21:11 So inherently existent and dependent are said to be contradictory. But in our minds, they're not. They're dependent arising. So they're dependent on causes and conditions, for example. So the body is dependent on causes and conditions. Report an error

21:36 It's dependent on our parents and all of that, right? And so we all know that. But does that refute our belief that there's a real body there? A lot of us, it doesn't, right? Except for the lower schools, right? They believe that being dependent on causes and conditions proves that it's real. There's a real something there, right? So the body is produced from the mother and the father, etc., which... Report an error

22:13 Proves that there's a real body that is subject to causes and conditions. Report an error

22:24 But the reasoning that Lama Tsongkhapa brings up is more subtle than that, right? It says that whatever is born from conditions proves that it doesn't exist in and of itself. It doesn't have its own entity. It doesn't have a real... existence, right? If If the clock was really a clock, independent of imputation, it wouldn't need causes and conditions for it to be produced. Report an error

23:14 That's what we talked about last time. If it was really from its own side, in and of itself, through its own power, a clock, it wouldn't have needed somebody to make it. Report an error

23:34 Because it's really, through its own power, a clock. So this is something we need to think about. If this was really a body, it wouldn't have needed a body established by way of its own characteristics, established through its own power, then it wouldn't have needed our parents to create it. Report an error

24:07 So we talked about last time, just looking at the process of being... We start with the sperm and the egg and then that gets nourished and then it gets fed and then it grows. At some point we call it a fetus. At some point we think it becomes a fetus, but actually there's this ever-changing entity that at some point we call a fetus. Report an error

24:42 It becomes a fetus from its own side. It's an ever-changing process that at some point we call a fetus and then it continues to change and grow and exit the mother's womb and at some point we call it a baby. Report an error

25:03 We call it a baby, right? Is it a baby from its own side? Report an error

25:10 It's just this. Constantly changing causes and conditions that at some point we call a fetus, at some point we call a baby, that we call it something, right? Report an error

25:26 So it doesn't exist from its own side. It's only a baby independent on convention, right? Imputation and convention. We don't call it a baby when it's still inside the womb. Well, do we? We don't call it. Well, sort of, kind of, yeah. Report an error

25:46 Yeah, it's true. But then we don't really have a clear consensus on when it becomes a baby, right? When it becomes a person. Right. There can be a lot of emotions around that. Report an error

26:12 So this is a key thing to think about. If it really existed inherently from its own side, in and of itself. That... That can... Report an error

26:24 By way of its own characteristics, by way of its own entity, then it wouldn't need Report an error

26:41 causes and conditions. It couldn't change, right? We talked about that before. If this was really a clock from its own side, it wouldn't be able to change. Report an error

26:56 So we talked about that stuff last time. Report an error

27:02 So we talked about how also the reasoning... The reasoning of dependent origination is used to refute inherent existence. So we have this argument through reasoning, this syllogism, the cup or the body or whatever it is, is not inherently existent because it is a dependent arising. Report an error

27:28 Now this is a difficult way to actually realize emptiness, but anyway. So in order to realize emptiness from this syllogism, first of all, We need to agree that the subject, the cup, is a dependent arising. If we don't agree, then this is not a good reasoning for us. Report an error

27:52 The cup is a dependent arising. Do we agree? Okay. For this also to work, we need to understand without doubt that if it is a dependent arising, if it is the reason, if it is a dependent arising, it necessarily... Does not inherently exist. And that one's more difficult. If it's a dependent arising, then it necessarily does not inherently exist. Report an error

28:25 Right. But see, the thing is, is we believe, I mean, we all believe that we are dependent arisings. I mean, if you ask me if I'm independent, if I was born from causes and conditions or not, you know, we would all say, oh yeah, we came from our parents. But that doesn't really... Refute for most of us that we really exist. We have a real essence. Report an error

28:53 So one way of looking at it that's helpful is that we are nothing other than dependent arisings. We're nothing other than dependent on causes and conditions. So there is no real essence independent Report an error

29:17 of causes and conditions. Report an error

29:21 There's no real essence of me that didn't come from. Well, there's no real essence of me at all, right? But there's no me that is other than that which was dependent on causes and conditions. Report an error

29:43 So that one impacts us a little bit more, right? Report an error

29:55 So it said, so Lama Tsongkhapa says that this reasoning refutes the two extremes, right? We talked about the two extremes last time, which we all fall into until we... The extreme of permanence or superimposition or the extreme of annihilation or deprecation. So most of us fall into the view of permanence thinking that things exist more solidly and concretely than they actually do. Report an error

30:27 So I was talking to some students the other day and I got the impression that Report an error

30:38 they were falling more into permanence than I had thought. So we all agree that Nothing exists from its own side. Nothing exists inherently. There is no real me ultimately. Report an error

30:59 So what about conventionally? Is there a real me conventionally? Report an error

31:08 Is there a real me conventionally? Is there a me existing from its own side conventionally? Report an error

31:23 A voice from the other room. Report an error

31:35 Right. Yeah, so not even conventionally, nothing exists inherently even conventionally, and real in terms of is there a findable me conventionally? Report an error

31:56 Peter says no. What do other people think? Okay, Report an error

32:08 good. Report an error

32:12 So no, no inherent, findable, solid, concrete, real me. Conventionally or ultimately. It's a good sign. Report an error

32:32 And then the extreme or the view of annihilation or deprecation arises once we start really thinking about emptiness and then we refute a me from its own side and then we think, oh my gosh, it doesn't exist at all. If it's not findable, it doesn't exist at all. right, okay. Report an error

32:55 So that's the other extreme and that's a dangerous extreme if we think, okay, well then there's no cause and effect, I can do whatever I want, I don't need to practice virtue, etc. Report an error

