So first of all, for the sake of all sentient beings, we should think that we must gain the stage of full and perfect enlightenment. And in order to gain this stage of full and perfect enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings, then this evening we must listen to this teaching of the profound Mahayana path, the teaching and explanation of the great vehicle. When one receives this teaching, having motivated oneself with this excellent enlightenment thought or the highest thought that it is for the sake of others, then one should listen with the proper attitude and a proper mind. And the proper attitude is that one should purify the place where one is and also those who are listening to the teaching of the container and the contained. And here we should think that this is not an ordinary place where we are seated, this is not an ordinary location or area where we are, but that it is actually the pure realm of a Buddhist pure realm, pure realm of enlightenment.

[01:05]

And also within this realm of enlightenment, or this pure sphere, that the teacher in front of us who will give this teaching tonight, to which we will listen to in order to benefit all sentient beings, is not an ordinary teacher, ordinary human person, but we should visualize the teacher in front of us as seated upon a lion-supported throne. On top of the throne is a multicolored lotus, moon disk, and seated upon that is our teacher in the form of the fully enlightened Buddha Shakyamuni, who possesses all the qualities of full and perfect enlightenment. And from his body countless light rays issue out, light rays of transcendental knowledge by which ourselves and all other sentient beings are purified of our karma, impure deeds and obscurations. And especially this purifies our own mind stream so that our impure ways of thinking, of looking at things are purified, our ignorance is completely overcome, and that in our own mind stream that the transcendental knowledge or wisdom of the Buddhas are awakened.

[02:15]

And having been purified in this manner, then we should visualize ourselves not as an ordinary person, but as the great Bodhisattva Manjushri, And as we're seated here then, in front of the teacher, as the Buddha Shakyamuni, ourselves as Manjushri, we should think that... We shouldn't grasp at the things about us as ourselves, as Manjushri or as the teacher of Shakyamuni, but that all things of this pure sphere are of the nature of emptiness or appearance, like they appear, but like a rainbow, have the rainbow's nature, or the nature of being the combination or merging together of clarity of appearance and emptiness. All of us are following here the Mahayana path, listening and practicing the Mahayana teachings, and in the Mahayana teachings in this way, there are always three aspects of which we follow, what is called actually the preliminary aspect of entering into the practice, then the actual teaching itself or the actual practice itself, and then the conclusion.

[03:21]

In order for this to be done properly, to understand these three aspects properly, we should understand that actually their nature is of emptiness, that they are they have no true nature of their own, that the preliminary practice of working for sentient beings is of an empty nature. The actual practice itself also is of an empty nature. And then the result, or here actually dedication and merit, is also of an empty nature. So that if we do not grasp at any of the three elements or aspects of preliminary, actual and the conclusion, then actually we have the cause of enlightenment or the cause of Buddhahood. So, in other words, then, the first practice, then, is that whatever we do in the Mahayana path, it should be motivated by the thought that this listening and teaching or practice or whatever it is, is done for the sake of all sentient beings, that one will do this in order to gain the stage of enlightenment, in order to help all other living beings. In the time of the actual practice itself, such as here listening to the teaching or doing some work, some dharma activity or virtuous activity,

[04:26]

Then, one should do that with a completely undistracted mind, and also a mind which does not grasp at its nature to be true, but that one sees it in its own true nature. And then with an undistracted mind, one diligently enters into that practice, whatever it may be. Then finally, that having completed the practice, or the deed of listening, or whatever it is, that we dedicate it for the sake of all sentient beings, not just dedicate the merit just to them alone, but that they should gain the stage of full and perfect omniscience, that they should gain the wisdom and the enlightenment of the Buddha. In this age of ours, at this time, the Buddha Shakyamuni appeared in this world in order to help present sentient beings of this age.

[05:30]

And the Buddha Shakyamuni himself actually first through countless lifetimes for many intermediate eons accumulated the two accumulations of mattered and transcendental knowledge. In other words, he performed all the practices necessary to gain the stage of enlightenment over a very vast time. And through practicing for these countless years or lifetimes in accumulating merit and wisdom, he was eventually able to gain the stage of full and perfect enlightenment. And then, in order to help sentient beings of this world of which we live in, the Buddha for the sake of our own benefit, came into this world in India, at that time as the son of a king, and manifested through his own emanation body, performance of what is called the Twelve Deeds of taking birth into this world, going through life in the royal palace, practicing asceticism, finally gaining enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, and then teaching for the sake of others,

[06:38]

So the Buddha Shakyamuni in this form also went through these twelve deeds in order to help sentient beings in this age, in this world. And then, having gained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, then he was requested to turn the wheel of the Dharma, or to preach, teach the Dharma, in order to bring other sentient beings also to that stage of enlightenment, or freedom, or liberation. And the Buddha taught what is called the three different turnings of the wheel of the Dharma, or three different classifications of the teachings, in order to help the various categories of sentient beings, or living beings. First, in Varanasi, the Buddha went from Bogai to Varanasi. At that time, he taught the first teaching, or what is taught is the Four Noble Truths, which Rumichay explained the other night. And that was primarily for those who were following the Hinayana path, or the path of liberation for themselves alone from this world of existence.

[07:42]

After that, as a second turning the wheel, the Buddha went to Rajgir, another area of India, to the Vulture Stika, Rajgir. And there he turned the wheel of the Dharma for the second time, which was primarily for those who were following the Mahayana path, those who have produced ideas of great compassion to help other sentient beings and at that time the Buddha taught what is known actually is the three aspects of the ultimate truth which are known as the aspects of emptiness, aspects of signlessness and the aspects of wishlessness or the wishless, the signless and the empty and at that time at Rajgir there was a countless number of monks, nuns, novice monks, novice nuns, lay people, in addition to a limitless number of bodhisattvas, and also gods, heavenly beings, and also ordinary men, and others.

