Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 103-minute teaching on Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra’s 37 Practices, Geshe Jampa Gyaltsen provides an extended introduction to ultimate bodhicitta, the highest motivation combining the aspiration to enlightenment for all beings with direct realization of emptiness. He clarifies that ultimate bodhicitta is not mere emptiness meditation alone but the integration of two elements: relative bodhicitta, the intention to liberate all sentient beings, and emptiness, which lacks any independent or intrinsic existence. The core of the session walks through how to investigate phenomena to realize their empty nature—using the example of a flower, a car, and a body to show that nothing concrete can be found when analyzed into parts, yet phenomena conventionally function and exist as mental labels. Geshe Jampa Gyaltsen addresses objections through logic, distinguishes between the conventional level (where objects and distinctions exist) and the ultimate level (where the searching mind finds nothing), and fields questions about interdependence, the use of the word emptiness itself, and how direct realization differs from mere intellectual negation. The teaching is aimed at serious practitioners already familiar with Buddhist philosophy and prepared to engage sustained analytical meditation.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 37 practices – KR.mp3
UUID: 178fc068-3b19-4fd6-99ae-d4fd3a5a1925
Teacher: Geshe Jampa Gyaltsen
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~6,508
So Dharma in this world. So it is very auspicious that you are here this morning. So then how is it that we arouse our motivation? First of all, we develop the understanding that all sentient beings are just the same as we ourselves are. All sentient beings do not wish to experience any suffering and only wish to experience any happiness.
So, we are equal in this sense and with this understanding that we develop the wish to free all beings without suffering from every suffering and endow them each and every one of them with with every happiness. And we if we always say we’re going to accomplish that. We cannot accomplish that unless we attain full enlightenment unless we attain Buddhahood. So, with this understanding that we develop the wish that may I guess I was just saying the thought will will occur to us that freeing the suffering is is too much and all being with every happiness is beyond my, it’s beyond my means. I cannot do that and this is such a thought will occur and we will then start thinking, well, I might as well just strive for my own happiness liberation alone.
And if that wasn’t saying, look, thinking this way, if you give in to these thoughts and start striving for your own self liberation alone, for your own happiness alone, then okay. The virtues that you you will practice, they will be they will become the cause of your own liberation but you that is not going to attain a great benefit. A very vast benefit and that is is is going to help only one one being alone. So, with this understanding, we give rise, we reinforce our determination to to practice uh-uh also that will not make our practice a practice of the great people. So, in this way, we reinforce our determination to practice uh-uh for the sake of benefiting all sentient beings because when we engage in virtuous activities with that motivation, then we not only accomplish all those little happiness and benefits that we have in mind, we can accomplish a very vast, a very immense benefit, happiness, and welfare alone, then we cannot accomplish the happiness, the welfare, and the benefit of others.
Now, when we strive, when we pursue the happiness, the benefit, and the happiness and the welfare of others, automatically, we accomplish our own without even thinking. Okay? And with this understanding, Okay. Page 24 of morning prayers. Which is an ultimate bodhicitta.
We have when we when we have to teach on ultimate bodhicitta, we have to teach on relative bodhicitta, not bodhicitta, you could say. And this is the part of the text that deals with and this this text has two parts to it. The first one is the way to meditate, which is a meditation whereby people meditate to be free from elaborations and without grasping and then the second one is giving up holding two objects of attachment and aversion as real in the in in between formal meditation sessions. This one. So then this is the topic on how do say?
This this chapter that we are going through today is chapter on the meditative. Free from elaborations and grasping and without grasping and just like I was briefly explaining what is ultimate bodhicitta. Ultimate bodhicitta is is the mind that realizes emptiness whilst steeping itself in the realization of relative bodhicitta. Okay? Speaking, the relative is that mind is that mind that is aspiring to attain enlightenment for the sake of benefiting all beings.
So, when we have that uncontrolled such an uncontrolled mind that uh-uh contrived which is the benefit of being attaining enlightenment and not the benefit of beings that is relative. And then on that basis, having it as a basis or support, as one then realizes emptiness. And that mind that realizes emptiness is steeped on that that that that that that that that was saying? So then, ultimately, bodhicitta is not uh-uh the mere realization of emptiness alone. if I was saying what here is, the solitary realizers of the lesser vehicles, they also have realization of of of emptiness.
