The Heart Sutra By Ven Robina 2013 (part 2)

0:10 From your discussion during lunch about emptiness. Let's stick to emptiness. Go on about emptiness. No questions? No? Yep. Yep. Yep. Report an error in the passage at 0:10 Highlight the passage at 0:10

0:26 Yes. That's right. Which one? Well, that's just one. That's just one mistake. We've got these countless mistakes, permanence, attachment, anger, jealousy, pride, depression, all these are wrong, they're all mistakes, they're all wrong interpretations, that's to get the idea. Permanence is just a gross mistake we make, the subtlest mistake is seeing things as self-existent, which is why it's the hardest one to understand because it's so primordial. The general approach to take with Buddha's teachings, when you get this you'll begin to understand the approach, that he's saying we don't see things correctly. Report an error in the passage at 0:26 Highlight the passage at 0:26

1:00 It's a very curious way to talk, you know. We don't see things, we wrongly interpret everything. So if you take the view of karma, this is what a major, major, major one. Report an error in the passage at 1:00 Highlight the passage at 1:00

1:11 The general view that we utterly accept as the absolute truth which feels like the truth to us without anyone telling us is that we're this innocent victim who didn't ask to get born. And to whom things happen unfairly. So we don't mind the good things unfairly. Give me more unfair. I don't care if it's unfair. I want more good ones. Thank you very much. But the bad ones, how dare bad things happen to me? Report an error in the passage at 1:11 Highlight the passage at 1:11

1:32 So we've got all these wrong interpretations. Look at even anger. We say, how dare you harm me? I don't deserve this. What have I done to deserve this? Buddha says, excuse me, you just did. He just talks about the view of karma. Good things, we don't care if I don't deserve it, like I said, but we have to understand that we created the cause to have it. So that's wrong view. All he's saying is all these delusions are wrong views. Report an error in the passage at 1:32 Highlight the passage at 1:32

1:50 Grasping at permanence, thinking things as no cause and effect, thinking I play no role in things, thinking about attachment, anger, all of these are all mistaken interpretations. When it comes to other, this is what Buddha's really saying. When we begin to see this, we're on track with understanding Buddha's approach. We're on track with therefore understanding why we have to meditate, why we have to do concentration, why we have to think about these things, why we have to familiarise our mind with all this. Report an error in the passage at 1:50 Highlight the passage at 1:50

2:14 When we get to this point, this is what he's saying. And it happens to be that these misconceptions, Because they're not accurate assessments of reality is why they call suffering. That's the relationship. We can't see this in the world. We think we suffer because you punched me. We don't think we suffer because I have a misunderstanding interpretation of this event. It's a very brand new idea to us. We think we suffer because our beautiful fancy cup breaks. Report an error in the passage at 2:14 Highlight the passage at 2:14

2:41 No, because we have a misconception of it. We think it's permanent. We think we suffer because all these other things, all coming down to misconceptions. This is what we have to understand. Does it make sense, the theory, the idea? You just have to see how anger is a misconception, jealousy is a misconception, attachment is a misconception. It's hard to see because we're so utterly buying into it, one million percent. Report an error in the passage at 2:41 Highlight the passage at 2:41

3:01 And Buddha says we have been for countless lives, so it's totally programmed in us. So it's really not an easy thing. You can't just sit and watch your breath. That won't make it go away. It'll calm your mind down a bit. Just the beginning. Now you've got to start to listen to what Buddha says is how things exist. Why do you think Buddha talks about karma, impermanence, all these things? That's because he's just being some weird person who wants some nice ideas in his head. Report an error in the passage at 3:01 Highlight the passage at 3:01

3:22 He's trying to tell us how things do exist. Of course you don't have to believe him. You take it as your working hypothesis and you use those views to help you understand things. It's just like you get sick and you go to one doctor and he tells you he takes the allopathic approach and he explains to you why you're sick. And then you go to a Chinese doctor, you might as well be talking another language. Report an error in the passage at 3:22 Highlight the passage at 3:22

3:42 There's no communication at all. It's a whole different new interpretation of why you're sick, isn't it? Then you go to a homeopath, another interpretation. Well, it's up to you to look into which one you're going to buy into and then take the methods for. Is it not? Well, this is all Buddhism is, communism, materialism, Catholicism, whatever you want to call it. They're just views. They're ways of interpreting the world. Report an error in the passage at 3:42 Highlight the passage at 3:42

4:03 You see, this is what's so shocking. When we're materialists, we tend to think, oh, I don't have any views. I don't have any beliefs. We say that, don't we? Oh, I don't believe in anything. But it laughs. Don't be ridiculous. You've got a highly developed, sophisticated, philosophical view of the universe. It's called a samsaric view, which believes your mummy made you, you don't ask to get born, your mind is your brain, it's not physical, you die when you turn to dust, you do this and it's not. Report an error in the passage at 4:03 Highlight the passage at 4:03

4:26 All that view is the materialist view, which he would call one of the part of the samsaric philosophical view. It's a really vivid, highly established, sophisticated view. And all he's saying is, wrong view, wrong interpretation, baby. You've got to believe him. So what I'm doing as a Buddhist is attempting, having listened to Buddhism, taking that as my working hypothesis for the view I take to explain the world to me and attempt to internalise that view and that's what Buddha says we need to do. Report an error in the passage at 4:26 Highlight the passage at 4:26

4:52 And he's saying if you keep doing that, you'll eventually, you will see how things exist because this is the method, he says. I've got to have to find out, don't I? Don't believe anybody. Huh? Yes, may I answer your question? Go, sweetheart. Report an error in the passage at 4:52 Highlight the passage at 4:52

5:18 It's okay, just give yourself time, be brave, put up with it. I mean, seriously, changing any view is very painful. Of course it's intellectual. You've got to start somewhere. Listen, dear, you've been overweight for 20 years and you've got to lose 20 kilos. Excuse me, it's very painful and sad to change your view, isn't it, and start realizing I've got to eat different food and have to feel starving and needy. Making any change is painful. Report an error in the passage at 5:18 Highlight the passage at 5:18

5:42 And because we're junkies for good feelings, that's why we don't want to change. We have mental breakdowns. It's inevitable. Of course it's going to be difficult. That's why you've got to be convinced about the method. If you just think you'll feel better and lose weight if you go on a new diet, but you're not confident, then you'll be very depressed. You've got to be confident in your new method. Report an error in the passage at 5:42 Highlight the passage at 5:42

6:01 Then you've got some confidence to try it. Do you see? And it's always painful to change. Anything is painful. Because we're attached and grasping like vampires onto the status quo. Report an error in the passage at 6:01 Highlight the passage at 6:01

6:12 It's just how it is. Of course, it's sad. It's cool. We're big girls and boys. We can put up with it. And then soon we're getting used to the new one. Of course, changing anything and then you get used to the new one, you know. So giving up attachment. I know when I'm completely attached to reading things, all right. So, you know, I mean, I'd go to the airport and I'd travel, which I do a lot, and I'd probably spend 50 bucks on papers and magazines. Report an error in the passage at 6:12 Highlight the passage at 6:12

6:33 I'm lugging 14 kilos onto the plane. Now I've got an iPad, right. Costs nothing. It doesn't weigh anything. But in the beginning, I was really sad to give up newspapers and the feel of it and turning the pages. Believe me, it didn't take long. I now look at papers with disdain. What's that smelly, dirty thing? Give me my iPad, please. So don't worry about it. Give up something, you grab something else. Report an error in the passage at 6:33 Highlight the passage at 6:33

6:56 It's okay. It's all right. They even say there's one story of one yogi, one meditator, amazing meditator, Tibetan, who was sort of stuck before he died. He couldn't give up attachment. To his butter tea. And his Lama kind of could tell and he said, don't worry about it, your butter tea is much nicer in the pure lands. So you're using your attachment to drop the old one and go to the new one and you're tricking yourself because you're just using attachment. Report an error in the passage at 6:56 Highlight the passage at 6:56

7:21 You understand? That's okay. Don't worry about it. So okay. So we do understand, right, that we've got wrong views but there's layers of them. Levels and levels and levels. And we've got to look at the mistake of all of them. The one we're discussing mainly here is the root one, the one that assumes all the, that informs all the others as a result of which we have all the other wrong views. Report an error in the passage at 7:21 Highlight the passage at 7:21

7:42 It's the deepest, most primordial. Therefore, of course, the hardest to recognize in the mind, which is why when we hear emptiness, we get puzzled. You know? So first of all, we've been looking at just the use of the word, the way Buddha talks. Buddha wants us to see what does exist. He says we need to get our minds into sync with what does exist. That's liberation. Report an error in the passage at 7:42 Highlight the passage at 7:42

8:04 That's the cause of getting happy and stopping suffering. The finding of the investigation, which is an interesting concept. Who would have thought you suffer because you don't know what reality is? It sounds so abstract, doesn't it? This is his point. So, then the way he's using the words, that's the first point. Report an error in the passage at 8:04 Highlight the passage at 8:04

8:25 So, we need to cognise that which exists, all the phenomena that exist. All these different words, phenomenon, existent, established, all these words for that which exists. So the one I'm using here is the one existent, which is the definition of which is very tasty. It's that which the mind can cognise. It's axiomatic. That which the mind can cognise is that which exists. It's most fascinating. Who would have thought, you know? So Buddha says every mind can cognise that which exists. Report an error in the passage at 8:25 Highlight the passage at 8:25

8:49 That's our potential. And that's the method for getting happy. The method for getting happy. The method for stopping suffering. Report an error in the passage at 8:49 Highlight the passage at 8:49

8:59 Forgetting of wisdom is the method for getting of happiness. It's most curious. We wouldn't have thought that. So then, okay, that's that. So then the use of these words, he talks about how we have to realise that, have to cognise that which exists. Well, well, if you have a wrong view and think this cup is red, you have a wrong view, you're in la-la land. Report an error in the passage at 8:59 Highlight the passage at 8:59

9:19 It isn't true. So because you're cognising something that isn't true, you've got to fix it. You've got to get to cognise what is true. So... You could say blue is what's true, but the stepping stone to see what's true is to see the absence of what isn't true. You get my point? So for so long, what's your name? Vina. So Vina, you know, Vina, colourblind, she sees it as red. Report an error in the passage at 9:19 Highlight the passage at 9:19

9:47 And Buddha's trying to get her to see. He tells her she's making a mistake. Well, like first step, like we all agreed, is you've got to recognise, okay, I'm making a mistake. Things don't exist the way they appear. Big ask, but let's try it. So she at least admits she's prepared. And nothing will change until you admit that, until you recognise it could be possible you're making a mistake. Report an error in the passage at 9:47 Highlight the passage at 9:47

10:05 And that's a big step. That's pretty stunning. As Lama Zopa says, most ordinary world, we don't even know our mind plays any role at all. Forget about mistake. This is how deep these mistakes are. Because for so long blue has appeared red to her. It's like a joke to think she's wrong. Don't be ridiculous, of course it's red. Report an error in the passage at 10:05 Highlight the passage at 10:05

10:27 And this is how we are across the board in Saṃsāra, grasping like vampires at things that don't exist. Cakes that make us happy and threads that make us suffer and things that will last forever and all the rest. Someone made me, all this business, he says, a wrong view. So we've got to first recognise it's a possibility that what we feel is true isn't. That's already the big first step. Report an error in the passage at 10:27 Highlight the passage at 10:27

10:49 Amazing. So okay here, a person, me for example, like I'm saying, I'm taking on Buddha's view, giving it a go because you can't see it immediately. I'm giving his view a go. It's my working hypothesis. So then, so then. So this is the interesting point, what Veena first has to recognise. So what Veena has to do is sort out the problems, look into the mistakes, listen to how it does exist and then try to fix her eyes and fix her glasses and fix this and fix that and then she's going to look freshly and it's obvious because she's so used to seeing it as red, this is the interesting point, what she will see with a great massive shock. Report an error in the passage at 10:49 Highlight the passage at 10:49

11:26 Oh my God, it's not red. Do you see, isn't it? Like the example I use about the keys. You believe your keys are in that drawer by the front door. You always keep your keys there. It's a tiny thing. We do this all the time. You run to the drawer, rushing out the door, open it up and you get a shock. You get a shock because you will see, oh my God, no keys. Report an error in the passage at 11:26 Highlight the passage at 11:26

11:50 You see the absence of keys, don't you? Like I said, when your husband's left you, every time you come home, Your whole life is consumed, isn't it, by the cognition of the absence of husband, isn't it? Don't you see what I'm saying? It's so vivid for you. I walk into your house, I won't notice the absence of Fred, I don't even know Fred existed. So this is why seeing the emptiness of something is only relevant insofar as you think the thing is there. Report an error in the passage at 11:50 Highlight the passage at 11:50

12:19 You get my point? Report an error in the passage at 12:19 Highlight the passage at 12:19

12:23 So then what Veena will see when she fixes her eyes and fixes all the dependent arisings of it and has now got herself sorted, she'll look again, she'll get a big shock. Because she won't see blue first. This is what's fascinating. She will see the absence of what she thought has been there all the time. And that's what seeing emptiness is. You see for the first time. Report an error in the passage at 12:23 Highlight the passage at 12:23

12:45 You do it intellectually. Even if you're discussing in this room, you might get a little glimmer. It's okay, you've got to have lots of glimmers. You get clearer and clearer. Every time you think, every time you talk about it, you keep getting slightly clearer, slightly clearer, getting it first intellectually, until eventually you get an experience of it. Report an error in the passage at 12:45 Highlight the passage at 12:45

13:00 And as Lama Zopa says, either of two responses, one is absolute shock, horror, fear, which is already fantastic. Even better, bliss. Okay, way to go. But get your intellectual understanding first, please. That already gives you great confidence. Report an error in the passage at 13:00 Highlight the passage at 13:00

13:23 Because they say, when you see the absence of the inherent I, we haven't even gone to discuss what an inherent I is yet, don't worry about that, we're just taking on board the idea that what we're seeing isn't right, so we have to see the absence of it. But eventually that leads you then to see subtle dependent arising, merely labelled, after you've cognised emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 13:23 Highlight the passage at 13:23

13:49 So after she's seen the absence of red, she'll finally see the truth, which is blue, dependent arising. So the point is this, one of the points, is that once you've seen, they actually say, the first, they call it the first direct, non-conceptual, quotes, insight into emptiness. The first more than intellectual, direct, definite, genuine, experiential cognition of the absence of the fantasy eye. Report an error in the passage at 13:49 Highlight the passage at 13:49

14:26 From that second... You climb out of saṃsāra into nirvāṇa. You haven't achieved nirvāṇa yet. You've got more to go. But you can't ever fall back from there. So that's the crucial, vital point we're needing to get. Until we get this one, we will never, ever, ever, ever, ever stop being reborn and stop suffering in saṃsāra. Buddha says we've had countless realizations and countless lives. Report an error in the passage at 14:26 Highlight the passage at 14:26