[08:46]

And there he taught this aspect of the teachings on emptiness, that all things by their own nature are pure, that all things by their own nature are devoid of mentally created conceptualizations or extremes of grasping at something that's an extreme such as that exists or doesn't exist, etc. That all dharmas are completely away from all means of grasping at them through our own conceptualizing mind. so in order to teach this the Buddha taught what is known as the Prajnaparamita Sutras or in other words the Sutras or the Discourses on the Perfection of Wisdom and first the Buddha taught this Prajnaparamita Sutra uh... which is in uh... anyway it's more than ten million verses of Prajnaparamita Sutra and having taught that the Buddha understood that there was no one in this world who would be able to understand it or read it or comprehend it.

[09:51]

So that teaching has been placed in the God's realm and also in the realm of the Nagas or serpent spirits where it remains for the sake of those in this world who could be able to understand the teaching and study and contemplate on this perfection of wisdom teachings the Buddha taught other sutras of this series which are known as the Prajnaparamita Sutra in a hundred thousand verses and also the Prajnaparamita Sutra in twenty thousand verses and then one in eight thousand verses and then another called the Prajnaparamita Sutra in verse form or short poetic form which is known in Sanskrit as the Samayagata samcayagata, and then also in other various shorter forms. So in this way, for the sake of those in this world who will be able to understand this profound teaching of emptiness, the Buddha taught these in different forms and now they are collected, these different forms, such as the

[10:53]

100,000 verse wisdom sutra and 20,000 verse, etc. are found in the Tripitaka. We can find them there now in 12 volumes or one volume, etc. And all these different sutras of the Prajnaparamita or the Perfection of Wisdom deal with these teachings on profound teachings of emptiness. If we examine the meaning of these teachings of the Prajnaparamita or the Perfection of Sutra Um... Basically, it comes down to the idea that all things of this world are, by their own nature, empty of any truth. They're empty of anything that can be grasped as true or to be existent by their own nature. So, from the idea of our own five aggregates, such as the physical form and also the aggregates of the mind, such as consciousness, feelings, perceptions, predispositions, all of these are by their own nature empty of any truth.

[11:58]

They're empty of any substance which can be grasped to be true, to be really existent. They have no substance, no nature, no essence. If we look at their essence by itself, by their own nature, without any work on our part, so naturally they are just pure. They have the essence of purity, the essence of emptiness, empty of being able to be grasped by any or held as a substance or a thing. And not only is it just our own aggregate, such as the form or the mind, but also everything of all the phenomena of this world also are devoid of any of these graspable or existent entities or substances. Not only that, but everything even in the path, right from the time of entering into the path, the one who enters the path, the dharmas which we practice during the path, and also the result of the path, also is taught in these scriptures to be empty of any true nature, empty of... pure by their own nature, empty of anything that is graspable or holdable.

[13:08]

So in this way, the Buddha said that the foundation of the path, that means the one who practices the path, for example, is empty. So the foundation for the path, for the whole teaching, is empty of any true nature. The path itself that we traverse on in order to gain the stage of enlightenment is by itself signless, what is called the signless, where it has no characteristic mark of its own. And finally, the result, such as Buddhahood, or the result of the practice, is wishless. In other words, there's nothing that we can wish to gain by the practice, so that the foundation or the cause, the path and result, are known to be then empty, of the nature of emptiness, and also signless, or devoid of characteristic mark, and also wishless. So all these scriptures of the Prajnaparamita then deal with this idea of empty, the wishless and the signless. Dharma deals with Mahayana practice, deals with those who are following the Mahayana teaching, those who are followers of the Mahayana path.

[14:15]

And it deals with the nature of reality as it is, and also it deals with how one practices the Mahayana path in comparison or in contrast to those who follow the Hinayana path or the lower path. Rumi Shaykh is now explaining the differences between the Hinayana and the Mahayana path, where he said that basically both schools of the Hinayana and Mahayana understand that the nature of this world is suffering, the nature of samsara, or of the world of existence as we see it, is a place of unhappiness, a place of distress, of torment. In the Hinayana path, when one sees this, when one sees the great sufferings of samsara, then one meditates upon the need for freedom from this world of existence, and this is done especially through such meditations as meditation on impermanence, meditation on the suffering of samsara, the faults of samsara, meditation on basic concentration of the mind, or bringing the mind to one-pointedness, and understanding the nature of one's own five aggregates.

[15:32]

However, in the Hinayana path, one is doing this specifically for one's own sake alone, for one's own sake in order to gain a stage of freedom or a state of freedom which is devoid of these various types of sufferings, the sufferings of this world of existence. So, for one's own sake alone then, in the Hinayana path, then one practices such teachings that will get one to a stage of personal freedom which is known like as the Arhats stage or the Sravaka stage or even the Pratyekabuddha stage. So it's for one's own sake alone that one practices the path. In the Mahayana we also see that this world is full of suffering. We see that the nature of this world existence is suffering and we also desire to gain liberation from it. However, in the Mahayana path we also understand that not only ourselves alone are suffering in this world, but also all the sentient beings who are as vast as the sky, who are limitless in number, and who have been our very kind mothers in previous lives, are also suffering the same as ourselves in this world.