So, the difference is in in in that there is a mind that realizes emptiness which has as a helper, as a support to it, the conventional bodhicitta. Okay? So, this allows us think. So, what we need to do is meditate on both uh-uh the mind that realizes and and meditate on relative and conventional.
We if we do not uh-uh have the mind that realize and we realize and we are mixing uh-uh half of the story so to speak and if I wasn’t saying that we we will not have this ultimate on the other hand again, if we meditate on emptiness alone and not meditate on on conventional or relative bodhi. Again, we will be we will be missing the other half of the story and again, we won’t have ultimate bodhi. So, we need to make it on both of them. We need to meditate uh-uh on on on the realization of emptiness which is the very essence or the very entity of this of body and we need to meditate on conventional bodhicitta which is the helper or the support for that. I guess I wasn’t saying now we cannot meditate on on both of these at the same time.
Okay. We don’t have to uh-uh meditate on on on on one and then they meditate on the other. So, we we we and it doesn’t, I guess I wasn’t saying it doesn’t matter which you start with and if I wasn’t saying there are those beings who start uh-uh meditating on conventional wisdom at first and then they go through all the reasonings of the seven point cause and effect or the teachings on equalizing, exchanging self for others and in this way, they develop conventional bodhicitta and then having realized that they go on to meditate on emptiness and there are also those beings who start first and then having uh-uh gain strong realization and go So then so then now we are approaching the the topic, which is how to meditate on ultimate bodhicitta. And a meditation on ultimate bodhicitta is this topic is explained as meditation on emptiness.
Okay? So then we we’ve been already most of you have been here before but anyway, we’ve been already through the root verse of this chapter. We’ve been through some of the commentary and and we’ve been approaching some quotes that with respect to the same topic and then we’ll we’ll follow on with the commentary to those quotes. The commentary is just saying that that all phenomena which are under the category of external objects, they are all merely imputed by mind. Their existence is as merely imputed by mind, really labeled by mind.
Okay? So I guess that was a bit strange. So then what are these external objects? Okay.
So it’s everything everything is an object of the sense consciousness with form, sound, taste, and so on. Also space also emptiness and so forth. Everything that is a a product. Generally speaking, I was saying the distinction is made between uh-uh external and internal objects in that external internal objects are those which are included within the mental continuum of a person or the person, and external are those which are not included in the mental continuum of the person. Okay?
Also, this is we can also make another another we can bring this distinction of external and internal objects to with relationship to the five aggregates relationship to the five aggregates themselves. So, we have the aggregates of form aggregate of feelings, the aggregates of uh-uh discrimination, the aggregates of composition of factors, and the aggregate of consciousness. Okay? So of these five aggregates, the first one, which is the aggregate of form, is external objects. Okay?
And the other four, which are feeling discrimination, compositional factors, and consciousness, they are internal objects. Okay? Internal so then all those things that we study on Thursday, so mental factors, they are all internal objects. Okay? So I guess that wasn’t saying again, going back to the same sentence.
Again, all all external all all all phenomena which are included in the category of external phenomena, all of them are exist only as merely merely labeled by mind and they do not have any existence from their own side and this because I wasn’t saying this this lack of of existence from their own side. This is what we call emptiness. It’s emptiness of the they they are empty of of any existence from their own side. They’re lacking in on their own side and we are we are are told that this is what we have to understand. The second part of that sentence saying again, and also the labeling mind itself is free from being born, abiding, and disintegrating.
All external phenomena, okay? One’s body and everything else, they only exist as merely labeled by mind. They do not they do not have any existence with their own self, from from from the from their own side. So, also the mind that imputes itself also does not have any existing from its own side. It does not have any uh-uh inherent existence.
Uh-uh or production. This does not have any existing abiding or does not have any existing cessation or disintegration. Okay? So, all phenomena, internal and external, are all labeled. Existence is only labeled by mind.