14:51 We've had clairvoyance. We've had siddhis. We've been able to fly in the sky. We've been amazing high beings. We've been in the lowest of realms, countless lives. But we've never... that's Report an error in the passage at 14:51 Highlight the passage at 14:51

15:00 Cut the root of saṃsāra as they call it, which is the grasping at the inherent eye. These are the words for it. We've never seen directly emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 15:00 Highlight the passage at 15:00

15:14 So okay, easy to see the absence of red because we understand red. Easy to see the absence of keys because we know what keys are. They're simple examples. But what I'm trying to get us to understand is the vividness of the absence of something as a very real existent phenomenon. Yeah? You get my point? An existent phenomenon. Report an error in the passage at 15:14 Highlight the passage at 15:14

15:32 Whatever the mind cognizes, remember? Emptiness is something that exists. So it's giving it sort of status of existence rather than just a mere sort of not read. I like to say you turn it into a noun. Do you see what I'm saying? A vivid thing that does exist. Absence of read, absence of keys, absence of husband. Then you sort of get the sense of how they use the words, a very vivid thing that does exist. Report an error in the passage at 15:32 Highlight the passage at 15:32

15:58 You know, when you say emptiness exists, it sounds peculiar because we just think it means nothing. We really have a big mistake about emptiness. We instinctively feel it means nothing. That would be an experience. Okay, this is the wrong mistake we make. You've got a drawer full of things. So you keep pulling them all out until eventually there's nothing left. Report an error in the passage at 15:58 Highlight the passage at 15:58

16:22 That's what we think emptiness is. That you keep thinking, well, it's not the high, it's not the nose, it's not the ear, it's not the mind, it's not the aggregates, it's not this, it's not that. You chuck it all out and there's nothing left. That's a typical gross way we understand emptiness and it's completely mistaken as nihilism. It isn't like that. Can you hear the difference? Or if I look in your drawer not expecting keys, what will I see? Report an error in the passage at 16:22 Highlight the passage at 16:22

16:45 An empty boring drawer, right? Or like you chuck all your rubbish, you take all your papers out, chuck it out, look, nothing left. That's how we think of emptiness. It's so wrong. It's not like this. It's not just a mere nothingness. It's a really wrong view and we run to that view instinctively. So a way of presenting that in a more structured intellectual way, which is a good basis for us to work with, is Buddha's view of the two truths. Report an error in the passage at 16:45 Highlight the passage at 16:45

17:15 Conventional truth, ultimate truth. That's how he talks. So dependent arising is the shorthand for conventional. Emptiness is the shorthand for ultimate. So what's dependent arising mean? Well, it's really clear because this is the way things do exist. Report an error in the passage at 17:15 Highlight the passage at 17:15

17:37 Dependent arising is the way things do exist and emptiness is the way things don't exist, if you like. You can talk like that. But the main, the things you have to think about to trigger the insight into the absence of the inherent I is dependent arising. One of the king of logics. There's many, as they call, there's many logical reasons we need to use. There's many things we have to work on in our mind. Report an error in the passage at 17:37 Highlight the passage at 17:37

18:05 Many views we have to work on to use as logic to argue with ego's entrenched misconceptions in Report an error in the passage at 18:05 Highlight the passage at 18:05

18:18 order to trigger the insight. So, you know, Veena. Veena doesn't just sit there trying to force herself. It isn't red. It's not red. It's not red. Absence of red. Absence of red. That's just ridiculous. Or believing. Six people because they all see it as red. That's not enough either. She's got to do logical work. She's got to see where the problem is and fix the problem, doesn't she? Report an error in the passage at 18:18 Highlight the passage at 18:18

18:42 Fix her eyes, fix the glasses, fix the lighting. Then once that all adjusted, if red is a valid phenomenon that does exist, we're talking ordinary conventional reality here, then she will definitely see it, won't she? There's no question. So it's a logical process, not just squeezing your brain and trying to hope you see emptiness one day, which is what people think about in meditation. Report an error in the passage at 18:42 Highlight the passage at 18:42

19:03 Close your eyes and it'll all come to you. It's like thinking you put your hands on the piano and wait for Mozart to channel through you and suddenly you play. It's superstition. Report an error in the passage at 19:03 Highlight the passage at 19:03

19:15 So what do you have to fix in your mind in order to see truth? You have to identify the mistakes and then argue with them. Really, quite literally. So there's many arguments you can use. One of the key ones, they all say, and Lama Tsongkhapa really runs with this one, is one of dependent arising. So let's go through it. Report an error in the passage at 19:15 Highlight the passage at 19:15

19:38 So first of all, like I began to say before, the first presentation of dependent arising that Buddha uses to argue with the prevalent view which he was arguing with at the time in his own time, which is the Hindu view of anatma, a self, a pointable, findable, permanent self, which is the view, and that would be the same argument he'd have with the Christians about a soul, Report an error in the passage at 19:38 Highlight the passage at 19:38

20:04 he says that what they're saying is that there is a self. That does exist, that doesn't depend upon causes and conditions. That means permanent. It doesn't depend upon causes and conditions. So then what you've got to do here then is think about all the things we know practically, practically. Think about everything we can ever imagine that exists. Report an error in the passage at 20:04 Highlight the passage at 20:04

20:32 Anything. And then see if you can find something that didn't depend upon previous causes. Anything at all. This is what you have to do. To slowly... To argue, have the penny drop, well it can't be possible. There can be a self that does exist, that isn't dependent upon some causes and conditions. You see, we don't even think we think there's a self that exists in dependence upon, that doesn't depend on anything. You see my point? We have never articulated it. That's why we have to articulate what it means and then argue with the mistake. Report an error in the passage at 20:32 Highlight the passage at 20:32

21:03 Can you hear the point? If we've never thought that we've clung to a self-existent I before that's permanent, who would have thought that? We've got to learn about what it would be if it were that. So that means that if you can find anything that does exist that didn't depend upon a previous thing before it, that doesn't change from moment to moment, then you've found something that is permanent. Report an error in the passage at 21:03 Highlight the passage at 21:03

21:27 And Buddha says there can't be such a thing. Forget the space business, emptiness business, forget that one. There can't be such a thing. Among all the body and all the mind and all the universal objects, there can't be such a thing. This argument. It can't be. Just keep checking. Just keep looking until eventually the penny drops. How can there be a thing that doesn't depend upon causes and conditions? Report an error in the passage at 21:27 Highlight the passage at 21:27

21:53 This is the view of a soul. It is something that is permanent. They can't say it doesn't change from moment to moment because if you can go from heaven to hell then it changes, doesn't it? So I don't quite get how they talk about the soul. But certainly this is said to be the teaching of the Hindus about the Atma. It's permanent. And that's certainly the teaching about a creator. Report an error in the passage at 21:53 Highlight the passage at 21:53

22:15 That is absolutely clear. The Christian teachings do assert an inherent creator. An inherent energy they label God or creator that is permanent, that has never... To say that it's come from previous causes is insulting it. That's what they mean by reification. The mistake here that our mind makes... Which we need to argue with at this first level of dependent arising is the reification. That there is something up there, up there, beyond everything, that is always that, has always been that and can never change and isn't dependent on anything. Report an error in the passage at 22:15 Highlight the passage at 22:15

22:54 That is the view exactly of a creator. And Buddha fundamentally disagrees with this. So this is why he asserts omniscient mind. He asserts superior being. He asserts that everyone can accomplish it, which is already a shocking, insulting point to a creationist, because you'd never dare say you can become God. Report an error in the passage at 22:54 Highlight the passage at 22:54

23:23 Please, God give me his methods and I'll become one too. This is like the worst arrogance, because we reify it and put it up there above, beyond, up high in the sky. Report an error in the passage at 23:23 Highlight the passage at 23:23

23:34 This is the reification of things. The Buddha disagrees with this utterly. He said there can't be such a thing that exists this way. But he does posit superior being. He does posit omniscient mind. He does posit that it's pervading the universe and knowing everything and seeing everything. But he doesn't say it's permanent. It's a product of cause and effect. That's why a regular mind like yours and mine and like his, he was a regular guy, he became omniscient. Report an error in the passage at 23:34 Highlight the passage at 23:34

23:58 And that's a shocking concept to the Hindus and the Christians who reify this concept of God. Can you hear the point? No? You can hear the point a bit? Report an error in the passage at 23:58 Highlight the passage at 23:58

24:12 Yes. Report an error in the passage at 24:12 Highlight the passage at 24:12

24:18 No, that's not the meaning. The second one is not the way they talk about permanent in Buddhism. I should be clear about that. I'm very sorry. Things can exist forever. Buddha would say your mind is beginningless and endless. So we would say it's a permanent thing. But the meaning in Buddhism is not that meaning. It's the meaning that it doesn't change from moment to moment and isn't produced by causes and conditions. Report an error in the passage at 24:18 Highlight the passage at 24:18

24:39 That's the meaning of permanent in Buddhism. It's a very different one. Sorry, I should have clarified. That's a crucial point. Mind is eternal. Mind never begins and never ends. But it's not permanent. It's impermanent in the sense that it's dynamically changing from moment to moment and is a product of causes and conditions. Report an error in the passage at 24:39 Highlight the passage at 24:39

24:55 Do you see? Big difference. Report an error in the passage at 24:55 Highlight the passage at 24:55

25:00 So Buddha's saying that something can't exist this way. It's an impossibility. And you try to think of things that we understand that do exist, that are all product of causes. Report an error in the passage at 25:00 Highlight the passage at 25:00

25:12 So if you think of the mind, you see, don't think of the mind like we think of it as like this sort of stuff inside our head, you know, the brain, this thing called the brain. Not like that. It's more used in a much more experiential way for Buddhists. It's referring to all your feelings and thoughts and emotions and this dynamic mental continuum, as they call it, this river of mental moments. Report an error in the passage at 25:12 Highlight the passage at 25:12

25:31 Every microsecond of your mind is moving relentlessly forward, isn't it? Changing from millisecond to millisecond. And this understanding of impermanence is very helpful. It can lead us to understanding the emptiness of the mind. It's not the same though. You can't pin it down, can you? If you meditate on the impermanence of your mind, the millisecond you've got this moment of mind already has become the next moment. You can't pin it down, can you? That's really helpful. That's subtle impermanence. Report an error in the passage at 25:31 Highlight the passage at 25:31

25:56 But don't mistake it for emptiness. But it helps. It leads you to it. Not naturally, but it helps you. You've got to think about emptiness. So okay, so the Buddha would say that whatever, this is a very interesting point, this is the point that he's making about the materialist, the world, the matter, the four elements and minds. Report an error in the passage at 25:56 Highlight the passage at 25:56

26:13 They're the contents of the universe basically and they're both beginningless. Necessarily he says. If you logically follow through the idea of cause and effect. So first of all, the point in Buddhism. You see, the point in Buddhism is you've got to look at the thing and then decide first what it is and what its substantial character is. So the substance of a thing, so for example a cup, we can deduce that it's physical, so let's use the Buddha's view, it's the four elements. Report an error in the passage at 26:13 Highlight the passage at 26:13

26:42 So we all want to find the first something, so we sort of want to find the first cup, the first moment of the universe, the first big bang, the first moment of me, the first moment of anger, the first moment of karma. We desperately want that, we want that. Report an error in the passage at 26:42 Highlight the passage at 26:42

26:58 So we have to analyze how it's not possible. It is not possible. And this is just intellectual. It's not possible. If you posit the idea of cause and effect, which we can see in play every second in the materialist world and everything else, then you see we want a first cause, desperately, frantically want it. Report an error in the passage at 26:58 Highlight the passage at 26:58

27:17 Very irrational, Buddha says, no logical reason whatsoever. We assume it's true. We assume there has to be. We say, but there has to be. We say there has to be. So you start tracking back this cup. So you know if you had a really perfect memory, you'd keep tracking back all the time. You'd go back and do like this reverse evolution. Go back to when it was in the clay and then the mountain and that mountain over eons of time, billions of years. Report an error in the passage at 27:17 Highlight the passage at 27:17

27:40 You know very well if you keep tracking back each second of the stuff that came from this which came from the previous, you'd get back to the first moment of the universe whenever that might be. You have to, wouldn't you? But then you've got to go, what's the cause of that? You can't say, oh, there it is. Because you'd have to ask the question, what caused that first moment of the clay? Report an error in the passage at 27:40 Highlight the passage at 27:40

27:58 Or what caused that first moment of the four elements? And that's often when you're in smarty pants at school. Well, who caused God? Be quiet. You understand? Which is a very logical question. It's a perfectly logical question, you know. But the particular philosophy would see that as insulting. You don't ask that because God is beyond the normal rules of things. That's what they say. Buddha says nothing can be beyond the rules of normal things. It's just how things are. Report an error in the passage at 27:58 Highlight the passage at 27:58

28:25 Because Buddha's view is that it's all practical and doable and knowable and just how it is, you know. It's not superior. It's not up there mystical. You can't reify it. So if we then establish the mind, this is His Holiness one time, he said, it's easy to prove reincarnation, he said. What he meant was intellectually. So let's look what he meant. He said, well first let's establish what is the substance of mind. They call it the substantial cause. Report an error in the passage at 28:25 Highlight the passage at 28:25

28:51 Which is the clay. There's a direct cause, there's indirect causes, there's many types of causes. The one they call is the substantial cause, which if we posit, we have to posit that consciousness is not physical. Report an error in the passage at 28:51 Highlight the passage at 28:51

29:04 It's a series of mental moments. So then we have to, if we do posit that, then we have to say this moment of mind, the obvious immediate substantial cause of this moment has to be the very previous moment. It has to be. And what's the cause of that one? The very previous one. And you go back a year, 20 years, 50 years, a million lives, 20 million lives, 4 trillion lives. You have to get back before this. Report an error in the passage at 29:04 Highlight the passage at 29:04

29:32 Forget this universe because your mind hasn't been in this universe all the time. So we desperately want to track back to where it began. But you can't. Because if you get back to 20 billion years ago, you're going to have to say, my mind began then. If you say that, then you're saying that there was a first moment which didn't have itself a cause. Report an error in the passage at 29:32 Highlight the passage at 29:32

29:53 And nothing like that can exist. If anything exists, it has to have a cause before it. It has to come from a previous moment. It has to have. Logically, if you posit cause-effect. It has to have. It has to have to be consistent with the view. So then you logically, even intellectually, cannot posit a first moment. Report an error in the passage at 29:53 Highlight the passage at 29:53

30:13 You just can't. If you want to, then you have to stop positing cause and effect. Because you can't put that together with cause and effect. Because if something exists... That is an effect, isn't it, of a previous cause by definition. So it's this mad, it's an insane concept to think your mind is beginningless, not to mention the universe, universes, madness. Report an error in the passage at 30:13 Highlight the passage at 30:13