[16:47]

So, in the Mahayana thinking, it is improper to think that one should gain liberation from this world of existence for one's sake alone, but instead that one needs to help all other sentient beings also to gain the stage of liberation, the stage of freedom from all sufferings. In order, having cultivated this thought, that all other sentient beings also need to be liberated from this world of existence, and all other sentient beings have been very dear to us, like our own mother, that one produces and cultivates loving-kindness for all sentient beings, and also one cultivates compassion for all sentient beings. And then based upon loving-kindness and compassion for all sentient beings, that one directs one's own mind and thoughts toward them, then based upon this foundation of loving-kindness and compassion, one creates the thought of enlightenment that one must oneself, help all these sentient beings to gain the stage of full and perfect enlightenment and that it is up to oneself, through one's own practice, through one's own effort, that all these sentient beings will gain the stage of liberation.

[18:00]

So, having created this thought of the enlightenment thought, or the thought of enlightenment, then one begins to actually practice the various teachings needed to bring them to the stage of liberation, such as the six paramitas or six perfections of giving, moral conduct, patience, diligence, meditation and wisdom. Now, the difference between the Hinayana and the Mahayana paths are described as in seven different aspects, seven characteristic aspects of showing the difference. And basically, the difference shows actually in the vastness of the path, the profundity of the path, and especially the area of which it covers. So, for example, of the seven, the first one actually is the object to whom one's practice is directed, or the object to whom once meditation is directed. So, for example, in the Hinayana path, we direct our meditation, our practice, just for our own self alone, so that this is a very small objective that we're looking at, whereas in the Mahayana path,

[19:14]

the objective or the object of one's practice is for all sentient beings who are as vast as space itself. So that in this way, one's objective or one's object of practice becomes very vast, becomes as vast as there are a number of sentient beings in this world. So the vastness becomes profound, becomes great. So that's from the object point of view. Secondly, from the practice point of view, that one's result of practice is greater than in the Hinayana practice, because here one seeks to gain the understanding of the ultimate truth, which here is known as the dharmakāyā, or the body of of truth, body of ultimate truth. And this body of the ultimate truth is obtained, this dharmakaya is obtained here actually for one's own omniscience. The realization is of the stage of full omniscience, though again it is for the sake of all others. But then to put this practice of helping others uh... into motion based upon this realization of the dharmakaya which is for oneself then one creates through accumulation of merit uh... what is known as the rupakaya or uh... what is known then as the two aspects of the physical body in other words the nirmanakaya or the emanation body and then also sambhogakaya or the bliss body uh... in order to help

[20:38]

all sentient beings, no matter what level of realization or where they are situated in this world. So here we have then, first of all, the object of the practice is different. The practice itself is different between Hinayana and Mahayana. Then the results also are different, because here we're gaining the result of nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya for the sake of others. And fourth is also the type of realization that we have, which is vaster. Both in the Hinayana and the Mahayana path, we must understand the realization of selflessness. But there's a different level of selflessness here, actually. In the Hinayana path, the practice is just to understand that one's own personal self is empty of any true nature. In other words, there's selflessness of the person alone. And in the Hinayana practice, we strive just to gain that realization alone of selflessness of the person. Whereas in the Mahayana practice, in order to gain full and perfect enlightenment, in order to gain the stage of Buddhahood, then we must also, in addition to understanding the selflessness of the person, we must also realize the selflessness of all phenomena, or outer things, outer and internal phenomena.

[21:58]

So then here then, from the fourth point of view, is that the wisdom which we need to realize is also different or vaster. Fifth, also the amount of diligence or practice we need to put in is also of great difference. In the Hinayana path, it is said in the scriptures, in order to gain the stage of an arhat or a sravaka, that this could be accomplished within three to seven lifetimes if one practices very diligently. Or if one seeks to gain the stage of a Pratyekabuddha who gains his realization through his own solitary meditation based upon the twelve links of interdependent origination, understanding their nature, understanding the nature of phenomena through them, through these twelve links of interdependent origination, it is said that one can gain the stage of a Pratyekabuddha in one hundred eons. what is called a year, I mean it's still a lot of years, each year and then we have a hundred of these periods of time.

[23:00]

This shows the time needed in order to accomplish the lower path of the Hinayana. For the Mahayana path, in order to become a fully and perfectly enlightened Buddha, through the accumulations of merit and transcendental wisdom, we need what is known as three countless eons. So it's also a period of time, but it's very vast, very large. Actually, it's so large that you can't count it. So it's got three countless eons, a very vast time. And during that time, one has to put in great diligence, great effort, in the various practices of the six perfections in order to accumulate the matter and wisdom which is needed to gain that final stage of enlightenment or perfect Buddhahood. Then from the sixth point of view, it is known as the difference of skillful means. And here it means actually that the methods which are employed to help other sentient beings are vaster, because in the Hinayana path we're not really concerned with helping others to a very great degree, so that there's not many methods needed there in order to work with other living beings about us.

[24:11]

But in the Mahayana path we need to develop vast many different and profound methods in order to help sentient beings. Basically, there are said to be four categories of means to gather people or to bring people into the path of dharma or bring people into the path leading to liberation and these are known actually as the four means of gathering, such as practices of giving, like giving dharma, giving material things, giving fearlessness, giving love and kindness. So this aspect of giving in all its various manifestations. And second, we have actually the practice of talking nicely, of speaking pleasantly, as people like to hear words by which they can understand and also words by which they can be attracted towards the teaching. Third is that one teaches in accordance with other people's, with the people's understanding, that just as their mental development has reached a certain stage, that in accordance with their kind of development, with their type of cultivation or motivation, that we're able to teach them just as much as they need and how they need to be taught.