And the concluding sentence of the concluding part of that sentence is then telling us that every phenomenon which appears either as perceived or perceived or observed or observer all all of of phenomenon, they are they are all free from conceptual elaborations and as such, they exist. They remain as emptiness. Okay. They remain as emptiness free from any conceptual elaborations. And in this way, the yogi who at at the time of of his practice at the time of practicing the path in this way, then he gained certainty about the natural state of all phenomena in in this way that has been explained and then every how to perceive and with this with this certainty, then he realized that every outer outer perceived object does not exist as anything whatsoever.
Also, perceiving mind does not hold or grasp at anything at all, be it an entity or non-entity. Mhmm. And also so then the perceiving mind does not hold anything at all. It’s the entity and so forth and nothing whatsoever is conceptualized in this way that you rests uh-uh in meditative and undistracted in a state of not mentally engaging anything at all. And this is and this is the way to meditate in this space like in the meditative of space like emptiness.
Going back to the second half of that sentence. So in the outer perceived objects do not exist as anything whatsoever. Do not have any existence whatsoever. And if I wasn’t saying so then take, for example, this outer perceived object, then we can take our body, for example. Okay?
It is out of if I I wasn’t saying and if I was using the word in Tibetan and I said, no, the word in English is body. So, I wouldn’t say so take take body. Okay. It only exists. This body only exists as a meaning label.
Okay. If you look for body within this aggregate here, you won’t find it. If you look in the hand, in the arms, in the legs, and so forth, you look everywhere and you will not find one thing which you can see And, again, the same for another another illustration in another illustration. Take a car, for example, again, besides existing as as a as being labeled I guess I was gonna say if you if you pull all the pieces and parts of the car apart, then you won’t find the car anywhere within any of those parts of this. And, again, if you if you bring all of them together, then, again, you you won’t find the car.
So then So that’s what was gonna say. So it is not it is not any one part of it and just the mere how can I say? If you just take all those parts and put it here on the corner and then that that, you know, that is the collection, which is a collection of those parts. Again, that’s not that you couldn’t call the car also. So there’s not the collection.
What I was going say is we we search for it, right? We look for it and we didn’t find anything, right? And that’s not finding itself is what we call it’s it’s not being truly existent or it’s not being inherently existent or it’s not being or or being empty or in existence from its own side. That’s what we call it. So I guess that was in sense.
So take take, for example, a cow, a goat Mhmm. And a tiger. Okay? He started talking about three people, and it sounded like a joke. But so it’s a cow, goat, and a tiger.
So then if you if you say that, where is the cow? And you say, look. Well, the goat is not a cow. Okay? It’s empty of being a cow.
The tiger is empty of being a cow. But then you say, where is the cow? The cow is there is there anything that you can point out and say, is there a cow? Yes. There is.
And you take the cow itself and it serves as a basis as a proper basis of imputation for the label cow. And there is that. And it’s always in the same goes for the cow. And still, So Geshe-la is saying. So then the the situation that Geshe-la was giving you the car, again, there’s nothing within the the collection of parts and pieces and everything, which we call car, that we can point out and say, that is a car.
Right? And then on the other hand, that all the illustration of the three animals, sounds a bit different. Right? Because I was just saying, look, the goat is not the cow. The tiger is not the cow.
And there is there is there is one thing which we we can point out and we call we say that is a cow, isn’t it? We can do that. That’s alright. But still, if you look at the positive of that cow, if you look at the head, at the legs, at the hooves, hooves, And you start to think so then the car is this it exists only as merely labeled by mind. And if you if you look for for the car within those parts and everything, you you won’t find anything.
It is unfinished. Okay? And the same applies to every single phenomenon that is, you know, If you should look for it, you won’t find And I guess I wasn’t saying and that’s that mind that is unable to find the phenomenon question. Okay. Is a mind.
It’s a specific mind. It’s a mind which is searching for the way of existence or the natural state which is all of it as a natural state of phenomena. Okay? And for that mind which is searching for the way the phenomenon exists which is searching for the natural state of phenomena then uh-uh and and when it does guess that was the same. So then that mind which is searching for the way the phenomena exist.
Okay? For the natural state of phenomena, does not find anything. Right? Now, is it to say that phenomena do not exist at all? No.