30:35 This is Buddha's view if you follow through. And if you think this, it proves the mind is everything and also it proves emptiness when you come to it actually. Because he says, you see, he says there are two main extreme mistaken views that our minds run to like... Crazy drunken sailors. We run between them like drunken sailors. And if we look at the two truths as the way he presents how things exist, then the extreme views are the way we misunderstand these two views. Report an error in the passage at 30:35 Highlight the passage at 30:35

31:08 So, for example, he says, like I'm saying, things do exist conventionally as dependent arisings. And we've just looked at the first level of dependent arising, that things come into existence in dependence upon many, many, many causes and conditions. And in fact, I always quote this, when my first philosophy teacher, Geshe Tekchok, part two in here, when I studied with him, he used the example of the object, the phenomenon, called Robina. Report an error in the passage at 31:08 Highlight the passage at 31:08

31:42 And he said, it can be said... That everything in the universe up to the first moment of Robina is validly a cause and a condition for the existence of Robina. Because you've got main causes, which is her mind, then you have all the secondary causes, you know. The mothers, the parents, the thing, the this, the air, the food, all the other things that keep this Robina. Report an error in the passage at 31:42 Highlight the passage at 31:42

32:04 So he says, because once you start looking for the causes of Robina, you will never stop. You'll go back to beginningless time and even to the first moment of this universe. You have to go back before that. Same as a cup. Same as your mind. Can you hear the point? Because everything that does exist the second, or a trillion seconds ago, or a trillion million year of seconds ago, if it does exist at that moment, that is the effect of a cause. Report an error in the passage at 32:04 Highlight the passage at 32:04

32:27 It just has to be, which implies it can't be a first moment. It just implies it. We've got to get our heads around this at all. Just intellectually first get our head around that and be comfortable with it. It's consistent. Report an error in the passage at 32:27 Highlight the passage at 32:27

32:38 This is the first way to think about how... There is no I without depending on causes and conditions. Okay, so now the two wrong views. The first view, the first view of conventional truth. Then we have the other view of ultimate truth, like I've been saying. Shorthand for conventional, and we just described the first of these three that I want to discuss, the grossest one, the most obvious, causes and conditions. Report an error in the passage at 32:38 Highlight the passage at 32:38

33:02 This is the first example of dependent arising. The first one, okay? The first one. So dependent arising in general is the... Shorthand for how things exist conventionally. Then you've got how things exist ultimately, which is that they are empty of existing from their own side. Or emptiness is the shorthand. So our mistakes are like this. Instinctively, as soon as we hear there is no self from its own side, we go, oh, oh, oh, there's no I. Report an error in the passage at 33:02 Highlight the passage at 33:02

33:40 And we go way too far and we chuck the baby out with the bathwater. Well, there's no eye anyway. What the hell does it matter? That's the nihilistic one. Report an error in the passage at 33:40 Highlight the passage at 33:40

33:49 You've looked for the eye, you've chucked everything out and there's nothing left. Oh, well, there's no eye. That's a simplistic reading of emptiness and it's a total utter mistake. It's more subtle and nuanced than that, like we've been describing. That's the mistake and we run to this instinctively and that's the nihilistic philosophy. And I think you could say the materialist world is that philosophy. Report an error in the passage at 33:49 Highlight the passage at 33:49

34:13 There is nothing. Born, die. I quote this one. I remember reading Newsweek a couple of issues ago in 2010. They've got the numbers for 2010. There were 680,000 deaths from terrorism, wars, violence, unnatural deaths. And there were 880,000 suicides. Now who do you think kills themselves? I tell you, a person who has faith in God does not kill themselves because they're looking forward to heaven. A person who has the view of karma properly does not kill themselves because they understand why things happen and not panicking. Report an error in the passage at 34:13 Highlight the passage at 34:13

34:48 It's only the materialist who thinks there's nothing and no reason to anything who despairs and kills himself. So it's a nihilistic, it's the consequence of having a nihilistic philosophy. You hear what I'm saying? There's nothing. What the hell, you know? And we run to that view instinctively. As soon as we hear emptiness, we distort it and we go to the extreme view of nihilism. So if you want to think of this emotionally, look at us emotionally, that's depression. Report an error in the passage at 34:48 Highlight the passage at 34:48

35:17 That's depression. It's nihilism. When you're depressed, you're nihilistic. Nothing matters, nothing important, nothing's there. And it's the one of there's nothing to look forward to, remember? That's the way we are emotionally. Despair. But intellectually, it's a very profound mistake our minds make, just naturally. As soon as we hear... Report an error in the passage at 35:17 Highlight the passage at 35:17

35:36 Emptiness. We hear nothingness. Mistake. And you can see it in many, even people who label themselves Buddhist perhaps, misinterpretations of this. So it really needs refined looking and listening and analysing. You've really got to check your sources well that people know what they're talking about. Because there's going to be so many misconceptions. Report an error in the passage at 35:36 Highlight the passage at 35:36

35:54 Then you've got the other one, the conventional truth. The way things exist conventionally, depending upon many things. Causes and conditions is the first one. The second one, which I'll now discuss, is how things exist in dependence upon their parts. And the third one, the subtlest, the real meaning, is how things exist upon the mind calling it that. Report an error in the passage at 35:54 Highlight the passage at 35:54

36:16 Three levels of dependence arising, okay? So the thing is, as soon as we hear, like a cup, you know, as soon as we hear, sorry Robina, there's no cup from its own side, we go, oh, oh, there's no cup, and chuck it out with the bathwater. Too far. And then, as soon as we hear, hey, There is a cup that does depend upon causes and conditions, parts and everything else. We go, oh, thank God there's a cup, grasp. We over-exaggerate the thingness of cup. Report an error in the passage at 36:16 Highlight the passage at 36:16

36:43 Here we over-exaggerate the nothingness. Here we over-exaggerate the cupness, which is the reification process, which is what the Christian teachings and those are actually. They're manifestations of this philosophy. The concept of a permanent, above-everything, eternalistic creator is exactly that expression. Report an error in the passage at 36:43 Highlight the passage at 36:43

37:01 And the concept of a soul or atma is exactly that philosophy. And Buddha's arguing with that way of interpreting, which is a subtle point. Report an error in the passage at 37:01 Highlight the passage at 37:01

37:12 So on the one side Buddha would say there is a cup that does exist in dependence upon causes and conditions, etc., etc., etc. And the point is, and then he would also say there is no cup from its own side. And so what we have to do is see how these, not only are they not opposite, we think they're utterly opposite right now, we run to the two extremes. Not only are they not opposite. Report an error in the passage at 37:12 Highlight the passage at 37:12

37:31 They actually refer to the same thing. So the middle way is in the middle and I'm not just being tricky here. Middle way is not just some nice balance between things. It's a really naive view of middle way. The real middle way is when we've got the truth that as soon as we hear there is a dependent arising cup, it says to us it is therefore empty of existing inherently. Report an error in the passage at 37:31 Highlight the passage at 37:31

37:53 So they come to being the same thing when you've got that finally when you're a Buddha because they mean the same. Right now they point to opposites for our minds, you know. So this is why we have to understand them. Just learn it, think about it, analyse it so that these words can be comfortable. You can be confident when you think the words and say them and get the meaning of it deeper than just the words. Report an error in the passage at 37:53 Highlight the passage at 37:53

38:21 So the second level at which things exist in dependence upon this and that is they exist in dependence upon their parts or a person upon our aggregates. Report an error in the passage at 38:21 Highlight the passage at 38:21

38:36 This is where he now argues with a subtler understanding, a subtler misconception. And for most Buddhist schools, this is what they would call this subtle selflessness, the subtle view of emptiness. But the views of the teachings we study, the Prasangika, would call this gross selflessness. It's not the subtlest yet. So what's this view? Report an error in the passage at 38:36 Highlight the passage at 38:36

39:02 And this is one we can really see as very tasty. Report an error in the passage at 39:02 Highlight the passage at 39:02

39:08 So let's use the object called I. Remember we first established there is an eye, a conventional eye, labelled Robina, labelled Mary, labelled whoever. A person, a mind possessor who does exist. We can point to. So now we're trying to work out how that eye does exist. We have to understand how that eye does exist, like the cup does exist. So we have to first posit the eye. Report an error in the passage at 39:08 Highlight the passage at 39:08

39:35 So then how does the eye exist then? How is this eye existing in dependence upon parts? So basically he's arguing with the view, the subtler view. than the first one, that there is an I that does exist that doesn't depend upon aggregates, parts, the aggregates. Report an error in the passage at 39:35 Highlight the passage at 39:35

39:55 is an eye that doesn't depend upon the aggregates. Can you hear the words? Now that's one we can really taste. This is the eye we really can see we believe in. And our language misleads us. Report an error in the passage at 39:55 Highlight the passage at 39:55

40:16 So if we think of all the parts, all the parts of a person, we can even come down to two, can't we? All the moments of mind, all the anger, all the jealousy, all the love, all the kindness. And then we can think of the body, right? Body and mind. Think this way, simple, okay? Isn't it? Let's say all your parts, your body and your mind. Report an error in the passage at 40:16 Highlight the passage at 40:16

40:38 So look how we talk. I have a nose. I have a nose. How many phenomena there? Two, isn't it? So we really believe there are two phenomena, don't we? There's one called I and there's one called a nose. You agree with what I'm saying? Then we think I have anger and I have jealousy and I have all these different things. I've got many, many possessions. Millions of my bits and pieces of my parts, all my roommates in my head, all my kindness and my love and my goodness and my badness and my depression. Report an error in the passage at 40:38 Highlight the passage at 40:38

41:04 You understand my point now? And we really believe they do exist and they're very vivid, aren't they? I have a pain in my knee. That's a very real thing we believe we've got, a pain, a knee, a foot, a toe. You understand? Report an error in the passage at 41:04 Highlight the passage at 41:04

41:18 So we can say, okay, this is the point now. We're going to look at that conventional thing called an eye. This shape, this person over here or you, your eye, same argument, okay? And we are establishing, remember that it does exist conventionally. We have to point to that one first before we can understand it. So we can see conventionally that is labelled eye. Report an error in the passage at 41:18 Highlight the passage at 41:18

41:40 There's, who can I say? What's your name? Sarah, there's Sarah, okay? We all know. I'm Sarah. Oh, hi, Sarah. They're Sarah, okay? So we know. Sarah's the name given to this bunch of aggregates, isn't it? Would you agree? Sarah's the name we give to this bunch of aggregates, this bunch of body and mind, yeah? Report an error in the passage at 41:40 Highlight the passage at 41:40

41:59 This person that possesses body and mind. This is the way we talk. So then we go, Sarah has a nose, Sarah has eyes, and Sarah, if we look into her mind, she's probably got anger and jealousy and depression and kindness and love, like the rest of us, you know? Join the club. Report an error in the passage at 41:59 Highlight the passage at 41:59

42:12 She's got all those bits and pieces. So the way we talk, you listen, when she says I have anger and I have a nose and I have jealousy, we kind of, conventionally the way we're talking about the parts of the eye, it's correct to say there's nose and it's correct to say there's a toe and it's correct to say there's an eye and anger and jealousy. Report an error in the passage at 42:12 Highlight the passage at 42:12

42:29 They are the valid parts, conventionally speaking, of this object called Sarah. But what we all think and what she thinks is there's another part called Sarah. Report an error in the passage at 42:29 Highlight the passage at 42:29

42:40 That's walking hand in hand with anger, nose and foot. We really believe there's another part called Sarah that's more than her body and more than her mind. That's kind of like the owner of those parts. We talk like this. We defend ourselves when someone insults us. I did not do that. And look at your thoughts. Report an error in the passage at 42:40 Highlight the passage at 42:40

42:59 I am not this way. How dare she do that to me? And that's a completely horrible Robina. I can't believe it. I'm so hurt and I'm crying. And that Robina hurt me, Sarah. We talk this way, don't we? We believe there is, so instinctively we are reaffirming every second that there is another part called Sarah that's got equal status with noses and feet and knees, but somehow is a bit bigger and is like the landlord in a way, the boss, you know. Report an error in the passage at 42:59 Highlight the passage at 42:59

43:23 Are you hearing me? Doesn't it feel this way? And we believe this one trillion percent. Buddha says, don't be ridiculous. How can there be such a thing? And that's even just, this is not the subtlest meaning of emptiness yet, but this we can spend the rest of our life trying to analyse. And I don't mean puzzling over it. Oh, there can't be, there can be. Report an error in the passage at 43:23 Highlight the passage at 43:23

43:43 No, using logic. Not like, oh, there can be red, it is red, it is blue. No, that's just forcing yourself. Using logic to prove how there can't be. Intellectually first. And then guess what? When you think of it again and again and again, suddenly, like one plus one is two, the penny will drop. Oh, I get it. Report an error in the passage at 43:43 Highlight the passage at 43:43

44:04 That's called a realisation. And they have to add those again and again and again, get deeper, deeper, deeper until eventually it's non-conceptual and then deeper and deeper and deeper and eventually you become a Buddha. It's just slow, hard working, that's all. And it's doable and reasonable and it's all laid out for two and a half thousand years and all the traditions by these amazing beings who've done the job already. Report an error in the passage at 44:04 Highlight the passage at 44:04

44:30 So I do this experiment, I like this experiment. Come on, let's do an experiment. Report an error in the passage at 44:30 Highlight the passage at 44:30

44:37 My table, listen carefully, we're talking conventional reality here. My table has a clock, a cup and a lid. Alright, have a look. We agree, don't we? Report an error in the passage at 44:37 Highlight the passage at 44:37

44:49 So we look at each phenomenon. My table, that's a very specific type of table, isn't it? It's called the one next to Robina. Whoever makes the noise, it's the one next to her, isn't it? My table. Has, this is a verb, we understand, or has, what's a verb? No, adject, what's that adverb? Who is it? Has is a verb, isn't it? Thank you very much, thank you very much, it's a verb, okay. Has, owns, has on it, has, owns, either way, a lid, a cup, a clock. Report an error in the passage at 44:49 Highlight the passage at 44:49

45:15 Now, conventionally speaking, we're only talking conventional here, but it leads us to something deeper. If that's a statement of fact, according to the way we define phenomena, we know that we'd have to point out four separate phenomena, wouldn't we? We'd have to point out a table that isn't a clock, a cup and a lid. You agree, isn't it? And you have to point out a lid that's not the rest. Report an error in the passage at 45:15 Highlight the passage at 45:15

45:37 It's very simple, isn't it? It's not complicated. Not complicated, right? If that's a true statement, my table has a cup, a clock and a lid, then you prove it to be true by pointing them all out. Report an error in the passage at 45:37 Highlight the passage at 45:37

45:47 Boom! You got it right, Robina. Tick, tick, tick. You clear? Okay. So we'll do the one about my. I have a nose, a hand and a foot. Okay? You can see? It's a conventional truth, isn't it? It's the way we talk, isn't it? Yeah? Okay. Same argument applies. Prove it to me. Conventionally, prove it to me. Well, I can give you my foot, cut it off, put it there. My hand, put it there. My nose, we can put it there, can't we? Report an error in the passage at 45:47 Highlight the passage at 45:47