[25:27]

And this is a very profound aspect of having skillful means to bring people into the path. And fourthly, not only do we teach the Dharma, but also we ourselves act in accordance with the Dharma. So in other words, we practice the Dharma, we accomplish the paths, and then having accomplished ourselves, then we can show others that I practice like this, I also am in accordance with the Dharma, then you should also practice like this. Whereas if one didn't practice properly and just started telling others to practice without having accomplished it oneself, then it would create some doubts in the minds of others. So, in other words, we accomplish the Dharma and then teach it according to how we have also accomplished it. So in this way, I mean this is just a basic idea, but there are many other skillful means which are employed, which are vast and profound in number, in order to bring sentient beings to various stages of enlightenment. And then finally the seventh point of differentiation is in the activities, profound activities, which are employed by the Mahayanist, whereas the Hinayanist does not do

[26:36]

great number of activities for the sake of others, whereas it's just for himself. Here, actually, in the Mahayana path, one is always spontaneously and effortlessly and ceaselessly working for the sake of all sentient beings. And especially, it says, that one who has gained the stage of enlightenment, such as the great Buddha, what he has done, actually, is during the time of his practice he dedicated all his merits and made various different vows and prayers that through his practice and through his accomplishment of Buddhahood that he would always work for the sake of others, that always he would, his whole effort was for the sake of bringing all other sentient beings to enlightenment. So based upon those vows, based upon those prayers which he made, arising from the power of those previous prayers, then even at the time when the Buddha gains the stage of perfect enlightenment, though without any willful thoughts, without thinking to help sentient beings, so effortlessly and spontaneously, sentient beings are always being helped by the enlightened being.

[27:43]

And it's just like a wish-fulfilling tree, I mean a tree which has been through causal connections has been created in such a way that anyone who approaches what is called the wish-fulfilling tree, just by approaching a wish-fulfilling tree, whatever you wish for, you make a wish to the tree and you get it. If you want a diamond, you ask for it and you get a diamond, like that. Whatever you want, you just ask for it. But actually, the wish-fulfilling tree, it's only there due to causes and conditions, but by itself, it's just an inanimate object. There's no effort on the part of the wish-fulfilling tree to give you what you want. Just by you going and making prayer to the tree, then without any effort on the tree's part, and spontaneously from the tree, you get what you want. So in the same way, the Buddha, through having made various vows and having accomplished the path those vows also then become in a sense activated and then the Buddha's transcendental activities are spontaneously and effortlessly being available to all those who are able to approach them.

[28:53]

So in this way the activities of the Mahayana's is very vast because it accomplishes the wishes and the welfare of all sentient beings. And Rinpoche actually at the end said that this, actually there's many, many teachings on this and he would have no effort are no trouble to talk on them for a very long time, but he thinks it would make a lot of trouble for us. So he's only giving them in a very brief way, in accordance with the wishes of Lama Tashi that asked that this teaching be given. So he's giving it in a brief way so that all of us know what it is. So if we ever hear, oh, there's a difference between Mahayana and Jnana, or what are the differences, then we're acquainted with what they are, and we'll know the essence. And based on this, we'll be able to study the vast and profound teachings. Prajnaparamita or the perfection teachings Let me take a step back, okay? When the Buddha taught the teachings, actually, it was to different groups of people or those who were going to hold the teaching or become the holders of the teaching.

[30:01]

And in order to show the different characteristics or classifications of those who hold the teaching or receive the teaching, different philosophical views were presented, different levels of realization or different levels of understanding were taught by the Buddha, and these were taught in four different categories. For the sake of the Hinayana practitioner, and especially what is taught in the first teaching, such as the Four Noble Truths, the philosophical view or schools that were taught at that time were known as the... These are two different philosophical views, actually. These are just Sanskrit names of the schools, Vaibhashika and Sautrantika. And then these actually were primarily for those who received the Hinayana teachings or those based upon the four truths, the four noble truths.

[31:19]

Then for the second teaching or the second turning of the wheel, the dharma, which here is concerned with what is usually given the name the sign list. Here the primary teaching or philosophical school or view which was presented was known as the Marimika school or the school of the middle path. And finally, the third teaching of the dharma, which shows the differentiations of the various dharmas, or differentiations of the levels of the teaching, or distinctions of the teaching, the third turning of the wheel of the dharma, was primarily for those who follow what is known as the mind-only school. Later, many different great masters in India and Tibet began to write about these various schools or these different philosophical views. And what they would do actually is based upon the various scriptures or sutras that the Buddha taught, they would take out the essence, they would extract the essence of the meaning the real meaning or the essence meaning of what the Buddha taught in the various sutras and then present them in a very concise and cohesive form for others to understand that type of philosophical view or the various levels of understanding that one could go through in order to gain the stages of liberation.

[32:38]

or enlightenment. So, for this third school, for example, the third turning of the wheel, where it teaches the differentiations of the phenomena, this was basically for the mind-only school, and the later masters who taught or wrote about those were such as the great Indian saint Asanga and Vasubandhu. For the second teaching, which Rinpoche is referring to more tonight, about the Marimika school, or the school of the middle path, the great teachers actually in India which arose for that school were known primarily first of all is the Nagarjuna and then his own disciple Aryadeva and then later masters who also arose in India and gave various teachings were such as Buddhapalita, Nandakirti and Nisantideva and Kamalashila and many others. Nagarjuna is being the real principal founder of the, or expounder, you say, of this Middle Path school, the Madhyamika school.