33:08 Alright, Report an error

33:15 so then I'm on the bottom of page 280. So presenting the reasoning of dependent origination or dependent arisings. Report an error

33:27 So in general, there are different ways that we can talk about dependent arising, but we've... We talked about this before, but there are three levels. One way of presenting it is the three levels of dependent arising. First of all, dependent on causes and conditions. All of the schools agree that products in permanent phenomena are all dependent on causes and conditions. Flowers are dependent on soil and a seed and sun and moisture. Report an error

33:58 Body, the body is dependent on sperm and egg, etc. The person is dependent on many causes and conditions, etc. Dependent on causes and conditions and there is nothing other than that which is dependent on causes and conditions. Report an error

34:23 The second level is posited by Madhyamika Svatantrikas and Prasangikas, the two highest schools if you guys remember. Dependent on parts. Report an error

34:39 They're... Everything that exists has parts. Report an error

34:48 There is nothing other than that which is dependent on parts. So this one at first glance seems to be very simple and not very impactful, I think. But if we think about the person, there is no person other than... The ever-changing body and mind. Report an error

35:22 There is no person other than, Report an error

35:37 we tend to think that there's a real me, right, that has a body and mind, a real essence of me that seems to be independent of the body and the mind, right? But there is no person other than the body and mind. Report an error

35:57 So this is getting good. Report an error

36:06 I'm doing my job. Report an error

36:13 So this is starting to get at the... You're me out. Right? Report an error

36:17 Get to us, right? There is no person covering the parts of the body and mind. There's no person behind our eyes looking out, peering out through the eyeballs. Report an error

36:32 There's no person that's the little pea at the heart, right? Report an error

36:42 That feels hurt, right? Or that feels attacked. Report an error

36:50 There is no person other than... Report an error

37:04 The last one, there is no person other than that which is imputed by conception, imputed by thought, Report an error

37:22 imputed independence on its parts. Report an error

37:38 So Lama Tsongkhapa brings up the chitta matras, the chitta matras, the mind-only school. You say, okay, well, yeah, external things like sprouts, internal things such as... Compositional factors like mental states. Both of those arise gradually in dependence on seeds and so forth and ignorance and so forth. Report an error

38:05 So sprouts arise dependent on seeds. Our mental afflictions arise dependent on ignorance. Yeah, we agree with that. That's the first level of dependent arising. And then Lama Tsongkhapa says, well, if... If things really are dependent arisings, then their establishment through their own characteristics is not feasible. Report an error

38:34 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. So their dependence on causes and conditions would be contradictory. Report an error

38:59 So if there are dependent arisings, then being established by way of their own characteristics is not feasible. Report an error

39:16 We think that this clock is established based on its own characteristics. It's characteristic of being able to tell you the time. It's a clock because... It can tell the time, right? It's really a clock because it can tell time, you know, its own characteristics. But it's a dependent arising, right? It's dependent on the parts. It's dependent on the battery. It's dependent on what... There's a little chip in these guys, right? Report an error

39:52 A little chip. So it's dependent on things. So it couldn't be established through its own power. It couldn't be... Anything existing through its own power, Report an error

40:16 dependent on causes and conditions. Anything dependent on causes and conditions cannot exist inherently through its own power, through its own characteristics. Report an error

40:33 So Arya Deva says, that which exists or risen dependently does not have autonomy. All these lack autonomy. Hence the self does not exist inherently. If it rises dependently, it cannot exist. Have autonomous existence. I cannot have inherent existence. Report an error

41:00 How are you doing? Report an error

41:04 Huh? The bottom of 280 in my version. If you have numbered verses, it's verse 50. Report an error

41:20 So, Lama Tsongkhapa says, 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. Report an error

41:35 Because things are imputed independence on their own collection of parts, they lack inherent establishment or inherent existence. Report an error

41:46 So the body is imputed independence on the collection of its parts, the collection, right, of the skin and the bones and the blood and the organs, etc. It's imputed independence on that collection, right? We have a collection of parts. That we impute body. Report an error

42:17 Is the collection of parts itself the body? The Report an error

42:30 collection of parts is called the body, right? It's the basis of designation for the body. But the collection of the parts isn't the body. It's the basis of designation. Good. Report an error

42:49 So this last level of dependent arising is dependent on imputation is only asserted by the Prasangika school. Report an error

43:05 Things are only imputed by the mind, merely imputed by the mind, Report an error

43:16 and there is nothing that exists independent of imputation. There is nothing that exists independent of a conceptual imputation. Report an error

43:32 So that's difficult. There is no me. There is no me that's independent of a conceptual imputation. I'm just poking you guys, aren't I? Report an error

43:51 So who is the me that's hurt? Who is the me that wants to be happy? Report an error

44:08 It is a projection, isn't it? An imputation by the mom. Report an error

44:21 Right, how, like, if we say constantly changing atoms, to put it simply, right? Constantly changing atoms. Constantly changing mental events. Report an error

44:45 The impute I on constantly changing atoms and constantly changing mental events. Report an error

44:56 There's no I other than that Report an error

45:06 which is labeled on constantly changing atoms and constantly changing mental events. Report an error

45:18 So who is the I that gets hurt? Is it the... Constantly changing atoms. Report an error

45:38 Which moment, right? I mean, anything you try to grab onto is gone. You know, it's gone. It's finished, right? That person, Report an error

46:03 you know, that guy insulted no longer exists. Report an error

46:12 It is. I mean, it's freeing, right? It's freeing because there is nobody for people to insult. There's nobody for people to hurt. Report an error