That’s not the case. Phenomena still do exist. So I guess, I was insane. So there is that mind that is that is searching or investigating the old way of existence of phenomena of the natural state of the ultimate natural state of phenomena and then in that mind, you cannot find anything. Okay?
So, it’s not to say that phenomena do not exist or do exist. So, you have that that thing that performs the functions of a car. Okay. It’s and and then you have the mind that labels the label the car onto that appropriate basis of imputation. Okay?
So, you have in that line which is imposing the appropriate label of car onto the appropriate basis of imputation. Is is a conventional mind. Okay? So, you have a conventional mind and you have a mind which is looking into the ultimate way of existence, into the way that the phenomenon exists. I guess what I was saying.
So then again, uh-uh for that conventional mind and the phenomenon does exist. So that phenomenon do exist in in the level of conventional mind and for that mind which is looking to the way that phenomenon exists into the the natural state of phenomenon, the ultimate nature of phenomenon, then there’s nothing there, that mind finds nothing there. Nothing from from the side of phenomena itself. Okay. Which is a car or which is a cow and so forth.
The way the phenomenon exists, when it does not find anything amongst the external phenomena, and even the mind itself, it says there is nothing there. There is nothing there which is mind. Is nothing there which is a particular external phenomena. Then everything is just like space itself. Just like empty space itself and this is and this is how this is sort of how can I say that?
This is sort of the feel that we have to have when we when we realize it. This is the feeling that everything is just like in this space. Then I think it’s little bit goes from that that whole sentence and says, okay. So then this is this is it. So when we the mind looks for it, doesn’t find anything, and it’s it’s it’s sort of this this is thinking to yourself about what everything is just like empty space and in this in in this state.
So, what we have to we have to play our minds and make it to be able cripple us. We have to settle our minds in this state and this realization. Everything is just like have a quote from a commentary on the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, which says, a mind free of focus dwells in the characteristic of space. This meditation of space is asserted to be meditation. The first of the Tibetan verse says is a mind which is free or separated from any object of observation.
That’s that will be the most technical and literal translation of of that verse. So then I mind that when when looking into the ultimate nature of of phenomenon, to the way the phenomenon exists, which is searching for for for for the phenomenon itself, when that mind doesn’t find anything, either form, feeling, or composition of factor or or anything, you know, or or mind or consciousness, it doesn’t find anything from its own side. There’s a complete emptiness of anything. There’s a complete lack of of of existence of anything from from from its own side. Then then my advice then in the characteristic of space of phenomenon.
I guess I wasn’t saying, what is this characteristic? So space, we realize space directly as a lack of of of contact and obstruction. And this lack of contact and obstruction is what is what we call the negation and and which is space. Okay? And the same applies for phenomenon.
Okay? Phenomenal lack any existence from its own side, any phenomenon, any phenomenon that lacks any existence from its own side and in this way, because of this lack, it is said to be very much like space in this sense. It is also a negation. It’s also realizes like we realize space. It’s it’s also negation.
So the object which is negated, the object of negation, which is contact and obstruction in the case of space is different in the case of emptiness, which is existence from its own side. Right? But the the idea of of having a leg and then to the side is the same. Okay? Is that okay?
There you go. It’s fine. Okay. Did you do it again? You’re gonna do it Yes.
And then this is lot is it was with another quote from the way of life, which is which is about this topic. So it’s very difficult. So it’s like this. I I will read the translation that I have from Stephen Batchelor, and I will give just a stake on the last line of verse the this this agrees a bit. So whenever entities and nonentities, okay, or things and non things, do dwell before your mind, since at that time there are no outer features.
This is the line that is that is the one from from many interpretations. Absence of a reference point is utter peace. Okay? Now this expression in the end, which is is utter peace. Okay?
Reference from peace, outer peace. I guess I wasn’t saying correctly. Okay? Let me take this verse in isolation. You can you can translate it in so many different ways, actually.
I guess I wasn’t saying because I was giving them another thing. Okay? And if I wasn’t saying that last sentence, if I was giving a way to reiterate it for the first three so this the the the third line is saying, since at that time, there are no outer features. There’s no aspects or anything that is perceived as a complete entrance. And then the absence total absence, I guess, was saying, it is in the sense of disintegration, of utter cessation, which I was gonna say, using this word in in in a different meaning altogether.