[33:43]

His primary work that he wrote for others was called, in Tibetan it's called, sawa-sera, or in Sanskrit it's called the Madhyamika-karikas, or the root verses of the Middle Path. this was his primary work, but in addition to that he wrote also six other logical treatises dealing with showing the meaning of what the Middle Path school is, how one understands the profound truth of the Prajnaparamita. In addition to him, his own disciple Aryadeva wrote what is called the 400 verses or the Chatushataka, also expounding the profound view of the philosophical view of the Madhyamika school. Later, the great Indian saint Chandrakirti wrote one text which is known as, in Tibetan, it's called Umalajupa, or Entering into the Path of the Middle Path School, and there he showed all the various aspects of this school, not only the philosophical view, which one needs to understand, but also he taught

[34:54]

the various practices which one needs, such as the six paramitas, also the meditations which one must perform in order to realize this view, and also he discussed the various results of enlightenment. Also after that, the great Indian saint Shantideva wrote a text called the Bodhicaryavatara, or Entering into the Practice of the Bodhisattva's Path, or Bodhisattva's Career, and there he especially described the behavior that the Bodhisattva, or one seeking to gain the stage of enlightenment, how he must practice the various activities and conduct and behavior he needs, in addition to describing the philosophical view or understanding of ultimate reality. Also after him, Indian scholar and saint Kamalashila wrote a text, actually two different texts, on the various levels of meditation called, in Tibetan it's called gomrim, they're just called gomrim texts, or levels of meditation.

[35:56]

So actually these are just a few of the various teachers, actually well-known teachers, who expounded this Madhyamika school, or the school of the Middle Path. Now, all these, no matter which text we read, the basis of this teaching of the Marimika school, or the basis of teaching of this perfection of wisdom, is that we have what is known as the foundation Marimika, the path Marimika, and then also the result marimika or in other words the foundation middle path the path middle path and then the result middle path and this refers to actually the foundation middle path means actually the foundation that we need to work upon to understand the view, and here actually this is described as the two truths, actually the truth, the relative truth and the ultimate truth, and that the foundational aspect of this Marimika teaching is that these two truths of the relative and ultimate truth are non-dually merged together, that they're inseparable. From the path point of view, the path, Marimika, is that in order to accomplish the path, we need the two accumulations of merit and transcendental wisdom, and that these two also need to be completely merged together in order to gain or to accomplish the path properly.

[37:16]

And finally we have the result, marimika, and here this refers to the two kāyas, or the two bodies of enlightenment, two results, one being the dharmakāya, or the body of truth, and the second being the rūpa-kāya, or the body of form. and then the body of form itself is divided into two parts, known as the nirmanakaya, or emanation body, and then also the sambhogakaya, or the bliss body. So that when we refer to two kayas here, it means the rubhakaya, these two together, is one, and the dharmakaya, and that these two actually, the result, is that these two are completely merged together also as the result. So then this way, then we have the foundation, path, and result in Madhyamika teaching. Yes. Since she's in a canoe, and she... That's what Ramji is saying. It's quite difficult, actually. So I will try.

[38:18]

Actually, Ramji just gave a nice little story to me. I didn't say that first. Well, anyway, in relation to the idea of the foundation, okay, if you just remember, we just had the foundation, the path and the result. In relation to the foundation, it is said actually the Buddha taught, and Rinpoche recited one verse from the scriptures, from Prajnaparamita scripture, where the Buddha said actually that there are two truths. There's the relative truth and the ultimate truth. And each of these has what is known as a basis of character, or its characteristic basis, and then also it has its characteristic mark. These are actually technical terms. One is called the basis of its character, and one is called the mark of its character.

[39:19]

So, when we come actually then to... We put these two, the characteristic basis and characteristic mark in relation to each of these, in relation to the relative truth and in relation to the ultimate truth. Now, from the point of view of the relative truth, that all the appearances in this world which appear to the six senses, it means to the eye, so it means forms to the eye and sounds to the ear and smells to the nose, or actually odors to the smell, and then... flavors to the taste, like this, okay, and feelings, forms to the feelings, like this, and then thoughts to the mind. This actually is called the appearances, what appears to the six senses. And this, whatever appears to the six senses, is called the basis of characteristic, or it's the characteristic basis, the foundation for the character, the character of the things. So this is called the characteristic basis. Then, Its characteristic mark is that it is known by the mind which perceives it. The mind which perceives those outer appearances is the characteristic mark of

[40:32]

those things. For example, Ramache gave examples such as a vase or a pillar, a house pillar. Like the vase, the vase itself, let's say if the vase is made out of gold or silver or ceramics or whatever it is, that's its characteristic basis, that there's some outer form, it has a form, and it's made out of this or that or some other, some substance. So that's its characteristic basis. Its characteristic mark, this is just an example, is that it holds, it contains water, it's able to contain water. So that's the characteristic mark of this vase. Or a pillar, for example, is that maybe the pillar is made out of cement, or it's made out of wood, or it's made out of steel, or whatever it's made out of. That's the characteristic basis of this thing we call the pillar. And its characteristic mark is that it holds up the house, it supports the house. So that's the mark of its existence, of its nature, its character. Or it's a function? Yeah, like a function. But that's just an example. Then what we have then is a relation here that the things which appear in this world are the characteristic basis for our mind, in other words, and that our mind is able to perceive them, understand them, that those things enter into our mind, that we can grasp them, think about them, name them, perceive them, and this is called the characteristic mark of the relative world.