46:28 They're hurting our idea of me. But there's nothing real to hurt. There's nothing real to insult. So this is why the llamas don't get offended. You know, I mean, His Holiness the Dalai Lama gets... Insults hurled at him on a daily basis, right? And he just laughs, you know, like there's no me to be insulted. Report an error

47:05 He just has compassion, right, for these poor deluded beings who seem to be so miserable and need to control others. Report an error

47:21 Right, so that's right when we realize emptiness. We have even more compassion for those who try to hurt us. Yeah. We understand that they're, you know, they're, well, first of all, we don't feel hurt. And second of all, we just see that they're hurting themselves. Just through a misunderstanding, a belief in solid existence. Report an error

47:58 Do we have a question? Stop it. I realize this for the past several years. For the past several years, I've been less interested in TV dramas, film dramas, because it just seems so pointless to me now because of understanding this. Everybody's just coming from karma and delusion, and that's the basis of all drama, is the problems people have and what they create. Report an error

48:30 It's not that intriguing to me anymore. Good sign. Yeah, great. I mean, drama. It's just drama. Exactly. My gosh, what a waste of emotional energy. But we are a culture addicted to drama, so we're not a very healthy culture. Report an error

48:58 All right. So Lama Tsongkhapa next says, if something arises dependently and is labeled dependently, it does not exist established by way of its own entity as one with whatever it is dependent on. Report an error

49:15 If it did exist as one, all actions and agents would be one. So if the clock arises dependently and is labeled dependent on its parts, so then the clock cannot exist as one with its parts. Report an error

49:40 If the clock arises dependently, if it's labeled independent on its parts, Then it cannot be one with its parts. It cannot be the same as its parts. Report an error

49:57 Because if it was the same as its parts, and he says all actions and agents would be one, then the parts and the clock would be one. The person and the body and mind would be identical. Report an error

50:18 There wouldn't be a clock that has parts if the clock and the parts were the same or identical. It wouldn't be feasible to talk about a clock that has parts. Report an error

50:44 Also, the clock and the parts do not exist established by way of their own entities as other or different. If the clock and its parts were inherently different, then they wouldn't be related. Report an error

51:09 If they were inherently different, then they could not be related. Report an error

51:23 So that's something to think about. If two things are inherently different, then they would exist in and of themselves as separate things. They wouldn't need to be dependent on each other. They couldn't be dependent because they would exist in and of themselves. Report an error

51:51 Lama Tsongkhapa doesn't say this, but if the clock and the parts were inherently different, then you could perceive the clock separately from the parts. You wouldn't have to perceive the parts in order to perceive the clock. You'd be able to perceive the clock separately from the parts if they were inherently different. Report an error

52:28 So the clock is neither one with its parts nor inherently different from its parts. And the way the clock exists, right? It's the same entity as its parts, right? It's the same stuff. Clock and its parts are the same stuff, right? You're still looking at the same stuff. You're just looking at it in a different way. Report an error

52:58 If you look at it in one way, it's a bunch of plastic and wires and battery. If you look at it in another way, it's a clock. It doesn't exist as a clock in and of itself, independent of perception, Report an error

53:21 independent of a mind. Perceiving it, Report an error

53:31 an independent of a conceptual mind, imputing it. Report an error

53:40 Clock comes into existence, independence on, can I say that? It is only a clock, independence on being imputed clock. Report an error

54:17 Okay, so I'm going to move to the bottom of 281. And we're in Hopkins page 92, if you have Hopkins book toward the bottom. Report an error

54:28 So having thus induced certainty through the emptiness of all the targets. Aimed at by the apprehension of characteristics, one does not give up one's ascertainment of the relation between actions and their effects. Report an error

54:49 So having thus ascertained or realized emptiness, let's say ascertained emptiness, that's what Lama Tsongkhapa is using, having ascertained emptiness, non-existence from its own side, we do not give up. The understanding of the relationship between actions and effects. Nothing exists at all from its own side and causes and effects function. Report an error

55:19 There are actions and there are results of actions. Reliance on discarding non-virtues and assuming virtues through that is highly praised. So nothing exists from its own side. And actions have their effects. We Report an error

55:44 need to give up non-virtues, which is the cause of suffering, and practice virtue, which is the cause of happiness. Report an error

56:05 So this is the balance, right? This is the difficult middle way that we need to achieve. Nothing at all. There is nothing at all findable from its own side. And... Report an error

56:23 Actions give rise to results. Report an error

56:29 So Nagarjuna says in his essay on bodhicitta, relying on actions and the results while knowing this emptiness of phenomena, this is more wonderful still than the wonderful. This is more marvelous still than the marvelous. Report an error

56:50 So there is no person at all located in this body and mind. There's no person at all within the body and mind. There's also no person at all separate from the body and mind. And that person exists and functions and will need to experience the results of Report an error

57:29 emptiness and dependent origination. Everything is empty and is dependent. Empty and dependent. Empty and dependent. We've talked about that before. Report an error

57:58 So then next, Lama Tsongkhapa says, so do we understand that actually so far? Report an error

58:07 Well, I mean, as far as we understand it, as far as we're going to right now. Report an error

58:18 Then, for Report an error

58:24 that to happen, it is necessary to differentiate between inherent existence and mere existence. Non-existence by way of its own characteristics and non-existence. Report an error

58:38 So differentiating between inherent existence, what happened? So Report an error

58:53 we'll try it. So the difference between inherent existence. Okay, so there are four terms here. Maybe I should write them down. Report an error

59:04 Inherent existence, Report an error

59:08 here existence, Report an error

59:30 and non-existence by way of their own characteristics, Report an error

59:43 and non-existence in general. Report an error

59:54 So what is the meaning of inherent existence? You guys tell me. Report an error