So not not not not as peace, but as as complete cessation, complete disintegration disintegration or destruction. So then this is complete destruction or cessation or absence of any reference point whatsoever. It’s not what’s in sense of this. It’s only this absolute and then the last two lines of of another verse of the same text of saying again, everything is just like space. It’s like space.
Right? So, all of you like me must comprehend this And then there’s another quote from Kamalaśīla who says within intrinsic nature, which is free of all mental mental constructs. That’s what I wasn’t saying. So then the the the the natural state of phenomenon is free of all the mental concepts or conceptions of existence or true existence of of any kind of or existence from its own side of any kind of So, we think that intrinsic nature which is free of mental concepts leave also the mind free of mental concepts. So, also, the mind itself also is is beyond any concepts of new And also from Kamalaśīla, he is also saying, realizing by way of non conception.
Okay. That is what is called realization of the ultimate. This is what is called realization of the ultimate. And I was explaining that first sentence, realizing by way of nonconception. So when when you realize that’s just like space, which which lacks contact and and obstruction.
Right? And that negation itself, which is the negation is lack of content or con contact and obstruction. Right? It’s not what I’m saying. And that negation itself is nothing in itself.
Right? So space is a negation, and the negation also is nothing. Okay? So there’s there’s nothing altogether. There’s absolutely no concept.
What’s altogether that can be applied Okay. To the when you look into each nation, it’s utterly empty. Utterly lacking anything. So, when you realize When you realize emptiness, beyond any concept, that is what is called the realization of the ultimate. Okay?
Oh, yeah. Yes. Just from that last point, can we say that the word emptiness is a construct of the labeling mind, and it is actually to use the word emptiness and to to using that is actually is a barrier to going beyond that word. So So what we should not say is that the word emptiness is is applied to a to a proper basis is is is given to a proper basis of imputation of emptiness which is emptiness itself that lack of of whatever particular phenomenon we’re talking about. Okay?
So, it could be of anything. So then it’s it’s applied upon that that lack of inherent existence. So, it’s it’s referring to an actual thing itself. So, uh-uh it’s in the same way that the name if I was saying Rodrigo is applied to an actual thing. It is this here and to that is given the name Rodrigo but the name Rodrigo does not does not stop you from from seeing me.
Yes. Yes. So then on the on the So that is on the basis of of and on the basis of the meaning of that word, okay, of of emptiness. Okay? It is on the basis of the meaning of that word that we can direct our awareness to investigate and analyze phenomena properly to see how is it that phenomena exist and then that we realize it.
Oh, for years. It’s a guiding a guiding force to do so. And it will be a. Imputed is the same. The same meaning is how it sounds that sounds is is what is something that’s me.
Okay. So, phenomena that the phenomena only is the label and the emptiness of phenomena. Also, we realize both by realizing the the negation, the object of negation which is the lack of which is in here in existence or in existence from its own side. So, realizing the the the object negation negating Another question. Yes.
So is it a practice? Am I practicing at tennis before I say, look around the room, and I don’t think carpet. I don’t think microphone or covenant or, you know, light. So I’m I’m just looking, but without thinking of what of labeling or or is that emptiness? Is saying, look, that’s not meditation on emptiness.
Okay? That is merely not thinking about things. You know, not thinking that this is this or this is that. Meditation on emptiness is is what’s the the word I’m looking for there? There is no.
No. No. No. It’s not. It’s a it’s a what is what is what is the word?
Will will it’s it’s not just It’s it’s it’s not just how does it it’s it’s Intentional? Intentional. Intentional. You could say it’s intentional. Yes.
Yeah. Yeah. And and intentionally looking into the way that phenomena exist into the nature of phenomena, into the absolute nature of phenomena. So it’s and and I guess I wasn’t giving you the description of the flower, for example. So then you you have the flower.
For the conventional mind, it’s just you just see the flower. There’s a label flower, and it’s it’s all good. But when you look, how is it that the flower exists? Where is the flower? And then you look into the is it on the on the color?