46:17 Easy. There's a foot that isn't a nose and a hand. There's a hand that's not a nose and a foot, etc. But now, where's the eye that isn't a nose, a hand and a foot? Nor a knee or anything else for that matter. Report an error in the passage at 46:17 Highlight the passage at 46:17

46:29 You can't find one, can you? It's most annoying. You need to do this analysis again and again until the penny drops. It's effuriating because we so believe there is an eye that has a nose, a hand and a foot, because it's how we talk. And it's fine to talk this way, but it's all smoke and mirrors. It's just a way of talking, convenience. Report an error in the passage at 46:29 Highlight the passage at 46:29

46:49 But we, you see, we forgot that it's convenient. We buy into the fact that we've caught, this is the, I'm leaping now to the subtlest dependent arising. We forgot that, you know, we call ourselves Robina. It's a name given to this particular set of aggregates. There's no Robina in there apart from the name. There can't be. But then we go, oh, but there are aggregates. Report an error in the passage at 46:49 Highlight the passage at 46:49

47:12 Hey, there's a nose, a hand and a foot. Why can't there be a Robina? Well, yes, there is a nose, a hand and a foot. But now let's analyse a nose. Where's the nose? Well, guess what? This is the subtlest one again. This is just a name we give to these parts, isn't it? So let's look for the nose. Report an error in the passage at 47:12 Highlight the passage at 47:12

47:29 Let's look for the nose that isn't the nasal, the holes, the this and the this. You won't find one. You break it down to its parts. Oh, well, there's a nasal. Oh, no, what do you call it? What do you call this? Nostril, thank you. There's a nostril. Hey, you said there's a nostril. Yes, there is. Let's search for the nostril. You won't find a nostril that is apart from its parts. Report an error in the passage at 47:29 Highlight the passage at 47:29

47:49 Then we go to the ear. Well, there's an ear. Oh, you said there's an ear. I've got an ear. Yes, there is, but let's analyze where the ear is. It's got this and this and this and you won't find an ear apart from the parts. You won't find an ear that isn't a mere label you've given to those parts. And you analyse everything in the universe and it's like that, it's tricky. It's like smoke and mirrors. Illusion. This is the subtlest opinion arising. Report an error in the passage at 47:49 Highlight the passage at 47:49

48:17 I leapt from the second one to the third one. But the second one leads you to the third one. Report an error in the passage at 48:17 Highlight the passage at 48:17

48:26 You see we go back to the second one. We believe. There's an I in there that somehow is, it is a part like running hand in hand with the anger and the jealousy, but sort of bigger, a bit like a landlord. We think it's like a landlord, an owner. I even use the one I talk about, all my roommates in my head, I'm talking about my mind, not my body, my mind. Report an error in the passage at 48:26 Highlight the passage at 48:26

48:51 Your mind, all your thoughts, anger, love, kindness, jealousy, all these ones racing away, raging on in there with their stories, isn't it? But the central player of all of those, the subject of all those is I, isn't it? Report an error in the passage at 48:51 Highlight the passage at 48:51

49:05 So we kind of feel there is a part in there, along with anger and jealousy and depression, that is the landlord, that oversees the roommates or to whom the roommates belong. But the Buddha says there doesn't need to be. You don't need an owner. That's why he said you don't need a creator. You don't need a separate bit called a soul. You don't need a separate bit called I. Report an error in the passage at 49:05 Highlight the passage at 49:05

49:32 It's an unnecessary embellishment that our ignorance has invented. Report an error in the passage at 49:32 Highlight the passage at 49:32

49:39 The bits of your mind work very nicely together. Your body works very nicely together and the main cause of it is all your past virtue, your karma, all doing its trip. It doesn't need a boss. It doesn't need a boss. It doesn't need a creator. It doesn't need a land rule. We don't need to find an inherent self in there. Report an error in the passage at 49:39 Highlight the passage at 49:39

49:57 We desperately, frantically believe there is one and then we uphold our right to have one, thinking there is, and it's panic stations that we think there isn't because we're nihilistic. Report an error in the passage at 49:57 Highlight the passage at 49:57

50:18 Is there any questions before we have tea? Time to go again, my God. Two, two, three. Hang on. Okay. Okay, questions about this? About this particular approach? Report an error in the passage at 50:18 Highlight the passage at 50:18

50:48 I've got no idea. I don't know. I've no idea. I mean, what I've read, a little bit that I've read, I'm not that much of a student of religions in the world, but the bit that I've read, you've got your Islam, you've got your, the main big ones, they're all creator ones, aren't they? So straight away they're the same view. It's that view of something inherent, permanent, bigger, pervasive, creator. Report an error in the passage at 50:48 Highlight the passage at 50:48

51:10 Inherent. No causes and effects. That punishes and rewards. That one. Well, that's Islam, isn't it? That's, to some extent, Hinduism. Less so. Report an error in the passage at 51:10 Highlight the passage at 51:10

51:21 Certainly Christianity. Certainly Judaism. So if other religions have to look at what their views are. It's pretty quick to find out what their views are. You know, there's a source. Somehow there's a source of something. A source, you know. That idea. That's what put his argument. There doesn't need to be a big fat one source, you know. Report an error in the passage at 51:21 Highlight the passage at 51:21

51:46 Any questions? Report an error in the passage at 51:46 Highlight the passage at 51:46

51:51 Yes, we have. Report an error in the passage at 51:51 Highlight the passage at 51:51

52:07 What do you mean no cause? You mean outside? Okay. Report an error in the passage at 52:07 Highlight the passage at 52:07

52:19 But no external cause. But that's perfectly fine. So where's your mistake? No, no, where's your mistake with that? Report an error in the passage at 52:19 Highlight the passage at 52:19

52:40 Sure. Report an error in the passage at 52:40 Highlight the passage at 52:40

52:45 Okay. It just happened. Oh, I see. Report an error in the passage at 52:45 Highlight the passage at 52:45

52:52 No, I'm losing it. Okay. Report an error in the passage at 52:52 Highlight the passage at 52:52

53:02 I'm really a bit confused. I'm lost now, Roshan. I want to understand you. I want to understand you. A moment of pleasure arose in your mind. Happiness. And so what was the problem? Report an error in the passage at 53:02 Highlight the passage at 53:02

53:12 Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Sure. It's okay. Go on. So what did you try to find out? Okay. So, okay. Be careful here. So what did you, what were you looking for that could have been a cause? Were you looking for the thing out there or where else? But you weren't looking in here. Report an error in the passage at 53:12 Highlight the passage at 53:12

53:34 Yes. Okay, because what is so based on Buddha's teachings, what would be the cause of a moment of pleasure? Like we talked this morning. What's the cause? Your bank of virtuous karmic seeds is the cause, isn't it? In other words, happiness is a mental experience, right? Yes? So it has to have a mental cause. Yes? You accept? You accept. Report an error in the passage at 53:34 Highlight the passage at 53:34

54:05 But let's analyze it. Do you want to analyze it? Would you like to analyze it? Okay, so you had a moment of pleasure, which is mental. Yeah, you accept? So would you like to know what the cause is? Do you know what the cause is? Do you remember what we said this morning about feelings? How they're the fruit of a past virtuous action. Report an error in the passage at 54:05 Highlight the passage at 54:05

54:22 A happy feeling is the ripening, that moment of a bunch of virtuous actions in the past that were stacked away in your memory bank. Can you hear that? That was the cause. Very simple. Report an error in the passage at 54:22 Highlight the passage at 54:22

54:39 And why did you do that, you think? No, but why did you do it in your mind? Why did you make it a negative state? Why did you interpret it negatively? Report an error in the passage at 54:39 Highlight the passage at 54:39

54:50 What did you think after you didn't find a cause? What was your thought that arose? Report an error in the passage at 54:50 Highlight the passage at 54:50

55:16 Why did that upset you? Well, you don't have to be. Well, then you just analyze it differently and you argue with your ego's dumb views, isn't it? That's what you have to do, isn't it? I hear your point. So you noticed your mind. That's great. But then if you try to use Buddha's views, which clearly you are, you try to remember what he said, the cause, isn't it? Report an error in the passage at 55:16 Highlight the passage at 55:16

55:34 Oh, there it goes. Must have been a past virtue. Wow, far out. Then conclusion, I'd better do a few more virtues so I can have more good feelings. That's a simple conventional way to treat it. It's like you see your roses. Oh, what caused that rose? You sort of forgot that you grew it. Oh, that's interesting. There's a nice rose. Wow. What caused that? Oh, I must have sown a rose seed. Do I like roses? Report an error in the passage at 55:34 Highlight the passage at 55:34

55:53 Yeah, I'd better grow a few more. That's the conclusion on a simple level, applying karma. Do you understand? Yes. Report an error in the passage at 55:53 Highlight the passage at 55:53

56:05 Yes. Report an error in the passage at 56:05 Highlight the passage at 56:05

56:09 The real meaning, the final meaning of middle way is neither nihilistic nor eternalistic. You could say that. And it's the actual, okay, to put it more technically, another way to put it, a way to practice going to the middle way. Every time you find yourself grasping at something as permanent and real and existing, right, you go, ha ha, that means it is empty. Report an error in the passage at 56:09 Highlight the passage at 56:09

56:40 Of existing from its own side, which is counterintuitive because we assume there is something. But you say to yourself, no, that means it's empty. And then as soon as you find yourself thinking about emptiness and then you go nihilistic, you go, ha ha, that means it does exist as a dependent arising. Report an error in the passage at 56:40 Highlight the passage at 56:40

56:59 Because dependent that something does exist as a dependent arising is therefore that it's empty of existing independently. And every time you think of emptiness, instead of being instinctively nihilistic, you go, that means it does exist as a dependent arising. as a dependent arising. Report an error in the passage at 56:59 Highlight the passage at 56:59

57:18 For us, that's right. So they're counterintuitive for us, that seems, but that's a very powerful way because the middle way is in the middle there. So right now there's no middle way, there's just these two vast, two extremes. And we're trying to get the right view and bring them closer and closer, that's just my way of saying it, until eventually you know, first intellectually, whenever you say dependent arising, you know it means emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 57:18 Highlight the passage at 57:18

57:39 And whenever you say emptiness, you know it means dependent arising. Then you can... Never get the wrong view. And you'll be so steady and grounded and never throw the baby out with the wathboard and never get nihilistic and never get depressed and this way never cling and grasp and get berserk with attachment. Report an error in the passage at 57:39 Highlight the passage at 57:39

57:55 You'll be as steady as a rock. Report an error in the passage at 57:55 Highlight the passage at 57:55

57:59 You understand? That's Lama Tsongkhapa's trick. Yeah. Yes, sweetheart. Report an error in the passage at 57:59 Highlight the passage at 57:59

58:11 That's right. Report an error in the passage at 58:11 Highlight the passage at 58:11

58:18 Because what? It does. That's my point. Absolutely. I understand. Exactly. Were you here this morning? Okay, so the thing is we interpret wrongly. So there is an event called a good feeling. There is an event called fish. There is a thing you call killing fish. And there is an attachment to you killing fish. Report an error in the passage at 58:18 Highlight the passage at 58:18

58:36 So they are all facts, yeah? So we have put them together in a mistaken way. So what the fisherman thinks is, again, first of all, the habit is there. Seeing the fishing triggers the habit, which triggers attachment, yes? Which... A function has many functions. That attachment exaggerates the deliciousness of fishing, right? Magnetizes it for you. You want to go towards it. Report an error in the passage at 58:36 Highlight the passage at 58:36

59:03 And what it does simultaneously is trigger the good feelings. So they're two separate events. There's one thing called a bank of virtuous seeds in the bank from the past, from virtue. They're sitting there latent because we don't know how else to trigger them. You with me? They're sitting there latent. Report an error in the passage at 59:03 Highlight the passage at 59:03

59:22 These seeds. So what happens is because of the way attachment works in this desire realm body we've got, it happens to, it's got an indirect relationship with good feelings. It doesn't cause directly good feelings. A direct cause of something has to have a proper relationship with it. It doesn't but we think it does. Report an error in the passage at 59:22 Highlight the passage at 59:22

59:43 So we wrongly interpret and think that the fishing is the direct cause of feeling good. But the feelings are just there. And the tragedy is, this is why it's so tragic in saṃsāra. This is why the second kind of suffering is so terrible. Because we think the chocolate cake causes it. But all it does is trigger it. It provides a condition for the good feeling to ripen. Report an error in the passage at 59:43 Highlight the passage at 59:43

1:00:09 And that's the tragedy, that we waste all our good feelings by doing bad things. Or we waste them by thinking cake causes and all we do is pollute ourselves and increase the craving and keep waiting for satisfaction. Then we just use up all our virtue and go down to tip down the toilet and go to hell realms again. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:09 Highlight the passage at 1:00:09

1:00:25 It's kind of tragic. So the better way to trigger those good feelings is give up attachment, get single point of concentration and practice virtue and you'll be blissful all the time. And you'll keep creating more. So you'll never end. Bliss. Pure bliss. No depending on cakes and fishing. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:25 Highlight the passage at 1:00:25

1:00:45 Do you understand? Do you see the point? So there is a relationship, but it can't be a direct one. It's because a direct one has to have a similar kind of quality. And so negativity can never cause happiness. And that's the other tragedy, you see, that it triggers a good feeling. Just because we've got this body, which is an attachment body, and it triggers those good feelings. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:45 Highlight the passage at 1:00:45

1:01:11 But the tragedy is we then use them all up and then we think that killing is good. But killing, all it's doing is sowing seeds for us to be burning in the hell realms and continuing to kill and get killed. So we can't see. We've got no long-term view. It's like you get a good feeling when you eat chocolate and then all you end up with is vomiting, sick stomach. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:11 Highlight the passage at 1:01:11

1:01:29 This is a simple example. Because we're junkies for good feelings. And that's the tragedy of Saṃsāra. That's the suffering of Saṃsāra. That it seems so terrible that we think bad things cause good feelings. We actually believe it does. That's why the torturer keeps torturing, that's why we keep stuffing cake in, that's why we do everything. Now the thing is, if you are sitting there paralysed, totally miserable with tense pain in your body every day and your negative calming seeds are ripening every second, nothing will make you happy because you can't trigger those good feelings because your bad feelings are running the show. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:29 Highlight the passage at 1:01:29

1:02:04 Even if you're a fisherman. When you're vomiting sick, cake looks disgusting, doesn't make you look nice at all. Nothing can trigger good feelings. Even if fishing is the cause of your good, you know, you understand what I'm saying? So I have to understand this mental factor called feeling every millisecond. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:04 Highlight the passage at 1:02:04