1:00:12 Inherent existence would be existing from its own side as its own entity without dependence on causes and conditions. Okay. Report an error

1:00:27 Anybody else? And kind of in your own words, too, in your own experience, what is inherent existence? What is the inherently existent person that we're refuting? Report an error

1:00:51 I can repeat it. Not changing. Okay. In an essential way. There's something going through this. We wouldn't say that they don't change at all. Report an error

1:01:02 I kind of view it as there's this ongoing non-changing part that we call that person. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So an unchanging ongoing, like the thread, the unchanging thread that's going through. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. You kind of, you know, I saw you yesterday and today you're the same jerk. You might, you know, be wearing different clothes, but I know. Report an error

1:01:32 Right, okay. Report an error

1:01:37 That's true, that doesn't exist. Also something that's like a solid person that's outside of me, so there's a subject, an object, and that it's something that exists from its own side, just on its own, independent of me entirely. That's what I think about when I think of inherent existence. Okay, I'm curious. I'm curious. The solid... Report an error

1:02:07 The inherently existent me, you're saying, exists as solid outside of me? Is that what you said? Report an error

1:02:23 Well, I guess I'm talking about the other. Like when I see someone else, I just think that that person is not dependent in terms of its own existence. It's just like its own separate permanent entity. Okay. Report an error

1:02:41 All right. What about me? What is the inherently existent me that we're refuting? The concept that we are this unchanging, permanent entity that exists on its own, from its own side, again unchanging, and I think a lot of us think that it's just this body or this feeling, you know, that we get like this pee or something coming from behind our eyes, when Report an error

1:03:16 it really isn't that at all. Okay, unchanging. Permanent me. Okay. Something that like kind of exists separate from everything else, totally independent. Okay. Separate from anything else. Separate from the body and the mind too? Inherent existence. Yeah. Separate from the body and the mind. Okay. All right. Okay. So a lot of what you guys are saying is the self-sufficient, substantial, existent person. Report an error

1:03:55 I haven't really gotten to the inherently existent person yet. But it's good. It's great because that one is really important to refute as well. Anything else? Inherent existent me. What is this me? Report an error

1:04:14 It would be a me that, oh, I just lost it, that it exists independently and exists by way of its own power. It's a self-cause being. Report an error

1:04:33 To even say self-caused is kind of strange. It's not dependent on anything for its cause or creation. It's just always there and an essential definitive existence that's me. Report an error

1:04:50 There's no, if you take away all the thoughts, all the beliefs, all of the way a person looks and it comes down to this just one. Report an error

1:05:01 A mode of existence that exists basically on its own, by its own power. You can kill the body, you can stop the thoughts, but it's still there. Report an error

1:05:14 That real essence of me that's not dependent on the body, not dependent on the mind, not dependent on the thoughts. Okay. Report an error

1:05:29 So we believe that, right? The real me. Oh, I'm not really, I'm not me today. Report an error

1:05:38 I'm not myself, you know. I need to actualize the real me, right? There's this real me. Report an error

1:05:50 Okay. Anything else? Report an error

1:06:07 Most of what we're talking about so far is a me that's independent of the body and the mind, right? A me that's separate from the body and the mind, right? The real me, when you take the body and the mind away, it's Report an error

1:06:26 still left there, right? Report an error

1:06:34 But it's not a residual. It's not... Something that's left over after you take away the body and the mind. It's more like everything that I do is an expression of this thing, even the way one's body will look. You know, it's like you buy clothes to express the real you, the way they do that in advertising. Well, if you take this idea of the real me far enough, The reification far enough, wouldn't this be the idea of the soul, the eternal me that goes from lifetime to lifetime, that just inhabits different bodies? Report an error

1:07:17 I mean, kind of. I mean, mostly what we're talking about here is something like that. The permanent, unchanging me that will never not be. Report an error

1:07:32 Right, so my guess is so far we're talking about the self-sufficient, substantially existent me. We haven't gotten to the subtle inherently existent me yet. What is the subtle inherently existent me? Report an error

1:08:08 I'm wondering, this is just more of a guess, could it be a thought that we're an amalgamation of our aggregates? Report an error

1:08:19 Yeah, yeah. Report an error

1:08:27 I'm going to go back to, this Report an error

1:08:46 was written by one of the Dalai Lamas, I don't remember which one, maybe the fifth? An eye which exists in its own right, which exists inherently, as if undifferentiated from the mind and body, which are also mixed like milk and water. Report an error

1:09:06 Undifferentiated from the mind and body is the more subtle, right? Like, if you think that there's... Report an error

1:09:20 The exercise of looking in the mirror is very useful, I find. Look in the mirror and it seems as if I am appearing back at me. As if I am there right together with the body and mind. Report an error

1:09:40 That there's an I that's here mixed with the body and mind. That I am sitting here. Report an error

1:09:53 There's no I that's mixed with the body and the mind. There's no I that's right here with the body and the mind. Report an error

1:10:09 There's an appearance of body and mind. And a label on that appearance. A thought. Report an error

1:10:25 The eye isn't sitting here with the body and the mind. Report an error

1:10:35 We just call it eye, but it's not here. Report an error

1:10:47 Anyway, something to think about. Report an error

1:10:56 Maybe it's a good time for a break. Take a break and then we'll resume twisting our minds around. Essence of me isn't happening. Report an error

1:11:20 It's cold, yeah, suddenly. Report an error

1:11:27 No, I don't think so. I think it's just like a little damp and a little chill in the air. Get some tea. It's getting cold finally. Finally. It's... Report an error

· · ·

1:11:57 Yeah, he's busy, Matt. Yeah, he was hoping to come back. I've seen him here once or twice, not at this class, but... And he Report an error