What color is that? Rose? Oh, is it pink? So, is it is it is it that that pink? Is it the flower?
Is it the petal? Is that petal? Is this petal? Is it the green leaf? Is it is it the stem?
When you look at when you look at the flower, you won’t find anything. You don’t find anything there. And then when you when you when you go when when you do it in this way, totally, and you you finally die and realize, just the same way that you do have realize the empty space or or that or that you realize that the pillar is not here, you know, or the the bush is not here. This you gotta realize that. Okay?
In the same and and then when you realize that in this way, this is realization of emptiness. See, you don’t find the flower So then for that mind which is investigating, which is looking into what is a flower? Where is a flower? You know, is it is it the pink? Is it the white?
Is it the green? Is it the leaf? Is it the petal? Is it the stem? Is it even that mind won’t doesn’t find anything.
It’s easy to say there’s no flower whatsoever. No. For the conventional mind, when I say to you, bring me those flowers, you you bring them. You immediately take that and you bring it. That is flowers.
There are the flowers for the conventional mind. There it is. So, again, it’s like I so then there is this distinction must be meaningful. So, for that awareness which is looking into the way this phenomenon exists, then there’s nothing there. You won’t.
It doesn’t find anything but for that awareness which is not concerned with the way the phenomenon is which is just going about our days or it’s it’s day and then the flowers there just like this is like when you you you are watching TV and you see maybe somebody, you know, cooking some food and you think, oh, it looks really good and tasty. But if you want to eat it, you can buy it because it’s not real. It’s not you know, it looks and sounds very nice and all that. It’s not there and the same and the same with the other phenomenon and the phenomenon. They do not exist in the way they appear to exist.
If you look for it, you don’t find anything. If you do not look for it for the conventional mind, then there it is. And we and we use it and we functions and so forth. That’s a tricky one. That’s good.
Do we progress from a conceptual understanding that we can break the flower Go on. A minute. Did did did did it sink a little bit? Yeah. That’s like Oh, yeah.
Yeah. So It’s very, very difficult idea. Well, do was just I was just there’s there’s another way which is also not so difficult of of thinking about it, which is this one it’s a brief reason. Okay? It says if if if something exists, it must either be one or many.
Right? One and one. Then they say to retake the flower, and you look for the flower. If the flower exists, it might it must exist as either one or many. So you look at all the all the parts and bits and pieces of the flower, the petals, the leaves, or the stems, and bits of it, and you don’t find anything.
There’s no one thing there, which is the flower. And and the the collection of all those parts cannot also be the the flower because once you you stated that the one thing is not the flower, the parts which are made of made of ones cannot also be the flower. Collection, which is also made of ones cannot cannot also be the flower. Made of what? Ones.
Yes. Oneness and one that and one somewhere else. Parts. Parts. Not good.
Sorry. If the parts are not it, the collection of the of the parts cannot be Okay. There’s another way to think about it. There’s a many ways many different ways. This is something about which we have to think a lot about.
We have to contemplate it a lot and work out in our minds. There are many different ways that I like trying to demonstrate. There are many different ways. There are different reasons to go through and establish that and you have to go through all of these reasons like time and again, develop a clear and solid understanding. Phenomena are empty.
Empty of having any existence, independent existence from its own side of having any existence from its own side. So, but it’s not it’s not the phenomenon that existed or they exist. How is it that they exist? They exist in dependence upon an immeasurable amount of causes and conditions in dependence upon a merely labeling, a merely labeling mind, and that’s that’s how it is. Okay?
Just just you want to ask something? It’s This is we’re gonna translate this into Tibetan. Okay? We automatically fall into a very specific logical terminology just by saying one. Okay?
I’m going to translate. I’m just warning you that it is not what you are thinking. Okay? If you’re not thinking in terms of of very specific Tibetan terminology, logical terminology, which is what this is going to use. You’re not going to fully understand the answer, and you’re not understanding the question, which is which is okay.
Which is okay. It’s it’s okay. Empty life. It’s because I see where you’re coming from. So then and this is sensible to the things as you will see in the answer.
