Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Handout on Buddha Nature – topic that begins on May 14 – TRACK 0 .............................................. 1
Final
Class
on
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
topic
–
TRACK
1
.............................................
1
Two
Types
of
Misconceptions
Undermined
on
the
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
........................
1
1.
Conceptions
of
Objects
of
Perception
.
..............................................................................
2
2.
Conceptions
of
Perceivers
................................................................................................
3
Identifying
the
Mind
that
is
the
Root
of
Cyclic
Existence.
...............................................................
3
Mere
Conventional
Imputation
mixed
with
Appearance
of
True/Inherent
Existence
is
Not
the
Root
of
Samsara:
the
Improper
Attitude
that
develops
from
correct
imputation
is.
...............
5
All
Our
Minds
are
Mistaken
but
Mistaken
minds
are
distinguished
from
Wrong
Minds,
which
are
Roots
of
Samsara
.............................................................................................................................
7
Criteria
for
a
Mind
to
be
a
Root
of
Samsara
......................................................................................
8
Debates
regarding
the
two
Conceptions
undermined
on
the
Path
of
Preparation
–
TRACK
2
10
Debate
1
–
Refuting
someone’s
Wrong
Definitions
......................................................................
10
Conceptions
of
Objects
of
Perceptions
&
Conceptions
of
Perceivers
are
Contradictory
........
10
Clarification
of
Terminological
Differences
in
Geluk
&
Kagyu
Traditions
...........................
13
Clarification:
Truly
Existing
Experiencers
refers
to
Persons
&
Any
Awareness
..................
15
Is
a
Mind
that
is
a
Root
of
Samsara
Necessarily
Either
a
Conception
of
Objects
of
Perception
or
Conception
of
Perceivers?
..........................................................................
17
Distinguishing
a
mind
that
perceives
its
Focus
as
Truly
Existent
[not
a
Root
of
Samsara]
&
a
mind
that
[actively]
apprehends
that
Focus
to
be
a
Truly
Existent
Object
of
Experience.
...
17
Debate
2
-‐
Refuting
the
objection
that
an
absurd
consequence
follows
from
our
definitions
of
the
two
conceptions.
.........................................................................................................................
20
Debate
3
-‐
Someone
says
that
a
conceptual
awareness
that
focuses
on
a
conceptual
consciousness
perceiving
vases
and
apprehends
it
to
be
truly
impermanent
is
a
conceptual
awareness
that
focuses
on
the
conceptual
consciousness
perceiving
vases
and
apprehends
it
to
be
impermanent.
TRACK
3
........................................................................................................
25
Debate
4
–
Perception
of
an
independent
self
apprehended
to
be
truly
impermanent
object
of
perception
is
not
a
conception
that
is
a
root
of
samsara
because
its
focal
object
does
not
exist.
....................................................................................................................................
26
Debate
5
–
Someone
says
that
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
vases
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
perceivers
is
a
conception
of
perceivers.
....................
27
Inner
&
Outer
Special
Tutors
on
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
......................................
33
What
is
an
Inner
Lama?
.......................................................................................................
39
Ornament
for
Clear
Realization
—
Perfection
of
Wisdom
Studies
Class
16
-‐
2014
May
12
–
Monday2
Institute
for
Buddhist
Dialectics,
McLeod
Ganj,
India
Handout on Buddha Nature – topic that begins on May 14 – TRACK 0
Buddha
Nature
is
one
of
the
most
important
topics.
There
are
a
few
topics
within
the
POWS
that
are
considered
extremely
important,
e.g.,
BC,
and
Buddha
Nature
is
considered
one
of
those
main
topics.
If
you’ve
been
here
during
the
five
days
of
the
Tibetan
New
Year’s
Monlam
Chenmo,
Great
Prayer
Festival.
When
His
Holiness
attends
a
session,
after
the
prayers,
debates
are
offered
and
Buddha
Nature
is
a
popular
topic
for
those.
The
debates
are
very
short
because
so
many
people
are
queuing
up
to
debate,
but
many
of
them
debate
BN,
because
it
is
considered
a
very
auspicious
topic.
.
.
.
How
many
misconceptions
are
there
to
be
undermined
on
the
four
levels
of
the
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation?
Two
Types
of
Misconceptions
Undermined
on
the
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
Four
Misconceptions
that
can
be
summarized
into
two.3
We’ll
focus
on
those
two
today
and
talk
about
their
definitions.
I’ll
give
you
a
little
drawing
on
the
board
so
it
will
be
clear.
existence.
The
conceptions
of
true
existence
that
are
explicitly
indicated
during
the
Ornament's
presentation
of
the
Mahayana
path
of
preparation
can
be
categorized
into:
1. Conceptions
of
Objects
of
Perception
(gzung
rtog
-‐
གཟ#ང་&ོག་)
apprehend
truly
existent
objects
ལོངས་&ད་(་)
of
experience
(Tib:
longs
spyad
bya
-‐
GESHE
WANGMO:
No,
that
is
the
meaning.
What
is
the
actual
mind
called?
There
are
two
types
of
mind,
awareness;
two
kinds
of
misconceptions
of
reality
that
can
each
be
subdivided
into
two.
What the first of those two kinds of misconceptions of reality called?