1:12:22 didn't even have a baby. Report an error

1:12:28 Out of town. Report an error

1:12:43 It's great you guys make the time to come here. Report an error

1:12:49 Even though this is not easy. Report an error

1:13:05 Yeah, while we're waiting for the last straggler. Straggler, okay. Report an error

1:13:13 I mean, it occurred to me when you were talking about, I forget exactly what you were talking about. Like this? Is that better? Report an error

1:13:26 What was I going to say? About looking in the mirror. Uh-huh. And they're not being. You know, recognizing that there's not, that's not me on some level. And it occurs to me that there are, I mean, from a medical perspective, psychiatric perspective and neurological perspective, there are people who are like that because they've had a stroke or they've had something go wrong. Report an error

1:13:59 And so they look at their arm and they're like, it's not my arm. They throw it under bed. You know, they try to get it. of it they don't take care of it they don't recognize part of their body or something we recognize that as a problem because they don't see Report an error

1:14:17 own body as I don't care for it. It's kind of hard for me to get rid of that. Well, yeah, I mean, you're talking about the conventional eye, right? Because, I mean, the arm, I mean, it's not, it isn't me, right? It isn't me, but conventionally we label it me, right? So it's a problem if we think it's not conventionally even me and we throw it at a bench like, what's this thing doing here, right? Report an error

1:15:02 That's a problem, right? Then we're, like, negating. Valid functionality, right? So that gets to the second one, right? So inherent existence, right, we talked about, right, there is no me at all within this body-mind complex. Does that mean there is no me at all, period? No. So that's where we have to understand, okay, so even though there's no me at all, Within this mind-body complex, there's still a me that exists. And what is the me that exists? Report an error

1:15:49 The mere, what's the mere eye? Report an error

1:15:56 The functioning? Is that the mere, is that the me that exists? The functioning. What Report an error

1:16:05 do other people think? Report an error

1:16:14 A label. Report an error

1:16:25 Conventionally agreed upon label. Report an error

1:16:35 On a valid base. Report an error

1:16:39 Alright, okay. What else, Peter? Do you want to hand over the mic? Report an error

1:16:50 Well it's interesting from a sūtra and tantra perspective because of course from a sūtra perspective we're trying to dispel the notion of an inherent I and affirm the emptiness of that I. But when you get to tantra the conventional I becomes important again because you need that body and that mind of this continuum to become enlightened. Report an error

1:17:16 But you have, I guess at that point, a deeper understanding of the nature of that I. But suddenly the I becomes important again to some extent. Report an error

1:17:26 At least the conventional collection of body and mind. Report an error

1:17:36 You can't become enlightened in Tantra without a body and a mind. It's essential. Well, I mean, asserting a conventional I is important in Sūtra too. Report an error

1:17:51 Sorry, go ahead. right? Yeah. But... Report an error

1:17:52 I was just going to say, but you know, in sūtra there seems to be more of a focus on refuting the idea of existing at all from its own side, but then suddenly in tantra it becomes kind of important again in order to arise as a deity and all of that. Report an error

1:18:10 See, they say the view is the same in sūtra and tantra, right? So this is a tricky balance, right? So we're refi in Tantra too we're refi Refuting. Sure, sure. But then, yeah, in Tantra we're using, you know, and based on there not being a real me there at all, then I can arise in the appearance of a deity. Report an error

1:18:44 Exactly. Right? So because, because it's completely empty from its own side, then I can arise in a different appearance, right? Report an error

1:18:56 But my point was just that we need that body essentially in order to do that. Yeah, the body is more important in the practice of tantra. Right. But definitely, I mean, it's still the same basis. Yeah. Okay. Report an error

1:19:21 So the mere eye is, the mere existence is only that which is imputed, the Report an error

1:19:37 imputation, the label. The designation, the thought. It's Report an error

1:19:57 interesting to play with that. Is this really me? Is this really me sitting here? There's an appearance that I label me. I could label it person just as validly. But if I think it's really me, Report an error

1:20:21 therein begins the whole cycle of existence, right, of saṃsāra. Really me, the real me who wants happiness, that doesn't want suffering. The real me who has wants and needs, the real me who wants to be thought well of, to have a good reputation, to be understood, to be treated well, all based on believing that there's a real me. Report an error

1:20:54 If it's just constantly changing body, labeled me, Report an error

1:21:12 nobody to attack, insult. Report an error

1:21:23 To love, nothing substantial there at all. Just something labeled on something that's not substantial. Report an error

1:21:44 So is this mere eye the one that accumulates karma? Uh-huh. So then it's an imputation, it's a thought, this mere eye that accumulates karma. Report an error

1:22:00 So if there weren't a mind around, then that person and that stream of karma would disappear, would not exist? Mm-mm. It's kind of weird to me to think about it in those terms like this person who goes from life to life and accumulating karma and reaping the repercussions of karma wouldn't exist without minds to impute it. Report an error

1:22:36 It's not that it wouldn't exist at all. It doesn't exist as a person. Report an error

1:22:47 It's not that there's nothing that exists. There is something, right? Things do exist. But as soon as you say what exists, you have to posit it from a particular perspective. Report an error

1:23:04 So it isn't nihilism saying that there's no person. If there's no imputation, then there's nothing at all. That's not what we're saying. Report an error

1:23:19 There's no person without an imputation. Report an error

1:23:30 But it's not that there's nothing. But as soon as you say what it is, you have to posit it from a perspective. Report an error

1:23:44 It's tricky finding that balance. Report an error

1:23:52 We're also not saying that the person is an imputation. The person isn't just a thought. It's a thought on a valid basis. If I just have a thought, puppy, it doesn't make puppy appear. there's... Yeah. Report an error