1:02:24 Pleasurable, unpleasurable, ripening, ripening, ripening. And the way to say it, because we're in the samsaric body, we don't know how to trigger the good feelings without getting a sense object. And that's why it's so suffering. Do you see what I'm saying? As I said, by giving up attachment. And by learning to go into your own mind, getting a single point of concentration and practicing virtue and then removing all the delusions from your mind and all is left is bliss. Buddha says bliss is the nature of a mind that's unencumbered by the delusions. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:24 Highlight the passage at 1:02:24

1:02:54 So we get our own bliss, it's theirs. We think it's in the cake. We think we're empty, that's the suffering of attachment. We think we're empty, empty, empty, nothing there, nothing there, empty. That's the terrible suffering of saṃsāra. We think I'm nothing, don't we? Dissatisfied. I'm nothing. So you've got to stuff cakes and boys and God knows what in to fill you up. Isn't it? That's what we think. This is the torture of saṃsāra. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:54 Highlight the passage at 1:02:54

1:03:19 But all Buddha is saying is that the potential for happiness is in your mind right this millisecond. And the method for triggering it is the painful one of first giving up the pollution and then through concentration, meditation and the practice of virtue, you'll only have virtuous seeds left so you can only ever have bliss. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:19 Highlight the passage at 1:03:19

1:03:37 Only ever have joy because it's the natural state of mind. It's the natural state of your mind when it's unencumbered by the junk. It's a technical point wood is making. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:37 Highlight the passage at 1:03:37

1:03:47 That's why they say happiness is inside you. It's not cosmic. It's practical. So even just practicing virtue is a way to trigger happiness. And that's at least reasonable because virtue is helping others. You see, if I keep fishing, killing fish and it triggers very nice feelings, the feelings are all wasted. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:47 Highlight the passage at 1:03:47

1:04:04 It's all for my past virtue and I'm wasting those good seeds. And secondly, I don't realise I'm sowing a lot of bad seeds in my mind that will ripen as my unbearable suffering in the future. I don't get that at all. Or I don't even get if I stuff myself with cake, which gives good feelings, that I'm wasting the good seeds again. But I'm sowing more seeds for more attachment, more junkie and then in the end have none left. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:04 Highlight the passage at 1:04:04

1:04:24 Because it just becomes, you're just going mad with more attachment. Then you end up becoming born as a spirit, you know, full of attachment. So it's like a nightmare, because we haven't got a proper view, we haven't got a proper understanding of the nuts and bolts of how things exist. Okay, this is Buddha's deal, but we're trying to be Buddhist. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:24 Highlight the passage at 1:04:24

1:04:40 This is what he's saying. Do you understand? Report an error in the passage at 1:04:40 Highlight the passage at 1:04:40

1:04:54 We have what? I Report an error in the passage at 1:04:54 Highlight the passage at 1:04:54

1:05:05 understand. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:05 Highlight the passage at 1:05:05

1:05:12 Okay, the first part of what you said is correct, the second part is wrong interpretation. There's no going back to anything. If we were already pure at some point, meaning enlightened, understand. Okay. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:12 Highlight the passage at 1:05:12

1:05:23 We could never have lost it. So by saying, this is something we misinterpret easily, by saying the natural state of our mind is pure doesn't mean what Christians mean, that you were pure once and then you sinned and you were naughty and you got dirty again. Not like that. Our mind, if our mind is deluded now, it's never been not deluded. It can't be. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:23 Highlight the passage at 1:05:23

1:05:47 So delusion is beginningless. But because delusions are misconceptions, because delusions are lies, we can remove them from the mind. And I'll explain that. So then we will eventually... We can taste the pure nature of our mind, which is always there but it's covered. They use these analogies, it's covered over by the dirt, it's polluted by the pollution. It's all a way of just talking. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:47 Highlight the passage at 1:05:47

1:06:12 Okay, I like this analogy that water, we know that the word water refers to pure, clear stuff. Wouldn't you agree? But it is H2O, you know? Pure, clear stuff. But we know it can be polluted, don't we? So as long as there's pollution there, you couldn't say the water is pure in its nature. But it's temporarily polluted, isn't it? If you like. And you can remove the pollution, can't you? So the real water is pure and clear. So the potential for purity is there because mind in its nature is pure. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:12 Highlight the passage at 1:06:12

1:06:41 It's like pure water. And you could say, this is speaking very conventionally, the virtuous states and eventually as well as wisdom, they are the H2O of our mind. So when our mind is fully developed in wisdom, which means realising emptiness and all the virtues, then that purity can never be reversed now. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:41 Highlight the passage at 1:06:41

1:06:57 Ever, ever. Because only the virtues that we've cut the root of all the delusions. Well eventually when you've achieved Buddhahood. Do you understand? So therefore it is your mind and has been since the beginning of this time. But when you become a Buddha and I become a Buddha and Benita becomes a Buddha, you could say there's one Buddha. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:57 Highlight the passage at 1:06:57

1:07:18 Vast, all-knowing, omniscient mind. But it's not going back to some cosmic consciousness, not like that. We become the same Buddha. You can virtually say this. There are millions of emanations of Buddhas like we talked yesterday. You understand? That's hard to say it, I think. But let's look at the logic of how we can get enlightened. The Buddha says an enlightened mind, speaking just even simply, is a mind that has no longer any delusions left. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:18 Highlight the passage at 1:07:18

1:07:40 Not a single one, not even an atom of ego, no atom of misconception, no atom of fear or drama or suffering or attachment or anger. All of that is simply totally, utterly gone. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:40 Highlight the passage at 1:07:40

1:07:53 Achieving your nirvāṇa is that. Then you've got even further, you could add bodhicitta to the mix and you become a Buddha. So that's an aha, a faux destroyer. That's your achievement of nirvāṇa if you graduated high school. Okay, your mind then, what would it be like? It would be blissful, clear, see things. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:53 Highlight the passage at 1:07:53

1:08:11 Clairvoyant, past, future, infinite compassion, love. There's more to go. You can do more. But it's a pretty stunning state of being. But the crucial thing is this. There are no longer any of the neuroses or the delusions or the fears or the dramas of the delusions because they come down to being misconceptions, like we've been talking, wrong views. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:11 Highlight the passage at 1:08:11

1:08:34 Are you with me? So, Vin. It's colourblind, has always been colourblind. She's always seen blue as red. It's not as if five minutes a day she sees it as the truth and then goes back to the mistake again. That would be easier. Then she'd remember it's red but she just realised her glasses are wrong. But she's always seen the mistake. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:34 Highlight the passage at 1:08:34

1:08:55 Okay, so then she does all the work. She fixes her eyes, her glasses. She gets to see. She fixes all the mistakes and she looks again and she sees the absence of red. Crystal clear. So now she knows it's not red, isn't it? She knows the truth, it's not red, she sees it, she's experienced it directly and she knows it's blue now. Yes, you accept? So what happened to the thought in her mind that that's red? Report an error in the passage at 1:08:55 Highlight the passage at 1:08:55

1:09:22 She had it in her mind all this time and her eyes even deceived her that that's red. Once she's seen blue and she knows it's true and I'm answering a question for you, what happened to the thought it is red? What happened to it? Where's it gone? It's out of her mind forever, isn't it? And what made it leave her mind? Report an error in the passage at 1:09:22 Highlight the passage at 1:09:22

1:09:40 What caused it to leave her mind forever? The seeing the truth. When you see it directly, when you know it's true, then the lie, you no longer believe in the lie. Do you? The lie's gone. It's not as if it's sitting there next to you and you keep remembering it. But the lie has finished, hasn't it? Do you understand? Can you hear that point? So ego grasping is a lie and grasping at permanence is a lie and attachment is a lie and anger is a lie and depression is a lie and all the others are lies. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:40 Highlight the passage at 1:09:40

1:10:06 They're lies that cause suffering. We believed in for eons. If they're lies, when you've finally seen the truth, then there's not a scaric of that lie left in your mind, is there? That's how you get enlightened. Can you hear the point? You just keep doing it, removing all the lies until eventually you've seen emptiness, you perfect it, you get bodhicitta and you become a Buddha. Do you understand technically what's happening? Report an error in the passage at 1:10:06 Highlight the passage at 1:10:06

1:10:28 Can you hear that? Just a sec, Sarah. Can you hear that point? Tell me if you can't, Benita. Can you hear it? What bit can't you hear? Tell me. Just say it, anything. What bit can't you hear? Can you hear how our mind's full of lies? Can you hear how, if you see the truth, it has to conquer the lie, surely? I mean, if you think one and one is three, you believe a lie, and then you prove that it's two, you don't have that, there's no space in your mind for that lie anymore, is there? Report an error in the passage at 1:10:28 Highlight the passage at 1:10:28

1:10:58 It's gone. Would you agree it's gone? Well, that's how you remove all the pollution from your mind. So where's the doubt then? But you can hear it. You can hear it then. So why do you say you weren't sure? Report an error in the passage at 1:10:58 Highlight the passage at 1:10:58

1:11:18 so I've been dipping in and problems this afternoon. Oh, I see, so you're not hearing at all. What do you mean a sleeping sickness? You sleep or you don't sleep? Report an error in the passage at 1:11:18 Highlight the passage at 1:11:18

1:11:31 How interesting. No, not really. No, I believe you. Oh, I want to come. Can you talk to me later about it? I love these things. Paul, I had to make a confession in public. I'm so sorry, Benita. Oh, okay. Can we talk about it later? Good, I'd love to. I like these things. Okay. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:31 Highlight the passage at 1:11:31

1:11:53 Oh, I see. Okay, I get you. I'm so sorry. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry, darling. Forgive me. I'm embarrassed. I'm sorry I caught you out. It's okay. It doesn't matter. Yeah, go on. Report an error in the passage at 1:11:53 Highlight the passage at 1:11:53

1:12:07 That's right. Report an error in the passage at 1:12:07 Highlight the passage at 1:12:07

1:12:12 Okay, what's attainment refer to, do you think? Report an error in the passage at 1:12:12 Highlight the passage at 1:12:12

1:12:17 Yeah, attainment of wisdom, yeah. So then why are you worried about no attainment? Report an error in the passage at 1:12:17 Highlight the passage at 1:12:17

1:12:43 Permanent in which way? Permanent in not changing from moment to moment or permanent in lasting forever? Well, then what's wrong with that? Your mind lasts forever. Why do you mind that something doesn't last forever? Why do you mind that something lasts forever? Where's that a problem? Where's that a contradiction? Report an error in the passage at 1:12:43 Highlight the passage at 1:12:43

1:13:03 So where's the problem then? The permanent, yeah. Now this is the point the Buddha's making. When you have removed the lies from your mind, okay, as Lama Zopa says, there is no longer any fear. Which means there's no longer any saṃsāra, no longer any pollution, any neurosis, any grasping, any anxiety, any anger, any jealousy. Because they're all rooted in fear. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:03 Highlight the passage at 1:13:03

1:13:27 It's their nature. So there's no longer any fear. That means, as Buddha says, there is only bliss. Because there's no option. Because there's no option to you except to have bliss. Because you now see the truth. And you are full of love and full of wisdom and full of compassion and full of all these things. And in that sense they are permanent. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:27 Highlight the passage at 1:13:27

1:13:46 They never end. You see, we're so used to everything ending in the sense of happiness for a while, then it turns into suffering. And you get young and then you get old. The flower is beautiful, then it dies. That's the kind of impermanence we do know, isn't it? Things come into being and then go out of being. You agree? So there's a gross type of impermanence, which is the flower being born and then die. Report an error in the passage at 1:13:46 Highlight the passage at 1:13:46

1:14:08 There's a subtle impermanence, which is that it's simply changing from moment to moment in itself, not changing from happiness to suffering or youth to age. That's the kind of gross understanding of impermanence. Are you seeing what I'm saying? But the very dynamic moving of moment to moment to moment to moment. So bliss is there for eternity because it can be nothing else, but it's changing from moment to moment, millisecond by millisecond. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:08 Highlight the passage at 1:14:08

1:14:31 It's a highly dynamic, it's a subtler point, the subtle impermanence. Can you hear just technically the words? But you're not convinced. Which bit are you still missing? Report an error in the passage at 1:14:31 Highlight the passage at 1:14:31

1:14:46 Okay, good. So what does it mean? Report an error in the passage at 1:14:46 Highlight the passage at 1:14:46

1:14:51 No, you're totally nihilistic. That's wrong. What does no form mean? What is no, no, no, all the no things in here? There's all these no's, aren't there? What do they mean? No this, no that. Report an error in the passage at 1:14:51 Highlight the passage at 1:14:51

1:15:06 No, no, no, no. What's it mean, no form, no feeling, no discrimination? What's it mean? What's he saying? No form, no feeling, no discrimination. What's he mean? Good, thank you. Now you're getting there. It doesn't exist inherently. There's no inherent form. There's no inherent discrimination. There's no inherent feeling. There's no inherent attainment, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:15:06 Highlight the passage at 1:15:06

1:15:26 But in order to discover the lack of inherent attainment... The lack of inherent existence of attainment, what do you have to posit? Attainment! Can you hear me? Can you hear me? You've got to have attainment conventionally, which is the attainment of the realizations. But it too is empty of existing inherently. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:26 Highlight the passage at 1:15:26

1:15:49 Enlightenment exists, but it doesn't exist inherently. Hell exists, but doesn't exist inherently. You exist, but you don't exist inherently. Cups exist, but they don't exist inherently. We've got to get used to talking like this. There is a dependent on a rising cup. There is a dependent on a rising attainment. There's a dependent on a rising enlightenment. Report an error in the passage at 1:15:49 Highlight the passage at 1:15:49

1:16:07 There's a dependent on a rising hell, but not an inherent one. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:07 Highlight the passage at 1:16:07

1:16:20 Everything that exists, exists in this way. You just change the words in here. Whatever exists, you say the same words, there cannot be a thing that doesn't exist like this, Buddha says. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:20 Highlight the passage at 1:16:20

1:16:35 So whatever does exist is empty of existing inherently. Whatever does exist possesses the absence of inherent existence. So in other words, on this cup which does exist, there exists the absence of red. You agree? This is a way of talking. Yeah, you agree? You agree? You won't find absence of red in the sky, will you? We think it's kind of like, oh, there's no red. Look, there's no red anywhere. Report an error in the passage at 1:16:35 Highlight the passage at 1:16:35

1:17:08 Look, there's emptiness of red. What a dumb idea. You've got to look at the thing you thought was red to discover the absence of red on it. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:08 Highlight the passage at 1:17:08

1:17:19 So, what's your name? Angelo. That's right, I forgot Angelo. So, Angelo. Does exist. Listen to him, you can hear him talk, he's got his dark blue shirt on, he's on the chairs, back of the row by the thing, bloke called Angelo. But when we start to search, we won't find a single atom of Angelo that gives him Angelo character. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:19 Highlight the passage at 1:17:19

1:17:42 Angelo exists in dependence upon causes and conditions. And you can't find Angelo among the causes and conditions. Angelo exists in dependence upon the parts of Angelo. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:42 Highlight the passage at 1:17:42