[41:54]

relative phenomena. Then, from the ultimate point of view, we also have the characteristic basis and the characteristic mark. The characteristic basis here is that all things by their own nature are devoid of any truth, that they're empty by their own nature, they're completely devoid of anything that we can anything we can call existence. So the characteristic basis of all things, of all these relative things, from the ultimate point of view, is that they're empty by their own nature. So that's like the objective idea of this world around us, that things by their own nature are empty. And the subjective part then, in relation to this then, in other words, what is known technically as the characteristic mark, is that it transcends conceptualization, it transcends our mind. We have no way to grasp this thing which we call emptiness, because if it's empty by its own nature, it means it goes beyond

[42:57]

mind. It goes beyond the way that the mind grasps the different things. It goes beyond conceptualization, such as, oh, this is existent or this is non-existent, this is both existent or non-existent, this is neither existent or non-existent. It goes completely beyond our way that we create this world or we hold this world through our own conceptualizing mind. So this is called the characteristic mark of the ultimate truth. Now, the thing is that these two, the relative truth and the ultimate truth, both with its own characteristic basis and characteristic mark, are completely non-dually merged together. We cannot separate the relative truth from the ultimate truth, and we cannot separate the ultimate truth from the relative truth. That, for example, all things that appear in this world We see, we have their appearance, they're there. And though they're there, though they appear, you see me, or I see you, Rumi is using the example, he says, I see you, like that. We see these appearances in this world, but at the same time, they're empty of any truth, they're empty of any existence, from the ultimate point of view.

[44:02]

So, the appearance doesn't obstruct its emptiness, and its emptiness also doesn't obstruct its appearance. So for that reason, they're non-dually merged together. Because there's a non-obstruction of emptiness, there's a non-obstruction of appearance. So appearance and emptiness are simultaneously arising together, simultaneously realized together. So this means that the relative and the ultimate truth are not exclusive. They're not mutually exclusive. That if you have the ultimate truth, you don't have relative truth. And if you have relative truth, you don't have ultimate. You cannot say it like that. You cannot find the relative truth separate from the ultimate truth. And you cannot find the ultimate separate from the relative. they're completely merged non-dually together and this is what is called then the non-differentiation or the non-duality or merging together of appearance and emptiness and then Rinpoche said actually that he doesn't know much about these things and you should ask these great scholars like these ones over here who have studied in many schools and Rinpoche actually gave a story of the great

[45:05]

Tibetan translator whose name is Domilo Tsao, who was the founder of the Lamdre system, which is followed by the Sakya school. When he first met the great Indian master, Gayadatta, who's the one who brought the transmission of the Lamdre teaching to Tibet, Gayadatta was also, I mean, he was an Indian, he was a master of Sanskrit as well as the scriptures of meditation and also the Vajrayana path. Here, concerned with the Hevaja teaching. And Romi Lodzawa had been to India for many years, and he was considered of the translators, one of the best of those who understood Sanskrit. And when he met Gayadatta for the first time, he wrote out a letter in Sanskrit and presented it to him. And Gayadatta read this and he got very angry. He said, why do you write this bad thing to me? Romilo Tello said, what's wrong? And then he explained what he had written and he wrote some very nasty thing. And he didn't know it. I mean, he thought he was writing some nice Sanskrit. And actually, by accident, he wrote some really terrible thing, calling him an idiot or something like this. He wrote it just by chance, without knowing that he had done that.

[46:10]

And then he got very upset. He thought, oh, I studied Sanskrit for so many years and I thought I understood. And now I see that I don't understand it properly. And Gaya Datta said, oh, don't worry. He said, I also don't understand Sanskrit very well, I mean, I'm from India and I studied it, so I know a little bit maybe more than you." Suramji is saying he understands a little bit of this, possibly more than us, but he also doesn't know much, also he says. So he said this is anyway an auspicious connection at this time, that in the future all of us will become great scholars and masters of the Marimika teachings and we'll be able to understand and teach it to others. to understand the nature of all things or emptiness, that all things are beyond the extremes of conceptualization. So first we should think actually that there are many things that appear in this world and we should examine where they came from. So there's various ways we can do this. We can think first of all that everything was born from itself, that it arises by its own self.

[47:13]

However, that if something, the idea actually is that we examine the various causes which we think, why things are here, we try to examine the nature of things and see the reasons for their origination, for example. So here it says actually that if something, we can think maybe that something is originated by itself, that it's self-producing or self-arising, but the problem is that if something is self-arising or produces itself, that we are already existent. we are here. So if we produce, I mean because we're already here, there's no need for a self-production. That it means actually if something was produced, it would always just be as it is. There wouldn't be any change. It would just be self-produced. Or if it's going to produce itself, then it would keep producing the same thing again and again and again. But we don't have this self-production in that manner. So something doesn't arrive, arise by its own self, in itself, by itself. Actually, it's only when there's different causes, connections, causes, conditions, merging together, that we have something arising.

[48:20]

But the thing doesn't arise by itself. Like, we didn't come just... I mean, you just didn't show up like that. You appeared in this world by yourself. Actually, it's only through causes and conditions that you arise. It's not a self-arising... You yourself are not a self-arising phenomena, as well as all the other things in this world, like an apple or a grape or whatever. It didn't come by itself. It didn't produce itself. If something didn't produce itself, then we can think that it was produced by something else, by one other thing, in other words. But if something is produced only by another thing, then it would be logical to say that anything could produce anything, that if we put a wheat seed in the ground, then a rice stalk should grow out of that, because anything can produce another thing, that something is producing another. In other words, it's called other production. But again, we see actually the only things, when there's many things together, something arises, like a wheat stalk or a rice stalk.