1:24:13 Independence on a valid basis. So person, independence on a body and our mind. Report an error

1:24:23 Good question. Report an error

1:24:27 Slowly, slowly. All right. The Report an error

1:24:36 difference between inherent existence and mere existence as well as non-existence by way of its own characteristics. Non-existence inherently. Non-inherent existence, right? And non-existence at all, right? No existence. Non-existence by way of its own characteristics, not existing, Report an error

1:25:04 existing in and of causes and conditions, parts and imputation, which doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all, right? Non-existence, there's nothing, right? There's no clock, there's no person at all, right? We're just saying there's no findable clock, no. Report an error

1:25:32 No clock independent of the imputation clock. There's no person independent of the imputation person. But that doesn't mean there's no person at all. There's no person independent of the imputation of causes and conditions. No person independent of the body and mind. No person independent of imputation. But Report an error

1:26:08 it's not that the person doesn't exist at all. The person does exist. Like the horns of a rabbit, right? It's not like a person is not like the horns of a rabbit, right? Horns of a rabbit doesn't exist at all. A person does exist validly conventionally. Report an error

1:26:29 Okay. So Lama Tsongkhapa says very important to be able to distinguish between these four terms. Like understand the difference between these four terms. Otherwise we'll fall into nihilism or permanence. We'll fall into one of the extremes. So this is tricky, right? Gleaning the differences between inherent existence, non-inherent existence, non-existence, inherent existence and mere existence. Report an error

1:27:07 Non-existence. Horns of a rabbit. Doesn't exist at all. Not even conventionally. Report an error

1:27:21 Turtle hair cloak. I like that. I like that one too. Report an error

1:27:36 The son of a barren woman is another. Except you, then you can get into adoption and all that. So that one doesn't work for me. Report an error

1:27:53 So things that don't exist at all, non-existence. So Lama Tsongkhapa says that if we do not differentiate between these four terms, these four things, then if we think it exists, then we think it exists. Really, right, by its own characteristics inherent. Or if we get to the point where we see, okay, well, there's nothing at all that's findable. Report an error

1:28:29 There's nothing exists on its basis, findable on its basis. Then we think, okay, then it doesn't exist at all. And Report an error

1:28:43 we will not have moved beyond the two extremes. Report an error

1:28:55 So, yeah, so he quotes the commentary on the 400 verses. Which says, according to those who propose that real substantial things exist, then as long as a thing does exist, then so long will an own entity exist in accordance with it. Like if it exists, then it has to exist by way of its own entity, according to those people, right? Whereas if it doesn't have its own entity, then that means that it doesn't exist in any way. Report an error

1:29:31 It would be like... A donkey's horn. Therefore, since they do not pass beyond propounding those two extremes, all their assertions are, they don't really make sense. Report an error

1:29:54 That being so, you are freed from all extremes of existence or permanence through the absence of existence by way of its own entity and from all extremes of non-existence through the ability to posit in that absence causes and effects without inherent existence. Report an error

1:30:15 We are free. Report an error

1:30:32 We're free from the extreme of permanence or existence or superimposition by understanding that things are empty of inherent existence. Report an error

1:30:45 We're free from the extreme of non-existence or annihilation by understanding that causes and effects do function. Report an error

1:31:01 So I want to do a meditation. Report an error

1:31:07 We've been doing meditations on... Refuting the inherently existent I, but then we go down to the body and the mind as well. Report an error

1:31:32 So we'll start by meditating on the breath and Report an error

· · ·

1:32:14 get a sense of me, a solid me sitting here, sitting Report an error

1:32:28 here, solid particular Report an error

· · ·

1:33:08 location, Report an error

1:33:19 solid single me, right? It's not many me's, but it seems to be one solid single thing. And Report an error

· · ·

1:34:27 let's look at the body. Report an error

1:34:37 Millions of atoms and subatomic particles, focusing Report an error

1:34:50 on those particles, Report an error

1:35:12 focusing on those as single pointedly as we can. Report an error

1:35:45 Is there a single, solid, it's Report an error

1:35:54 a body covering those particles. Report an error

· · ·

1:37:06 Then we'll turn to the mind, Report an error

1:37:13 that which is clear and knowing space, Report an error

· · ·

1:37:53 many parts, many moments, Report an error

1:38:10 not a solid mass, but it's imputed on Report an error

1:38:34 or exists. The Report an error

1:38:46 future moments have not yet arisen. Try Report an error

1:39:13 to grab onto it. The Report an error

1:39:27 present moment has part. It has a beginning, a middle, Report an error

1:39:43 further divided. Report an error

1:39:49 Those sub-moments can be further divided, Report an error

1:39:59 can be further divided, can Report an error

1:40:13 be broken down further. Report an error

· · ·

1:40:48 Solid mind, Report an error

· · ·

1:41:22 me sitting here, Report an error

1:41:31 the absence, a lack of anything solid here at all. Report an error

· · ·

1:43:36 Here, Report an error

1:43:58 body, here. Report an error

· · ·

1:44:37 No solid mind, Report an error

· · ·

1:45:58 nothing solid at all. Report an error

· · ·

1:47:06 Comments, questions? Report an error

1:47:19 Yeah, yeah. Too tired to do that meditation. Yeah. Well, one of these days we'll do a practice day. Oh, wait, let's do the microphone. Report an error

1:47:38 When you started off, it was, I suppose we're looking for the solid. And I saw a statue. I think I was a statue, kind of like, I guess, Lincoln or somebody, you know. Okay, so there's a solid, there I am, solid, there's a solid fixed, and then it becomes Report an error