1:17:54 Aggregates, but you won't find him among those aggregates. Then Angelo does exist in dependence upon the mind that labels those aggregates Angelo, but you can't find him apart from this. So there is an Angelo that does exist as a dependent arising, that functions and does this and does that and goes here and goes there, but there's no Angelo from his own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:17:54 Highlight the passage at 1:17:54

1:18:17 These are the two we have to bring together to see how they're the same. So in the same way that on this cup that does exist, there exists the emptiness of red, then on these aggregates that do exist, there exists the absence of inherent Angela. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:17 Highlight the passage at 1:18:17

1:18:39 We've got to get used to the words and then we sort of squeeze our brain to get the meaning. But if you have the wrong words, you can't get the right meaning. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:39 Highlight the passage at 1:18:39

1:18:49 Listen, they study this for 30 years and then go meditate on it, hopefully for the penny to drop. So be a bit patient, please. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:49 Highlight the passage at 1:18:49

1:18:58 So are you clear a bit, Angelo? Of course it is. Totally. That's why we've got to be clear with our language. Be really precise. Like with maths, you know. Can't play around with them. Report an error in the passage at 1:18:58 Highlight the passage at 1:18:58

1:19:14 So on, you couldn't say that on Angelo there does exist the absence of inherent Angelo. On cup there does exist the absence of red cup. So you've got to first posit the cup and then you discover how it exists. You first have to posit Angelo and then you discover the emptiness of inherent existence of Angelo. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:14 Highlight the passage at 1:19:14

1:19:32 On Angelo. And that's where you can never get nihilistic. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:32 Highlight the passage at 1:19:32

1:19:45 Is it tea? Have we done tea? Have we had tea? What's happened? We haven't had tea, have we? Go and have tea. Report an error in the passage at 1:19:45 Highlight the passage at 1:19:45

1:20:04 Okay, so basically we've got here, as I said, Buddha's going through all the different categories of phenomena that exist in the universe, you know, the five aggregates, Report an error in the passage at 1:20:04 Highlight the passage at 1:20:04

1:20:17 the five senses, the five objects of the senses, the five what they call sense powers or elements they call. Then there's the twelve links. Notice in the Four Noble Truths. Then there's no, okay, here we have before, Angelo's point, there's no exalted wisdom, which means that wisdom is also empty. That's all it means. There's no attainment of this wisdom. It's also empty. But even to double check, they even say there's no non-attainment, which means the emptiness of attainment is also empty. Report an error in the passage at 1:20:17 Highlight the passage at 1:20:17

1:20:53 Because you can't, you can't, you just got to be so rigorous in this. So, you know, it just sounds like tricky, but it's not tricky. It's not tricky. So, would you agree that cup exists? And you agree that blue exists? And you agree that absence of red exists? Yes? So, that's the emptiness of red, isn't it? So, the emptiness of red exists, right? It's an existent, isn't it? So, Buddha says that whatever exists is empty, yeah? Report an error in the passage at 1:20:53 Highlight the passage at 1:20:53

1:21:21 So, the emptiness of red exists? So that must be empty as well, mustn't it? So he's just double checking. So he says there's no wisdom, there's no attainment and there's no non-attainment. Just really getting clear that everything that exists, including the emptiness of inherent existence, is also empty. It's not being clever, it's being clear. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:21 Highlight the passage at 1:21:21

1:21:40 Are you hearing me? Because we can easily reify emptiness and think, oh, that's the absolute. That's a common mistake. We reify it. Oh, emptiness is the absolute. Emptiness is everything. Emptiness is instead of God. Big mistake. Even that is empty. Just to make sure. Yes. Report an error in the passage at 1:21:40 Highlight the passage at 1:21:40

1:21:59 That's what I just, yeah, that's the one I just said. What did I? No, it doesn't mean that. It means the, no, non-attainment is meaning, sweetheart, I just said it. I just said it now. I just said it. It here means there's no, I'll start again. Do you accept there's a thing called attainment of wisdom? Report an error in the passage at 1:21:59 Highlight the passage at 1:21:59

1:22:21 Let's say you realise emptiness. You've got the attainment of wisdom, haven't you? You agree with that? That's an existent phenomenon, isn't it? It does exist, doesn't it? So therefore it must be empty of inherent existence, you agree? So do you accept that the emptiness of inherent existence of attainment exists? Do you accept that the emptiness of inherent existence of your attainment exists? Report an error in the passage at 1:22:21 Highlight the passage at 1:22:21

1:22:45 Then that's empty as well. So it's just being double sure to make sure we don't reify even emptiness. It's not being clever, it's being clear. Because the instinct is so primordial to reify things. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:45 Highlight the passage at 1:22:45

1:22:59 You know, this is what Buddha is basically saying. You could say it this way, which is answered to her question, and it's up to us to find out, but it would seem that every philosophical view you look at in the universe, I mean, not that I know too much, but I read a bit of the Socrates people and those Greek blokes, you know. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:59 Highlight the passage at 1:22:59

1:23:15 They all refer to something, some source, some original, some god, some absolute, some thing that is inherent. They all refer to this. So it's either the nihilistic, which is the materialist view, which is nothing, or there's that one. That seems to be, this is what Buddha is saying, that the mind goes rampantly between these two extremes of eternalistic or nihilistic. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:15 Highlight the passage at 1:23:15

1:23:36 And he's saying the middle way is when you've got the two truths utterly, that there is something that does exist independent upon this and that and that means it doesn't exist inherently and that these two utterly go together. This is Buddha's view and Tsongkhapa runs with this in a very particular way. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:36 Highlight the passage at 1:23:36

1:23:56 And it's such a subtle point and so easy to misinterpret, so easy to get wrong. So if you can't even get the words right, how in the name of heaven can you ever get an experience of it? Don't think you can. Because that's reifying emptiness. If you think you can sit there and emptiness will appear to you one day. That's the worst of worst mistakes. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:56 Highlight the passage at 1:23:56

1:24:19 That it's self-existent and one day you'll just see it. It's childish. We have to do different practices. Like I said when I was editing this book of Lama Yeshis, I am, well, should be, am, it's on my desk, on Mahamudra. And there's Mahamudra, which is meditating on the clarity of your mind, which is a simpler one. But the real one is meditating on the emptiness of your mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:19 Highlight the passage at 1:24:19

1:24:45 Not on the mind itself, but the emptiness of the mind. The hardest one. And he says in there, completely, this is what you have to do. Back away from the intellect. Don't go near the intellect. The same when you do Tantra. You don't go near the intellect, but it assumes you've done years and years of hard, hard intellectual work. Now you can begin to have the luxury of tasting the experience. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:45 Highlight the passage at 1:24:45

1:25:08 Or put it another way, you can all do Tsongkheng, you can all do Mahamudra, you can all do these things. Of course we can and we should, but the extent to which you get any realizations is the extent to which you have under your belt from this life or past life clear understanding. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:08 Highlight the passage at 1:25:08

1:25:31 You can't avoid. Any of the steps. So we try all the methods. We need to just look at our minds sometimes and shut up intellectualising. And if we're lazy and intellectually lazy and can't be bothered and like to sit there flopping around being mindful, being lazy, I'm not feeling horrible here, then you need to squeeze your brain a bit and start thinking about things. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:31 Highlight the passage at 1:25:31

1:25:53 And don't just say, oh emptiness is too difficult for me. It isn't. It is not too difficult. Just work hard at it, that's all. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:53 Highlight the passage at 1:25:53

1:26:24 So again, the three levels of dependence arising, and you could say each of them is arguing with the prevalent views in different schools of thought about what does exist. So the first one is arguing with the classic Hindu position, and it would be the Christian position if Buddha were around now, that there is a self that is permanent and partless. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:24 Highlight the passage at 1:26:24

1:26:48 And the second one is more subtle. There's a self that doesn't exist in dependence upon any parts or the aggregates. And the subtlest one, the subtlest, the most refined one, the hardest to see, which is that there's no I that isn't, there's no I independent of mind and concepts. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:48 Highlight the passage at 1:26:48

1:27:08 There's no anything that is independent of mind and concepts. There's no anything that's independent of concepts and labels. There can't be, Buddha says. So we look at anything. We can talk about objects like self and cups, but let's look at anything. Look at a sentence. I'm going up the road. We all know instantly what that means. I am going up the road. We get it. We go, oh yeah, really? How fascinating. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:08 Highlight the passage at 1:27:08

1:27:35 And there's not much emotion in that because it depends on what's at the end of the road, isn't it? So if I'm going to prison, like I said yesterday, I'm going to prison. It's a simple statement. It's full of meaning, isn't it? You go, oh no, this is terrible. You'd either be seen as a vampire, as a pariah, someone would feel sorry for you. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:35 Highlight the passage at 1:27:35

1:27:57 Because it's this massive meaning in those sounds. It's a sound coming out of a mouth. So if you analyse it, let's say you lost your memory. You analyse it and you know some prisons are pretty ugly I have to say. Most of them are pretty ugly. The ones I've seen in the States. Australia may be a bit better sometimes. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:57 Highlight the passage at 1:27:57

1:28:18 Depends. You know it depends. But it's not inconceivable that you can go to a prison where there's green, where the low security prisons. You can be quite pleasant, you have a job, you go outside, you deal with the grass, you do jobs, you go in, you go to bed. I've been to a women's prison, we have little houses and kitchens. Now they know it's prison and they're all depressed. Do you understand? Report an error in the passage at 1:28:18 Highlight the passage at 1:28:18

1:28:40 But if you didn't know it was prison, if you've been living on the street, let's say, and you woke up in this nice bed with a kitchen and you don't have to work and they give you your food every day, you'd think you're in heaven. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't you? We all say, oh, it's all relative. Well, that's a good way of putting it. It's all empty. You say, no, please, I want to stay. No, I don't want to go. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:40 Highlight the passage at 1:28:40

1:29:01 No, no, no, don't let me out. I want to stay here, you'll say. Well, what's bad about prison then? We give it that meaning. And indeed, conventionally, you can say it isn't cool to be called a creep and to be imprisoned and taking your rights away and can't walk out the door when you feel like it. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:01 Highlight the passage at 1:29:01

1:29:20 Or as Lama Zopa said to some of the people who write to him, you know, people spend their years and years in Tibet trying to find some little ugly hole in the wall that can put a gate across and disappear. How fortunate you are, he said to them. This proves, like I said yesterday, it proves going to prison is not inherently bad. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:20 Highlight the passage at 1:29:20

1:29:39 It is called prison. We've all got the label prison. We define prison. We all agree it's that. It's a place, an ugly place with barbed wire where you're sent when you're naughty. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:39 Highlight the passage at 1:29:39

1:29:54 So the point Buddha's making is this. If it did exist inherently, that means, an easy way to put it is, it would exist independently of anything. It would be that in itself. It would be absolutely that, whatever way you look at it. It would be that set in stone. It would be that with certainty. It would be that no matter what. It would be that from its own side. It would be that intrinsically. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:54 Highlight the passage at 1:29:54

1:30:26 It would be that in itself. It would be that permanently. That's a grosser one. And nothing could make it change. It would have to cause suffering every time. And we simply know it is not true. My friends in prison changed their view of it. So they've got a friend of ours, Mitch. In Kentucky, on death row, getting close to his death date. I'm ready for that electric jolt, he said. We're talking about how best he can die and everything, you know, cracking jokes about it. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:26 Highlight the passage at 1:30:26

1:30:59 He's this happy guy. He's accepted his life, he's 30 years, tried to do his appeals, of course, tried to get out, accepted responsibility for what he did, totally regrets, kind man, looking after his grandkids, his really busy life, you know, studying this, doing that, getting ready for his death. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:59 Highlight the passage at 1:30:59

1:31:15 Of course, if he had a choice, he would change out of his red jumpsuit and stop living with a couple of psychos and... He's got some good friends there too though. He'd go and live with his family, possibly, but he's a happy man because he's changed his mind. So all really saying empty is, is you change your mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:15 Highlight the passage at 1:31:15

1:31:31 You change the way you see it. This is the meaning of emptiness, the subtlest meaning. You change the way you see it. Because, Buddha says, there's nothing in there that doesn't come from the concepts. It doesn't come from mind. It's made by the mind. I'm going to prison. It's got a basis. Cup has got a basis. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:31 Highlight the passage at 1:31:31

1:31:51 But as Lama Zopa says, what does exist is so subtle, it's as if it doesn't. What does exist is so subtle, when you realise emptiness of the cup, what does exist is so subtle, it's as if there's no cup. But there is. But what does exist is so subtle, it is as if it is an illusion. And therein is the thing, you know. So there is enlightenment, but there's nothing from its own side. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:51 Highlight the passage at 1:31:51

1:32:11 There is hell realms, Buddha would say, but not from its own side. There is negativity, but not from its own side. There is positivity, but not from its own side. There is a cup, but not from its own side. So our problem is as soon as we hear there is a cup, we go, oh, thank God, my cup set in stone, go away. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:11 Highlight the passage at 1:32:11

1:32:32 And then as soon as we hear there's no cup, we want to kill ourselves. So we hear the two extremes. We can't hear the middle way view, which when you hear empty means there is a cup. When you hear there is a cup, you hear it means there's no cup from its own side. Just got to get used to it. And these will come together slowly. And the mind will be more stable, you know, more reasonable. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:32 Highlight the passage at 1:32:32

1:32:57 And you will see things less vividly. You will not grasp that strongly. But you will enjoy your cake. You will, you know, you won't just sit there kind of bored. Oh, there's nothing anyway. It doesn't matter. It's all empty. That's nihilism. In fact, the more you understand emptiness, the more you give respect to things that exist. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:57 Highlight the passage at 1:32:57

1:33:23 The more you want to understand emptiness, the more you want to practice morality by the laws of karma because it's empty. In fact, things exist because they're empty. Things exist because they're empty. Things exist because they're empty, not in spite of it. So it just means when we hear it, we hear it wrong. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:23 Highlight the passage at 1:33:23

1:33:43 So we've got to hear it right by saying these things that seem to be counterintuitive to us. So it forces us to hear it correctly and slowly. The experience will come. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:43 Highlight the passage at 1:33:43

1:34:12 One of the ways they talk about understanding emptiness when they discuss it in the lamrim, they describe it as other method called the four point analysis. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:12 Highlight the passage at 1:34:12

1:34:27 And the first of these is the most important. Once we've got the first one down, seeing emptiness is easy. But the first one is the most difficult. And this first point is they say, Buddha sort of coming along and says, I'm sorry, you know, there's no inherent I in there, Robina. I'm really sorry. There's no inherent eye on you, Robina. There's no inherent eye. And you have to see that. You have to discover that. But I'm so convinced there is. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:27 Highlight the passage at 1:34:27

1:34:50 It's not like I said with Vina. You can't just bully her into seeing it as correct. You can't bully her into seeing it as read. We've got to use logic and deduction to fix the problem so she can now see the truth. Same here. So the first step is if it's true. Din, din, din, vina, vina. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:50 Highlight the passage at 1:34:50