[49:25]

Actually, when we have many things together, but not just from one other phenomena, do we get a new phenomena. So it's not arisen by its own self. Something doesn't arise by itself. We don't arise by our own self. outer things or internal things, mental things or external phenomena, do not arise by their own self, and they also do not arise by something else making them, or converting from one thing into another. And also, they don't arise from both of these together, because if they arise or originated by themselves, and also by another simultaneously, it would mean that they would contain both of the thoughts that we just described, that a thing cannot arise by itself, and also cannot arise by something else. So, flame of fire is darkness from God. Okay. Yeah, Rinpoche also used another example that this... So, Roja gave the example that we cannot create one thing from another.

[50:48]

It means actually that fire cannot create darkness. Or darkness cannot create fire, actually, from one. If it could be created from one to another like that, then it means, actually, that then fire could create darkness or darkness could create fire. But the nature of fire is that it has light, and the nature of darkness is that it's devoid of light. So it contradicts itself, that it cannot be produced by something else. And then it cannot be produced by both, simultaneously, of self arising and arising by another. And finally, the fourth, what is called the fourth extreme, is that it cannot be produced, something cannot be produced without any cause whatsoever. That if we see whatever's in this world, there's always a cause. Actually, like for example, if we put a wheat seed into the ground, then due to the cause of the wheat seed, then a wheat stalk will grow, or the wheat, the wheat berry or whatever, the wheat grain will arise. So when we have the causes and conditions, only then do we see a result. But there's nothing in this world that can be seen to arise without a cause.

[51:51]

So what is being taught here is that if we look at any phenomena that we can look at its existence from these four points of view, and these four points of view are supposed to subsume all the other, any way that you could think about a thing. Like, any way you could think how something arises in this world, it'll fit within one of these four. Either that it's produced by itself, it's produced by something else, it's produced by both itself and others, or it has no cause. I mean, there's no other way we can think of how something could be produced in this world. But here we're just examining that something cannot be produced by itself, it cannot be produced by another, it cannot be produced by both self and other, and it cannot be produced without a cause. So it means, actually, if we really examine through study carefully and then through contemplation and meditation, we'll see that nothing else, nothing ever arose in this world. There was nothing ever that was born into this world.

[52:52]

There was never any production, so that there's no idea of creation were of origination in itself, by itself, that there's not something really existing that was created in this world. Only when there's a bunch of causes, conditions, due to relative factors, that something does arise. But in its own true nature, the thing by itself, in itself, is devoid of any existence. And here we see that because it's devoid of any birthed. It's devoid of any origination in this world. And being non-originated, never being born, it can never die. Because something that's not born doesn't die. So, we, all the outside phenomena, our inner thoughts, everything, actually it never arose. They were never born, they were never created. Never being created, they never died. And never being born, nor ceasing, they also don't exist, they don't remain, they don't stay anywhere in between. Because there's no creation, no cessation. So that all phenomena of this world, whether external or internal phenomena, are by their own nature devoid of origination, devoid of cessation, and devoid of remaining in any place.

[54:04]

So we can say actually then that these phenomena of this world are uncreated, they're not true, they're empty by their own nature, simply naturally by themselves. We could say then that maybe that may not be the case, but then we have this thing called an I. We're always thinking, I, I'm happy, I'm suffering, I like this, I don't like that, I feel good today, I don't feel good. There's an I always coming up, coming again and again. So we could think, we have to examine then where does this I come from? Where is this ego? So we could again classify that either it comes from the I as a name, that whatever your name is, that must be your I, that's your ego. Or it could be your body, that your body, this body that we have, is the I, is the ego. Or that the mind, that we have this mind going, functioning, that this is the I, this is the ego. But first, if we look at it, actually the name is not the eye, because when we were in the mother's womb, we were just a lump of flesh, and we didn't have a name, no one called us anything at that time, and we were just like an unconscious lump of flesh that just grew larger and larger until we were born.

[55:20]

At the time of birth, then our parents said, oh, we have a child, and we give him this name. So that was created after you were born, but that one who was in the womb before, he didn't have a name, so this name that we got was just given to us, it was applied to us at the time of birth. So that I, the real I, this ego, is not the name, because even when you didn't have a name, you had I, you thought, I'm happy or I'm sad, or you moved around the womb, you did something. So the I is not, the name is not the I. Then we can think maybe that the body is the I, that this body is the I, but then actually we only have this body for a certain number of years and then at the time of dying, when we pass away, this body is either buried into the ground or thrown into water or burned up in the fire and at that time there's no more body, but yet we experience actually rebirth into another realm, into another state of existence, into another body, or in the previous times we've had many other bodies.

[56:21]

So each time we change the body, and if this body itself was the I, then in the next life we'd have to have the same body. We couldn't give it up. I mean, if the I and the body were exactly the same, we'd have to keep the same body and take it with us wherever we go. but since it's burned up or put in the ground or the worms eat it or whatever happens to it, it's not going anywhere, so that the eye and the body are not the same. In that case it might be that the mind then is the eye, but then if we examine the mind, The mind consists of various thoughts, like past thoughts. And past thoughts have already ceased. I mean, we're not thinking our past thoughts now. They're already destroyed. They're gone. We forgot about them. So that the past thoughts are not the I. That part of mind is not the I. And the future thoughts, what we're going to do tomorrow or five minutes, it hasn't come yet. It hasn't arisen yet. So this also cannot be the I because it doesn't exist. And this present thought we're having, actually, it's changing so fast. I mean, it's just a momentary flash of mental activity, just going, changing again and again and again, and it's so impermanent that that could be the I, because there's nothing to hold on to, to be there.