1:48:20 really hard to see anything. As soon as we kind of let the atoms fly, it's hard for me. It's hard to even see a body at all. It's totally just this random whatever. It's hard to remember that I have a mind and a body. Report an error

1:48:48 It takes off into some weird... And that's kind of usual for me, but this one was kind of even more emphasis on that. But the statue I thought was kind of cool. That's what you want to think. You know, it's... Mm-hmm. Report an error

1:49:05 That's me. Yeah, like that solid. There I am. I'm as solid as you can get. It's a piece of granite. I mean, we have that sense, right? That there's a solid me really sitting here, right? Did people get that sense? Yeah. And is there a solid me really sitting here? There Report an error

1:49:31 isn't. I mean, there's an appearance of a solid me, right? But there isn't. But if we look more deeply, it's just there isn't anything solid and singular there, right? Report an error

1:49:45 The image I had was like the incredible journey. Like I was zeroing in on my skin cells and little hairs on my arm and going deeper and I was like, where am I in there? I'm not in there. There's so much going on in my body that I'm just simply never even aware of. But once I get down at that level, you know, you were talking about atoms and like there's stuff there, but it's not me. Report an error

1:50:11 You know, I could spend, you know. years looking around in there, you know, and get lost, you know, like an incredible journey, you know, but I don't find me there. It's kind of cool. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And we're, you know, we're a culture so concerned about our appearance, right? How we look. Well, who is this? You know, it's just me. Report an error

1:50:35 I mean, it's a bunch of atoms and subatomic particles and, you know, it's just... You know, it's like an illusion. I mean, it appears to be this solid, good-looking thing or, you know, not-so-good-looking thing or whatever, you know, but it's just an appearance. It's a fantasy. It's totally a fantasy, right? A hallucination, which is what, you know, Lama Yeshi calls it, right? And then, you know, we spend so much time, right, making sure that we eat right. Report an error

1:51:10 Well, it's good to eat right, right, but look good. The cosmetic industry is amazingly prolific, you know, right? Diets and... All right. Okay. And then the mind is harder to break down, isn't it? It wasn't? Good. Yeah, so that's not anything solid either. Report an error

1:51:39 Yeah, good. Good. So who is the me that wants people to think well of us? Report an error

1:51:52 The body? I Report an error

1:51:59 had trouble there. And with that part, because you were talking about the mind and moments and things like that, I thought about a moment earlier in the day when I did something and said something to someone else and then I was just sitting here thinking, I was like, oh, I wonder if that had a bad effect on that person, you know, made her feel bad or I could have said it better or done it differently or added something, you know. Report an error

1:52:29 So I was thinking about my actions. My actions, the actions for which I was responsible, the ones for which I will reap karma. There was a lot of I there. The body thing wasn't so hard for me, but there was an I there that I felt like I had to take responsibility for. Well, but that's good, right? That's good, because there is an I. It's not a solid I. It's not something concrete, but there's still... Report an error

1:53:01 Right, it feels solid, right. Still, there was a conventional, Report an error

1:53:11 ever-changing body and mind that committed that act of speech that will reap the consequence of that, right. So, yeah, so it's tricky, right, coming up with nothing solid and seeing that, oh, well, but that was your action and you will experience the effect of that. Report an error

1:53:36 Very difficult there. But good for you to see that. Report an error

1:53:43 So Report an error

1:53:51 we negate the inherent existence of the eye. We negate the solid existence of the eye. We negate the solid existence of the body. We negate the solid existence of the mind. Anything that we're hanging on to. If we're hanging on to the subatomic particles, we negate the inherent existence of those two until there's just nothing, right, from its own side. Report an error

1:54:17 Yeah, it's just like space. Well, I shouldn't say just like space, but it's like space, right? Nothing solid. Report an error

1:54:31 It is. Yeah. Yeah. So who is it that gets insulted then? Report an error

1:54:46 All Report an error

1:54:50 right. So that Report an error

1:55:10 somebody can say something to you and then it goes to your ears and then it affects your, your mind or your heart. This magic thing that comes from somebody's mouth through your ear. I thought that was pretty good. I like that. That's an amazing journey right there. Report an error

1:55:34 Just some sounds that went to your ears and then created a problem for us because of the way we thought about those sounds. Report an error

1:55:44 Speaking of Lama Yeshe, there was an article a few months ago in Mandala about... One of his early students having a conversation with him and all of a sudden Lama's face disappeared. It was just space. And he said that he considered that such a gift that Lama Yeshe had given him. His face just dissolved. You know. Report an error

1:56:06 Just his face? His body was still there? His body was still there, but he said his face was just, you know, like, it was just gone. Which is really interesting. Report an error

1:56:18 That'd be kind of freaky. Report an error

1:56:24 It was just light. Report an error

1:56:29 Oh, I was kind of thinking about it before, but with the whole chocolate question. In terms of the aggregates arising, do they arise at like the same time, like each moment by moment, like with each mind, or is it like, it's almost like it can't be sequential, but it almost like, it's... You would think that, at least when I look at it logically, it looks like it should be sequential, but no, it's like the consciousness is underlying everything, so it's kind of like boom, boom, boom, moment to moment, but I don't know what I'm saying. Report an error

1:57:05 So part of me thinks, okay, it should be sequential, but it doesn't make sense that it would be sequential. It should almost be arising kind of at the same time, or is it happening so quickly that it seems like it's happening at the same time, but it's really just kind of boom, boom. You know, one after the next. Report an error

1:57:27 Well, I think, first of all, you know, we talk in terms of moments, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, but actually there aren't disparate moments, right? There's just a continual change, right? Continual change. Continual change of body, continual change of mind, right? And that body is changing whether or not anyone is perceiving it. Report an error