1:35:10 There is no inherent I in here, which we think of as like the landlord, which is the second kind of dependent arising, not even the subtlest, the merely labelled one. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:10 Highlight the passage at 1:35:10

1:35:21 Then what the Buddha is saying is there isn't one in there, Robina. There isn't one, but it's not enough. He can't force us. We can't just believe it. We have to use logic to prove it. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:21 Highlight the passage at 1:35:21

1:35:33 So the first step is, he says you need to go search for it. It sounds hilarious to us. Search for your I, you know. This is what he's saying in this particular method. You search for the I. But you first establish your parameters. No, first you have to establish what you think the self-existent I is. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:33 Highlight the passage at 1:35:33

1:35:57 Because then you have to search for it. And you can't possibly search for something if you don't know what it looks like. So if you say, go and find Fred in that room for me, you don't know who Fred is, you'll never find Fred, will you? You've got to first know what Fred looks like. Then you can go find him. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:57 Highlight the passage at 1:35:57

1:36:10 Well here he says you've got to first establish in your own mind what you think your eye is, the way it appears to you. They'd say that, the way it appears to you. We'd say the way it feels. Now this is already stupendous and this will take us most of our life. This is a really tough one, already quite advanced. Then once we've established what we think the eye is, we now have to proceed to look for it, but we now have to establish the parameters of our search. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:10 Highlight the passage at 1:36:10

1:36:38 And they're the next two points. So first we establish, no the next point, first we establish, there's only two options. It's either separate from your aggregates or oneness with your aggregates. Because you're going to look among your aggregates, aren't you? You don't look for your eye somewhere over there. We're talking about your eye. So you look on you for your aggregate, for your eye. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:38 Highlight the passage at 1:36:38

1:37:05 If it does exist, it either exists among... the aggregates or separate from. Oneness with the aggregates or separate from the aggregates. Oneness with the aggregates or separate from the aggregates. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:05 Highlight the passage at 1:37:05

1:37:27 And then you look at the absurdity of each of these and that's the second, the third and fourth points. And having done all this you then, the idea is to lead to the certainty that there isn't that I. Let's talk about the first one because this is already very fascinating. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:27 Highlight the passage at 1:37:27

1:37:45 Like I said before, when we just talk normally, like I mentioned Sarah's example, we just talk, you know, someone insults Sarah. We insult you. Of course, you feel inside this, it's so upsetting and painful. It's like they've stabbed you, isn't it? And your thoughts are racing uncontrolled. And it's all, of course, about hurt, not fair, poor me, why they did that to me, I don't deserve it, or whatever the story is. It's anger, hurt, isn't it? Report an error in the passage at 1:37:45 Highlight the passage at 1:37:45

1:38:13 Resentment. Whatever the name is for all those thoughts rising up in the mind. Of course. We understand it so well. And so, of course, the subject of every one of those thoughts is I, isn't it? Of course it is. Or the object. He did it to me. It's either I or me, isn't it? But that's the main player. We know that in all those thoughts. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:13 Highlight the passage at 1:38:13

1:38:36 So what we have to do, this is why they say when you sit, okay, what you have to do is try to identify the best you can As they say, the way I, the self-existent I, the one we think is being hurt, the one we think is existing there, pointable, findable, real, there. We have to try and identify, as they say, how it appears to us, how it appears. This is already so difficult, but this is incredible. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:36 Highlight the passage at 1:38:36

1:39:08 This one, like I said, is easy to do the rest. It's nothing. It's just easy. This is the one that takes most time. Because why? Because look what happens. Benita insults me. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:08 Highlight the passage at 1:39:08

1:39:21 The millisecond I launch into the story, don't I? I have self-pity. How dare she? Who does she think she is? Which is not fair. And for days and weeks and months. Do you understand? Well, the millisecond you start into that story, you've just missed the opportunity of looking for the I. So in reality, to really be skillful at looking for the way you think the I appears, you've got to have really subdued your attachment and your anger to an incredible degree. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:21 Highlight the passage at 1:39:21

1:39:46 So you've even got to be glad when someone insults you because you take the opportunity to catch the way the eye appears. You're so grateful. Can you hear me, people? But we miss it. The millisecond you miss it, you've lost the opportunity because you start launching into the belief based upon the belief in the eye that has been hurt that is not fair. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:46 Highlight the passage at 1:39:46

1:40:03 How dare they do that to me? It's too late then to look for the eye. You've missed it. You've just run into the big story. Can you hear the point? So it's sort of you've got to... Catch at that second, which means you have to subdue your anger, your jealousy, your fears and your nonsense to a big degree and to actually be glad when something happens that it triggers the feeling of I. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:03 Highlight the passage at 1:40:03

1:40:25 This is really true. So at least the other thing we can do, as they say, when you sit down to meditate on this, the first thing you have to do is remember, conjure up, remember what happened when Benita insulted me. Try and recall it. Bring it up. Well, I mean, we don't have to bring it up because it's there all the time. We're always worried about what she thinks and he thinks and what he did and she did. We have a whole catalogue of people who are insulting us and hurting us and upsetting us and depressing us, aren't we? Report an error in the passage at 1:40:25 Highlight the passage at 1:40:25

1:40:51 We're so busy in our head, you know. So all this approach implies a very blissful mind already. It implies a very clear mind that sorted itself out quite a bit. So for us, you know, so you know how we often will try and search for the eye. We don't even know what we're talking about because we can't identify what we're searching for. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:51 Highlight the passage at 1:40:51

1:41:10 You get confused. What do you mean, we say, what do you mean search for the eye? Oh, well, is it my nose, my toe? But how do you, what's the point of saying that if you don't even know what you're looking for? And that can only come by learning to get a really clear picture of how it appears to you. And like I'm saying, this is quite difficult. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:10 Highlight the passage at 1:41:10

1:41:32 For Bonko Rinpoche in the liberation, the palm of your hand, in the lamrim section, the mental quiescence section, now the wisdom section, whichever one it is, he describes it very nicely in there. So I would suggest you go there and read what he says. Because sometimes we think, you know, don't we? We have a general feeling that all of me is I. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:32 Highlight the passage at 1:41:32

1:41:50 This is just sort of me. I'm me. Of course we think that. But then what, usually that's when we're feeling quite relaxed. You know, this is me. Yeah, I'm here. Yeah, I'm in the chair. Yeah, this is me. All of me is me. It's me. I'm all me, you know. It's easy, of course. Of course it's all Robina. As long as if half is Mary. So of course we say that point, you know. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:50 Highlight the passage at 1:41:50

1:42:07 But the other one is sometimes we then feel that it's a separate one, like the landlord. When we're hurt and upset, I think it's like a landlord, you know, the boss who's been offended, upset. Someone just ran in front of you in the car, you feel fear and shock, that feeling of I rising strongly. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:07 Highlight the passage at 1:42:07

1:42:28 So you have to identify precisely how it appears to us, how we think it exists. And then to see, like I said, the third and fourth steps are to see the absurdity. No, the second step is to see the parameters of your search, which is either oneness with or separate from, and then to analyse each of these and to see all the absurd arguments of this and how it can't be true to be all of you. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:28 Highlight the passage at 1:42:28

1:42:52 It seems so stupid to us. So why is it stupid to say that it's all of you, that Robina is oneness with? And this gets us down, this is why when you study philosophy, they prepare you for all this, with all the way you learn the stuff, you know? Report an error in the passage at 1:42:52 Highlight the passage at 1:42:52

1:43:08 So let's go right back to the one about how we label something. So define Robina. We have a simple definition of Robina, isn't it? The Australian nun. Okay, that'll do, won't it? Okay, that's the definition. Remember the definition of an object. You've got to define it and agree that that's the name of that object and we all agree that's the object. So Robina is the Australian nun. Well, sitting on this chair because there's an Australian nun there. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:08 Highlight the passage at 1:43:08

1:43:37 So this Australian nun. Okay, so the fat Australian nun. Just, okay, that'll do. Now you listen, listen. So then we go, well, where's, analyse, look, search for Robina, where's Robina? Well, it's all of me, what do you think? Oh, I see. It is, is it? Well, let's cut your hand off, Robina. So where's Robina now? There's a bit of Robina over there, is it? It has to be if you said it's all of you. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:37 Highlight the passage at 1:43:37

1:43:58 You can't have it both ways. You can't suddenly say, no, that's only my hand, that's not Robina. You just said it was before, didn't you? But if I'm going to cut it off, there has to be a bit of Robina over there. Which bit? All, total, a million percent, half a percent, which bit? So every time I have a new piece, I point out a knee, oh there's Robina, and there's Robina. I've got an awful lot of Robinas here. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:58 Highlight the passage at 1:43:58

1:44:19 It sounds silly to us, but if we've defined what Robina is, she's the name given to all those bits. You can't cut a piece up, because if you cut pieces up, you say there's more than one Robina. What was that? Report an error in the passage at 1:44:19 Highlight the passage at 1:44:19

1:44:39 Like those worms, you know. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:39 Highlight the passage at 1:44:39

1:44:43 It seems silly to us, but it comes down to being clear what you mean by what Robina is. We're too vague, we don't define our terms enough. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:43 Highlight the passage at 1:44:43

1:44:57 What do you mean by the sum of the parts? What do you mean by that? What do you mean by that? What do you actually mean by that? Report an error in the passage at 1:44:57 Highlight the passage at 1:44:57

1:45:08 Well, they're the parts, yes. So what about these parts? Report an error in the passage at 1:45:08 Highlight the passage at 1:45:08

1:45:17 So the inherent Robina, well then you're agreeing with Buddha, so don't say it. You're agreeing with him. That's fine, you're disagreeing with Buddha. It's not the sum of the parts, no. You're still implying there's a Robina there if you say it's the sum of the parts. See, the Robina, okay, the parts. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:17 Highlight the passage at 1:45:17

1:45:35 So that's knee, isn't it? That's not Robina, is it? And that's leg, and that's atoms, and that's muscle. Now, listen, listen, listen. Define a knee, define a leg, define a muscle, define a nose, an ear. So none of those is called Robina. They're called ear, an eye, a nose. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:35 Highlight the passage at 1:45:35

1:45:53 So how can they be also Robina? Because you have to make up your mind. What's Robina? Define it. Make up your mind. It's not the sum of the parts. So you're saying the knee is Robina. The knee joined to the leg is Robina. So the definition of Robina is? What's the definition of Robina? What's the definition of Robina? Report an error in the passage at 1:45:53 Highlight the passage at 1:45:53

1:46:16 We said it before. Thank you very much. So how can the knee and the sum of the parts be called the same? The definition can be called the Australian nun. How can it be called that? Report an error in the passage at 1:46:16 Highlight the passage at 1:46:16

1:46:30 Precisely. You just said it. The Australian nun is the name that we give to those parts. That's all Buddhist. That's the third one. That's what he's saying. It's the name only. But we think there's something more than a name there. We think there's something more than a name. It's not the sum of the parts. The parts are the basis for the label. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:30 Highlight the passage at 1:46:30

1:46:48 And the label can't be the parts. Because the parts are called knee, leg, muscle, anger, love, kindness, nose, this one, that one, snot, ear. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:48 Highlight the passage at 1:46:48

1:46:58 They've all got their own function. They're all labeled. They're their own definition. And they put them all together and then the label of that is Robina. The label is Robina. So that's the conclusion we can come to but the thing is to find the absurdity of how there can be Robina's oneness with the parts. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:58 Highlight the passage at 1:46:58

1:47:13 Because if you break up the parts you've got more than one Robina. So the other one is how can the Robina can be the same, no, Robina can be, what's the other one? Robina is the, what's this name? Separate from. Separate from. Oneness with or separate from? The parts. And that's the owner one. That's the owner one. That's the owner one, isn't it? There's an eye that has equal status with the eye's possessions. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:13 Highlight the passage at 1:47:13

1:47:47 Robina possesses anger, doesn't she? Robina possesses a nose and Robina possesses an ear. So we assume there's a part called Robina that owns the ear and owns the nose, you know? Report an error in the passage at 1:47:47 Highlight the passage at 1:47:47

1:47:58 We assume that. Well, the Buddha says it's very simple. If there is that one, you'll find it quite quickly. Go search. There's only so, so many pieces in you. You'll find a piece. Uh-oh, I'm Robina, look. It'll pop up for you, you know, if there is a part called Robina. Report an error in the passage at 1:47:58 Highlight the passage at 1:47:58

1:48:13 If there is a part called Robina that isn't the nose and isn't the eye and isn't the mind, isn't the love, isn't the kindness, isn't the pee-pee, isn't the caca, you'll find it by searching. It won't take long. And he says you won't find it. So you have to find out. So there's another approach to it. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:13 Highlight the passage at 1:48:13

1:48:30 So the key, to be prepared to do these things properly, you've got to get clear, you've got to get your words clear, your definitions clear, what is something, what is a definition and then you have to, you know, this is the basis, the clarity that's needed. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:30 Highlight the passage at 1:48:30

1:48:51 We say a cup has a handle and a cup has a base and a cup has, you know, so we're convinced we don't think it's, we think it's silly to think there's a little kind of inherent cup there. We assume it, we think it. Report an error in the passage at 1:48:51 Highlight the passage at 1:48:51

1:49:03 This is the owner part. So it's sort of like there's a little owner of a handle and there's an owner. A cup has a handle. It is a statement of truth just conventionally. But we assume there's a part called a cup and there's a part called a handle. You can't find it. There's only the parts. It's not possible to find a cup that isn't the parts. It's not possible. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:03 Highlight the passage at 1:49:03

1:49:23 There's no cup apart from the parts. It's not possible. It's pretty easy to see. Harder with the eye because we really believe it's in there. Like when you fall off a mountain, as Pabongka Rinpoche says, you say, I nearly fell off the mountain. You don't say, oh, my body nearly fell off the mountain. I nearly fell off the mountain. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:23 Highlight the passage at 1:49:23

1:49:42 Panic, fear. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:42 Highlight the passage at 1:49:42

1:49:55 So the one we talked before about, I have a nose, an eye and an ear and a foot. A nose, an ear and a foot. Report an error in the passage at 1:49:55 Highlight the passage at 1:49:55

1:50:09 Conventionally, you can find, just conventionally. So conventionally, if there are three people here, you can find Robina. If we say cup, Robina and table, you can point out Robina comfortably, conventionally, can't you? And you can point out table and cup. But when you get closer to home and you say point out the bits of Robina and then still keep pointing out Robina, you can't. But we think we can. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:09 Highlight the passage at 1:50:09

1:50:30 Robina has a nose and an ear and a foot. But you put the ear, nose and foot out there and you've still kind of got Robina. She's suffering a bit but we sort of think that other bit's still Robina, you know, isn't it? But you keep putting the pieces out there. You strip me naked of all my bits, piles of bits, you know. The feeling we have is the sort of you're going to end up with this little naked self-existent little kind of embarrassed little me that's running the show in there, sneaking out, like a little mini me in there. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:30 Highlight the passage at 1:50:30