[57:30]

So, if the name is not the I, and the body is not the I, and the mind is not the I, there's no other place where this I could be. So there's no I. Or you. So there's no I. So what is this I that we're grasping at, actually? It's just ignorance. To grasp at such a thing as an I. We have these five aggregates of this body, the mind, and consciousness, perceptions, feelings, predispositions. We have these things together and in this accumulation of heaps, this accumulation of aggregates, then we put a name to it and say, I, when really there is no I. Just like, for example, if you walk into the house and all the lights are off and it's very dark and you walk in the house and in one corner there's a rope which is coiled up and you look and then you see, oh, there's a snake. And then you get very frightened, you know, then you want to run away or go away or you go pick up a stick because there's a snake. So, I mean, this creates, I mean, it creates a perception of something which is not there and also perceiving that this thing is a snake, it creates a chain reaction of other events to arise, such as fear, such as running away or doing some kind of activity in relation to perceiving that rope.

[58:49]

to be a snake. But then if someone else walks in the room and turns on the light, or someone else comes in who would put down the rope to start with, and he says, he says, what's wrong? There's just a rope on the corner, at the corner there, it's a rope, it's not a snake. Then all of a sudden, all your fear dissolves, it just disappears, it goes away naturally. Because then you understand that that thing which you feared as to be a snake was really in reality just a rope. So also, these five aggregates, which we're always clinging to and saying, oh, this is the I, this is the thing which we grasp to, and this is the thing from which we're doing many different types of activities and perceptions, but if we understand only these five aggregates without any self involved in it, that they're empty of any true nature, they're empty of an I, then all of our troubles, all of our misconceptions, all of our ignorance would just naturally dissolve because this body, this self, by its own nature is empty of any truth, devoid of any real existence. So in this way, this self

[59:54]

internally, external things, such as various phenomena, which are uncreated, unceasing, unresiding. This self, which is naturally unborn, which is not there, which is only created due to our own misconceptions, our own delusions and ignorance, also is not there. So all external phenomena, all internal phenomena, are completely devoid of any existence, any truth. And then, in other words, then they go beyond our own conceptualisation, that in their own nature they're naturally devoid of the way we grasp them to be true or not true or both true or neither true nor not true. So in this way, naturally, they just cease to exist in our ignorant way of looking at them. So this body itself and this mind itself are only created by conceptualization, by all these causes and conditions coming together. And as long as we have this body and this mind, which are sort of non-dually merged together, like adding milk and water together, then we create these conceptualizations and we create this grasping at things.

[61:02]

But in its own true nature, it is empty of any truth. It's empty of anything to be held by the mind. What is your name? [...] One thing at the end of the last part of the room, she said actually, in this way, when we don't find any phenomena to be existent by themselves, that all things are truly non-originating, non-ceasing, residing. Actually, this means that though things appear, I mean, they're still there, they have this appearance, but they are unoriginated, unceasing, so that they are empty by itself.

[62:06]

So just like mixing water and milk together, the appearance and emptiness are completely merged together, that they appear simultaneously. So here, Aumchit is saying, actually, that from the relative point of view, we can say then that all things, here they appear, but they're like the reflection and emitter. They're like an illusion. an illusory appearance, a magical appearance. They're like a dream, like an image in a dream. They appear from the relative point of view, but they have no true nature of their own. They're not true in their own selves. They're not existent in their own selves. They're naturally just like a mirror's reflection, or like the image in a magical show, or like the image in a dream. Then from the ultimate point of view, is that actually these things which relatively appear, like the image in a dream, that from the ultimate point of view is completely devoid of any conceptual extremes, that it exists or doesn't exist, that it's both existent and non-existent, or neither exists, non-existent.

[63:13]

This means actually then that its true nature, its ultimate nature, goes completely beyond, transcends, all of our ordinary way of thinking, all of the ways that we conceive things, that its true nature is a transcendent state, it's a transcendent wisdom, a transcendent knowledge. So, what is usually caught here is devoid of any of the conceptualizing or conceptual extremes which are created by this mind. So, Rumiji just gave a quote from R. A. Deva's text, the 400 verses, the Chatushataka, where it says actually that an ordinary person who has no doubts about if things are empty or not empty or if they're true or not true, this type of person, because he has no doubts, he's never going to enter the path and he's never going to gain Buddhahood, he's never going to see the true nature of things. But someone who hears the teaching of the Dharma and then gets a doubt and thinks, well, maybe things are empty or maybe they're not empty or maybe they're true or maybe they're not true, then when this doubt is created in the mind,

[64:16]

encourages one to seek what the truth is, it encourages one to follow the various parts of the path, it encourages one to enter into those accumulations of merit which are needed in order to understand the truth and then one actually will be able to gain Buddhahood by this so in the verse it says someone who has no merit whatsoever or very little merit will never have any doubt and will never seek the truth and those who have merit those who have accumulated merit in the past they will gain a doubt in their mind and then through having a doubt of what the true nature of things are then they will enter into the path and then this will plant the seed then, this doubt itself will plant the seed for their future buddhahood. That's it.

[65:05]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