1:57:54 It's not as if there's no body if Report an error

1:58:02 nobody's looking. It's not as if that's what you're implying. You can't call it a body without an imputation, but it's not that there's nothing there. There is a process of the heart beating and the blood coursing through the veins whether or not anybody is aware of it. It's still happening. So there's a constant change of the body and constant change of the mind. I don't know if that answers your question. Report an error

1:58:36 I was kind of asking something more about, aside from, say, the heart or the brain, working independently, more in terms of, say, the volition, consciousness, trying to figure out the mind in terms of how to even break that down. into like an eye consciousness or a hearing consciousness kind of like what she was saying about the chocolate right it kind of goes from one person you pick up the consciousness save the ear consciousness picks it up then Report an error

1:59:13 And then it kind of, like she was saying, it kind of creates this reaction in the heart, a feeling. So I guess what I'm asking is. Do these aggregates really work in sequence or is it more that they all arise at the same time? Report an error

1:59:41 I'm not getting the connection between the aggregates arising in sequence. I mean, there are reactions that arise in sequence, right? Like you hear a sound, right? There's a sound. There's what's called an ear sense power, which empowers the ear consciousness to perceive that. then there's a consciousness that Report an error

2:00:12 Decides if it's pleasant or unpleasant or neutral. So all that is sequential rather than it coming at the same time. Yeah, so that, yeah, so, yeah. Well, I mean the sound, yeah, there's a sound, the next moment then it's heard. Actually, you know, we actually, it said we hear the previous moment sound. We're not hearing something in the present. Report an error

2:00:46 Previous moment in the sense of like 165th of the finger snap, right? Really previous. But it's the sound that acts as a condition for us to be able to hear it. So there's a sound. We hear it. Then we process it. Grasp, you know, determine whether it's pleasant or unpleasant. And then if we grasp to an eye, then, you know, like if it's an insult, right? An eye that's being insulted. If we label it insult, we label... Report an error

2:01:14 A me that's being insulted and then all sorts of unnecessary suffering arises from the conceptual mind labeling it insult and labeling a real me as being insulted and then suffering arises where it just originated as a sound and then we processed it in a way that we experience unnecessary suffering and this is what we do all the time. Report an error

2:01:45 Right. So yeah, there is a sequential process there. But some things arise simultaneously, like feelings and, you know, perceptions. Those things arise simultaneously, but then there's certain processes that are sequential. I know maybe we can talk about it separately if you want. Report an error

2:02:13 Okay, so let's... I was going to read this complete path, but we're a little bit over. So... Let's just do Shantideva on page 246. Report an error

2:02:37 Okay, so before we do this, sorry. So let's try and exercise this week. Try to not, at least one day or part of one day, not use the word I or me at all. Report an error

2:03:00 At all. Or an hour. Like half a day. I mean, at work it might be a little strange if you avoid doing that. But, you know, try, right? Report an error

2:03:18 Yeah, or when, you know, you think I try to translate that into another way of putting it. Like, I'm sitting here, body is sitting here. I'm tired. Body, you know, body tired, right? Mind tired. I need to go home. cry, like... Report an error

2:03:38 Body and mind need to go home. Just try it for some period of time. Report an error

2:03:47 Yeah. Just as an experiment, just try to do that for a day, an hour, half a day. And see what comes out of that. Report an error

2:04:10 May all beings everywhere, plagued by sufferings of body and mind, obtain an ocean of happiness and joy. By virtue of my merits. May no living creature suffer, commit evil or ever fall ill. May no one be afraid or belittled with a mind weighed down by depression. May the blind see forms and the deaf hear sounds. May those whose bodies are worn with toil be restored on finding repose. Report an error

2:04:37 May the naked find clothing, the hungry find food. May the thirsty find water and delicious drinks. May the poor find wealth, those weak with sorrow find joy. May the forlorn find hope, constant happiness and prosperity. May there be timely rains and bountiful harvests. May all medicines be effective and wholesome prayers bear fruit. May all who are sick and ill quickly be freed from their ailments. Report an error

2:05:05 Whatever diseases there are in the world, may they never occur again. May the frightened cease to be afraid. And those bound be freed. May the powerless find power and may people think of benefiting each other. For as long as space remains, for as long as sentient beings remain, until then may I too remain to dispel the miseries of the world. Report an error

2:05:37 So let's dedicate further quick recovery of Lama Tsongkhapa Rinpoche from his stroke to Report an error

2:05:47 his long life, the life of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Kishidapa. Report an error

2:06:22 I sent out the homework electronically and I have hard copies here if people want one. Report an error

· · ·

2:07:06 up all of them, but I think they have a Report an error

Report an error

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

Suggest a fix

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

Related talks

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

    Emily Hsu · 18 October 2011 · 2 h 12 min

  2. Special Insight 3: Wisdom of Emptiness (1 November 2011)

    Emily Hsu · 1 November 2011 · 2 h 13 min

  3. Special Insight 3: Wisdom of Emptiness (4 October 2011)

    Emily Hsu · 4 October 2011 · 2 h 12 min

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

    Emily Hsu · 11 October 2011 · 2 h 12 min

  5. Special Insight 3: Wisdom of Emptiness (15 November 2011)

    Emily Hsu · 15 November 2011 · 2 h 30 min

  6. Special Insight 2: Wisdom of Emptiness (23 August 2011)

    Emily Hsu · 23 August 2011 · 2 h 12 min

Talk by Emily Hsu, recorded 23 October 2011. Original at Tse Chen Ling Center for Tibetan Buddhist Studies via Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/EH_SpecialInsight_20111004. Licensed CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. Transcript generated automatically and may contain errors; the audio is the authoritative version.

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

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