Now, when you said because every phenomenon is interdependent or arise in dependence on other phenomenon. Okay. Which is another way to put it. You said, are they all one? I said, no, they’re not one.
Okay. I mean, there are many many people here and we are not one. Okay? I’m Rodrigo. You’re Chris and there’s no way around it.
And then on the other hand, you know, okay, even though we are not one, on the other hand, do we owe what we all did we all come out of the wombs of our mothers? Yes. And in this way, we are the same. Okay. The word in Tibetan is is the is the same actually.
Translates in English as one and same. Okay? So and here’s the and then is using the the colloquial terminology, and there’s the philosophical terminology. There’s three, four different meanings here for the same word. Okay?
And that’s why I’m telling you, that’s that’s what I’m telling you. Look, we are not one. Okay. There’s all all of us here. We are not one.
We are many but we are one or we are equal or we are the same and that we all came out of the wombs of our mothers. That was the normal normal. All have our own individual characteristics of the flowers and the same. We Don’t we? But we still we and everything else is still interdependent on everything here.
That’s Okay. Maybe maybe getting lost. Maybe take the idea of interdependence as as ecology as western ecology has has taught you, give that up because it doesn’t apply here. Okay? Think of dependent origination.
Western ecology and Buddhism as as many people want you to believe that quantum physics, ecology, biology and all that is this amounts to the same as religion. Okay? Do not buy that. This is not true. This is very wrong.
Okay? They’re dealing with two different things. So, forget all that stuff that we all have read. You know, that’s not good. This is religion.
This is spirituality. This is mind. That is matter. Okay. One of the uh-uh you know, so So I was just explaining what I was telling you that, you know, in science, western science, we have all these words and all these people trying to say that, you know, quantum physics, quantum physics, you’re to get enlightened.
It’s not true. You’re not going to get enlightened. Never ever. And then there’s all this confusion of different words and terminology. Okay.
I guess I would say, yes, yes, there is all these things. They did not amount to the same thing. Science is Western, and science and spirituality do not amount to the same thing. But there is another way. I guess I was gonna say there’s another way in which we are all equal or we are all the same or the chick.
Okay? Okay. Don’t say one. Equal You the same. It’s it’s it’s the word that has many different means.
It also means one but it means the same. Okay. We are all the same in that we are all empty. Even the scientists when they look into the way the phenomenon is, they will not find anything there. Okay?
Nobody’s going to find anything anywhere. Everything is empty and in this in this regard, also, we are all equal. We are all the same. This is not just an analogy. This is just an analogy.
Yeah. No. I’m just saying I read that, and I thought, well, this interesting concept. Something is can be normal I’m sorry. Didn’t do that.
No. Don’t be sorry. Nothing wrong. You didn’t do anything wrong. That’s why I don’t have to be sorry.
It’s like this. When we’re talking about see, this is this is a gymnastics. Okay? It’s a mental gymnastics. You’re talking about the the cup being empty of water.
And I am am and I am presently, for one reason or another, which is not due to me, being unable to translate just that. Okay? So what is saying is the cup is empty of of existence at all times. It is always empty of inherent existence. Okay?
It it there was never a moment when the cup was inherent existence, and then it seems to be inherent existence and it lacks inherent existence just like you want to say that the cup now has water, and then later it doesn’t have water. It lacks water. But but what you said is great. The cup is empty of water because it was there, but it wasn’t. But the cup itself is empty because there’s never been a cup.
And the water and the drinker and the drinking. Yeah. And again, he’s also gonna say and I lost where is it? So I guess I was gonna say, look, he’s for whatever reason, then saying that, okay. Oh, okay.
Look. The cup was also always empty in the relative sense that it’s that it there was never an absence of empty space in the cup. There was always, at all times, empty space in the cup. I guess I was saying that I was off the mark. It’s not what is it about.
It’s talking about the analogy because I was just saying, look, it is it’s just that there’s there’s always space in the cup where where the water goes in and so forth. You can only say there’s always there’s always that that that negative that negation of the of contact and obstruction is always there. So, in this sense, you could say, also, the cup is always empty. So there are many ways to go around. Okay.
Page 26. Oh, yeah. Okay.