1:50:58 We feel that. We feel it, you know. Report an error in the passage at 1:50:58 Highlight the passage at 1:50:58

1:51:05 Yeah. Report an error in the passage at 1:51:05 Highlight the passage at 1:51:05

1:51:09 What do you mean, what is it? Report an error in the passage at 1:51:09 Highlight the passage at 1:51:09

1:51:16 Sorry, excuse me. Who said there's no sort of me? What are you talking about? Be precise. I could better. There's no me that is separate from the parts of you. Use this one. So what happens when you die? Which part of you continues? Report an error in the passage at 1:51:16 Highlight the passage at 1:51:16

1:51:39 Your mind. That's right, exactly. So then? Question? Report an error in the passage at 1:51:39 Highlight the passage at 1:51:39

1:51:49 What's what? Well, why would it be you then, just if it's not you now? What's the difference? If you can't find you on the basis of your parts now, why do you think you can find you on the basis of the parts when you leave the body? No different argument. There is a consciousness that does continue and that's the basis of the label, whatever the label is then. That's the basis of the label I then. Report an error in the passage at 1:51:49 Highlight the passage at 1:51:49

1:52:16 Here is the basis of the label I now because you've got a body as well. But then you've got just consciousness and subtle physical energy. That's the basis of the label I. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:16 Highlight the passage at 1:52:16

1:52:26 Sure. It's just the basis of the label, the same as now. But it's not the label. The label can't be the parts. Lama Tsongkhapa talks a lot about this. The label can't be the base. The label... Cup can't be the parts. The label Robina can't be the parts. Define Robina. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:26 Highlight the passage at 1:52:26

1:52:48 The Australian nun, the fat Australian nun. Define the parts. Knee, cup, breast, or not cup, ear, nose, you know, mind, anger, love, all the bits and pieces. Report an error in the passage at 1:52:48 Highlight the passage at 1:52:48

1:53:03 Well, Robina's a name given to those, just labelled over those parts. But the parts can't be that label. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:03 Highlight the passage at 1:53:03

1:53:12 If they were, you wouldn't need to rename it Robina. It would already be evident that this is Robina. But you name it at some point. My mummy called me Robina at some point, after my Aunty Robina Bliss. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:12 Highlight the passage at 1:53:12

1:53:30 We're so desperate to find an eye. We're so frantic, you see. It's very scary to think there isn't the one we think there is. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:30 Highlight the passage at 1:53:30

1:53:40 We just have to think about it. So what else, people? At a quarter past four. Oh, no, it's only five to four. Quarter past four. So I don't know. I think we've had enough. It's exhausting, don't you? Report an error in the passage at 1:53:40 Highlight the passage at 1:53:40

1:53:52 So maybe we'll space out for five minutes, okay? Why don't we just relax, close your eyes, just relax, close your eyes and just observe. Okay, let's do a bit about our mind. Just do our mind. Let's think of our mind. Let's think of the mind. The definition of mind is this luminosity which has the function, the clarity which has the function to cognize. Report an error in the passage at 1:53:52 Highlight the passage at 1:53:52

1:54:13 That's what your mind is. And everything in your mind at the moment is all these thoughts. They're just billions and trillions of thoughts. They're just millions of thoughts, okay? Thoughts. And we believe in what the thoughts think. We believe in those thoughts. We believe they're descriptions of reality. So just kind of close your eyes. Let all the thoughts, whatever happens in your mind, it doesn't matter whether it's thoughts or your sensory. Report an error in the passage at 1:54:13 Highlight the passage at 1:54:13

1:54:40 Either way, cognition. Your cognition of sound, your cognition of touch, your cognition of all the thoughts. It doesn't matter. Whatever it is, get a sense of... Okay. Okay, get a sense of, often they refer to mind as subject and then it has its objects. Mind always cognizes something. So just instead of all the time cognizing something, focusing on the sound and the drama and the person in your head, just think of focusing on the subject, which is just the thoughts themselves. Report an error in the passage at 1:54:40 Highlight the passage at 1:54:40

1:55:13 Don't worry about what the thoughts think. Just focus. So let the thoughts come up and let the thoughts go. And have part of your mind called attention. Part of your mind is called attention. Don't think I am watching my mind. That's too tricky. Don't do that. Your attention is watching your mind. Your mind's got many bits. And one part of your mind called attention is paying attention to all the other thoughts, okay? Report an error in the passage at 1:55:13 Highlight the passage at 1:55:13

1:55:40 So then you just sit there for five quality minutes, three quality minutes. Having your attention observe whatever else arises in your mind, whatever it might be. But keep your mind, keep that attention clear and focused and sharp. Every time it wanders off, you bring it back. That's it. Report an error in the passage at 1:55:40 Highlight the passage at 1:55:40

· · · silence, 3 minutes

1:59:28 Relax now. Sometimes. Keep your mind focused and just watch your mind. Don't buy into them. The breath is easier because you're anchoring to something. It seems a bit spacey, just focusing on the mind because you don't know where to go. Start with the breath, if you like, and then just go to the mind. That's called often meditating on the clarity of your mind, which is the conventional nature of your mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:59:28 Highlight the passage at 1:59:28

1:59:55 And then, of course, when you get more advanced, you can meditate on the emptiness of inherent existence of your mind. That's more subtle. But meditating on the clarity of the mind can be quite helpful to stop buying into the thought. Because this is the thing about the thoughts, you see. Thoughts are just these elaborate descriptions of things, aren't they? Every thought is an elaborate description. All the depressed thoughts, angry thoughts, jealous thoughts, miserable thoughts, happy thoughts, loving thoughts, kind thoughts. Report an error in the passage at 1:59:55 Highlight the passage at 1:59:55

2:00:21 You think about them. And some come packed with a lot of emotion, but they're all finally thoughts. And really what we're talking about, Buddha is saying here, we have to discover the thoughts that have a basis in reality and those that don't. We have to distinguish between the facts and the fictions. Report an error in the passage at 2:00:21 Highlight the passage at 2:00:21

2:00:35 It's a major, major job sorting out what thoughts are valid and which aren't. It's a massive way to put it, a marvellous way to put it. And 99%, and all the junky ones, they're by definition liars. They have no basis. There's some basis, cake is there, but the rest of it's a big fat story your attachment makes up. Report an error in the passage at 2:00:35 Highlight the passage at 2:00:35

2:00:52 All the dramas that come from us. We've got to get right to the bones of it and hear the thought. To understand what attachment is telling you. And that's what's hard. What anger is telling you. What depression is saying to you about you. And the thing is we believe those thoughts. We know that. Six people can say you're really a nice person. You've got so much potential. But if you've got depressed thoughts, not one fraction of you will believe it. You believe the depressed thoughts. Report an error in the passage at 2:00:52 Highlight the passage at 2:00:52

2:01:21 It's kind of bizarre, isn't it? You'd think if someone said, like, you know, if your boyfriend and he's just been mean to him, you did this and you did that, you say, so to him you can accuse him of doing something. And he says, no, I didn't do it, Robina. You should think, oh, oh, what a relief, you didn't do it. Oh, thank God. I'm so sorry. But you don't, you want to believe it. We want to believe the lies, you know. Report an error in the passage at 2:01:21 Highlight the passage at 2:01:21

2:01:40 So to begin to look at all this, to see the thoughts, watch the thoughts without judgment. And then slowly we get some intelligence in being able to listen and discriminate between them and catch them. This is such demand, such attention, such intelligence, such clarity to distinguish between the facts and the fictions and then to grow the facts and to weaken and argue with the fictions because they are the source of our suffering. Report an error in the passage at 2:01:40 Highlight the passage at 2:01:40

2:02:08 And these lies are ever more complicated, ever more subtle. But they're running the show right now. So just to step back sometimes and just space out, you know, watch the thoughts. Don't space out, watch the thoughts. But no analysis. Thoughts, you know. Many advantages come from this, to loosen the grip on the power we give our thoughts. Report an error in the passage at 2:02:08 Highlight the passage at 2:02:08

2:02:34 So I think we should stop now. So why don't we read the Hatsuja to finish. The blessings of Buddha's words. Report an error in the passage at 2:02:34 Highlight the passage at 2:02:34

2:02:51 Thus did I hear at one time. The Bhagavan was dwelling on mass of vultures mountain in Rajagiriya, together with a great community of monks and a great... 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 Awalakitasvara looked upon the very practice of the profound perfection of wisdom and beheld those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature. Report an error in the passage at 2:02:51 Highlight the passage at 2:02:51

2:03:24 Then through the power of Buddha, the Venerable Shariputra said this to the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokitasvara, How should any son of the lineage train who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom? He said that and the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Arya Avalokitasvara said this to the Venerable Sharadvati Putra, Shariputra, any son of the lineage or daughter of the lineage who wishes to practice the practice of the activity, 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 2:03:24 Highlight the passage at 2:03:24

2:04:06 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 2:04:06 Highlight the passage at 2:04:06

2:04:33 Shariputra, therefore, in emptiness, there is, in emptiness is the thing, listen, in emptiness, within the fact of there being 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 odour, no taste, no object of touch and no phenomenon. Report an error in the passage at 2:04:33 Highlight the passage at 2:04:33

2:04:59 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 origination, cessation and path. There is no exalted wisdom, no attainment and also no non-attainment. Report an error in the passage at 2:04:59 Highlight the passage at 2:04:59

2:05:26 Shariputra, therefore, because there is no attainment, bodhisattvas rely on and dwell in the perfection of wisdom, the mind without abstration and without fear. Report an error in the passage at 2:05:26 Highlight the passage at 2:05:26

2:05:40 Having completely passed on 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 in the passage at 2:05:40 Highlight the passage at 2:05:40

2:06:11 The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is declared. TA-KA-TAG-OM-GATE-GATE-PARA-GATE-PARA-SAM-GATE-BODHI-SOHA Shariputra, the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, should train in the profound perfection of wisdom like that. Then the Bhagavan arose from that concentration and commended the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya Avalokitasvara, saying, Well said, well said, son of the lineage, it is like that, it is like that. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:11 Highlight the passage at 2:06:11

2:06:41 One should practice the profound perfection of wisdom just as you have indicated. Even the Tathagattas rejoice. The Bhagavan having thus spoken, the venerable Shadvatiputra, the Bodhisattva, Mahasattva, Arya, Avalokitasvara, those surrounding in their entirety along with the world of gods, humans, asuras and gandavas were overjoyed and highly praised that spoken by the Bhagavan. Report an error in the passage at 2:06:41 Highlight the passage at 2:06:41

2:07:16 Asura. No, asura is a term for a certain type of sentient being in saṃsāra in the god realms. There's two kinds of gods and there's one group of them. Sort of subtle beings with light bodies who, as a result of virtue, have got that rebirth. Report an error in the passage at 2:07:16 Highlight the passage at 2:07:16

2:07:36 It's equivalent sort of to heaven, really. Report an error in the passage at 2:07:36 Highlight the passage at 2:07:36

2:07:42 So we think we've had a really good day. Maybe we've been here both days. Lots and lots and lots of food for thought. Get some inspiration to want to get clear about these things, want to think about the meaning of emptiness, read the teachings, valid sources. Just keep it short, please, when you do this. Report an error in the passage at 2:07:42 Highlight the passage at 2:07:42

2:08:00 Short one. Really valid sources. Read carefully. You can't beat His Holiness. All His teachings are amazing on the Four Noble Truths, on emptiness, on the Heart Sūtra. So perfect. Geshe-la here teaches perfectly. Other teachers come here and give courses. Other centres, check your sources. Check that they're valid. Then study. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:00 Highlight the passage at 2:08:00

2:08:18 Then think about it. And then you have something to think about when you meditate. And then you get an insight. This is how you'd combine the two kinds of meditation. You sit down, get some focus. You then go to a bit of analysis about emptiness and it triggers an insight. It triggers a feeling. Well, you'd stop and you'd hold that feeling. You'd focus on that feeling. This is how you combine the two kinds of meditation perfectly in one session. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:18 Highlight the passage at 2:08:18

2:08:42 Then your mind loosens the grip of that feeling, you go back to the analysis, you analyse again, think about it again and again it triggers a feeling and the more your concentration develops, the more your analysis develops, the more the feelings develop and the longer they last until eventually it becomes a non-conceptual direct insight. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:42 Highlight the passage at 2:08:42

2:08:59 Do you understand? So this is how you do it. And you can think while you're driving, you can think while you're sitting, you can think while you're eating your dinner and it's really good to think in your meditation as well, that makes it stronger. So slowly, slowly. Get some realizations. Report an error in the passage at 2:08:59 Highlight the passage at 2:08:59

2:09:16 So we dedicate. Just do the mandala, short mandala. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:16 Highlight the passage at 2:09:16

2:09:26 We're offering a mandala of the universe to the Buddha as a thank you. Go on. Thank you. Report an error in the passage at 2:09:26 Highlight the passage at 2:09:26

2:10:07 song, drag, pay, cromate, okay. Report an error in the passage at 2:10:07 Highlight the passage at 2:10:07

2:10:42 Thank you very much and I'll see you next year hopefully, we're all still alive. See you next June or somewhere, whatever it is, I don't know. Report an error in the passage at 2:10:42 Highlight the passage at 2:10:42

2:10:53 Before you go Robina, I'd like to thank you on behalf of moi, me, and also everybody here. I have gained clarity, you always give your teachings so that even though sometimes I might struggle and I know some other people might struggle. There is clarity there, there's challenges there, there's humour and all of that goes to make the teaching something that I really enjoy and I know that people who come here, they wouldn't be here if it wasn't for those reasons. Report an error in the passage at 2:10:53 Highlight the passage at 2:10:53

2:11:24 So thank you and with that I'll get off as they say. Darling, you're so kind. No, and thank you everybody for your support this weekend because it's been terrific the way people have just bogged in and done things and, you know, helped out where they saw help was needed. So without all of you, this wouldn't have run as smoothly as it did. So thank you to you, but particularly thank you to you. Report an error in the passage at 2:11:24 Highlight the passage at 2:11:24

2:11:49 And we look forward to seeing you, I believe, in a year's time. In a year's time. Maybe ten months, who knows. June, I think. Coming in June to Australia. We'll see where Sydney fits in. Okay, thank you. Thank you, everybody. It'll go so quickly too. Report an error in the passage at 2:11:49 Highlight the passage at 2:11:49

2:12:01 All right, good. Thank you. Why don't we have a picture? Can we have a picture? Let's have a picture. Do you want to all come up? Come up. Let's all join in. If you want, if you want to be in a picture, let's all have a quick picture. Take some pictures. Come on up here. Come on. If you want to. Have a quick picture. Report an error in the passage at 2:12:01 Highlight the passage at 2:12:01