This
is
different
from
saying
a
mind
that
perceives
whatever
object
the
mind
focuses
on
to
be
truly
existent.
Those
minds
exist,
but
here
we’re
looking
at
a
specific
case.
It’s
not
the
same
as
perceiving
a
vase
to
be
truly
existent.
That’s
just
taking
one
object
and
perceiving
it
to
exist
in
an
impossible
way.
However,
we
don’t
just
do
that
with
regard
the
misperception
of
reality:
It’s
not
just
that
we
perceive:
“I
exist
truly”;
“You
exist
truly”;
“the
food
I
eat
exists
truly.”
That
is
one
kind
of
misperception.
However,
our
misconceptions
are
much
more
complicated
than
that.
I
also
perceive:
X
to
be
Y.
I
don’t
just
perceive
X.
I
perceive
X
to
be
Y.
I
perceive
that
person
to
be
angry
or
that
person
to
be
a
man.
I
perceive
a
noun
and
its
attributes.
And
not
only
do
I
perceive
certain
attributes
about
phenomena,
I
perceive
these
phenomena
to
have
those
attributes
truly,
inherently,
to
have
this
and
that
qualities
inherently.
The
vase
is
inherently
impermanent.
So
it
is
much
more
complicated,
and
if
you
start
looking
at
your
own
mind,
it
becomes
obvious.
Conceptions
of
objects
of
perception
apprehend
truly
existent
objects
of
experience
(Tib:
longs
ལོངས་&ད་(་
spyad
bya
-‐
)
and
conceptions
of
perceivers
apprehend
truly
existent
experiencers
(longs
spyod
byed
-‐
ལོངས་&ད་!དེ ་).
Please
note:
Here
perceivers
and
experiencers
have
the
same
meaning:
they
both
refer
either
to
awarenesses
or
to
living
beings.
Likewise,
objects
of
perception
and
objects
of
experience
have
the
same
meaning:
they
both
refer
to
the
objects
of
those
awarenesses
or
living
beings.
Therefore,
the
bases
of
misperception
(i.e.,
the
phenomena
they
perceive
to
exist
truly/inherently)
of
(i)
conceptions
of
objects
of
perceptions
are
objects
of
experience
and
the
bases
of
misperception
of
(2)
conception
of
perceivers
are
experiencers.
[SPRING
2014
HANDOUT
1
–
p.
*]
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
3
Preparation
We
don’t
just
ascribe
characteristics
onto
an
object/person,
but
perceive
those
characteristics
to
be
inherently
existent
characteristics
of
a
person.
So
I
can
say,
I
perceive
a
table
to
be
an
object
of
experience.
That
is
something
I
can
say
about
the
table.
When
we
study
Buddhism,
we
learn
about
objects
and
the
minds
that
perceive
the
objects.
But
it
seems
to
be
a
truly
existent
table,
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience,
not
just
an
object
of
experience.
So
it
is
important
to
become
aware
how
in
every
situation,
there’s
a
sense
that
our
objects
of
experience
independently,
truly
from
their
own
side,
inherently.
Conceptions of Objects of Perception is the name of a mind that is described as:
A
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
a
table
(for
example)
and
apprehends
it
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience.
So
here,
they
chose
object
of
experience.
You
could
choose
anything.
You
could
say,
truly
existent
permanent,
truly
existent
impermanent,
having
a
truly
existent
shape
–
whatever
you
wanted
to
say
about
table.
Here, we say, focuses on a truly existent object of experience.
Identifying
the
Mind
that
is
the
Root
of
Cyclic
Existence.
So
one
thing
that
is
important:
Whatever
the
mind
focuses
on,
it
must
be
an
object
of
experience
in
the
case
of
the
first
mind.
E.g.,
the
mind
that
perceives
a
vase
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience.
For
that
mind
to
be
a
Conception
of
Objects
of
Experienceˆ,
in
other
words,
for
that
to
be
a
mind
that
grasps
onto
inherent
existence:
What
is
the
mind
that
that
grasps
after
inherent
existence?
Why
is
that
mind
so
important?
Because
it
is
the
Root
of
Cyclic
Existence.
Any
mind
that
perceives
inherent
existence,
that
misperceives
reality,
is
said
to
be
the
root
of
all
our
afflictions.
So
no
matter
what
mind
it
is,
it
always
leads
to
an
affliction.
Check
your
own
mind
and
see
whether
that
is
true.
Look
at
any
jealousy,
anger,
attachment,
any
of
the
whole
range
of
afflictions
(regarding,
e.g.,
a
person),
see
whether
you
can
find
that
you
perceive
the
person
to
be
inherently
existent,
inherently
having
those
qualities.
So
that
is
the
root
of
Cyclic
Existence.
In
order
to
perceive
a
vase
to
be
an
inherently
impermanent
vase,
then
the
vase
must
be
impermanent.
Otherwise,
if
I
were
to
perceive
a
vase
to
be
truly
existing
impermanent
4
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
phenomenon,
it
would
be
a
wrong
consciousness,
but
if
the
vase
is
not
impermanent,
that
is
not
a
mind
that
grasps
onto
inherent
existence.
For
example,
is
the
vase
permanent?
No,
the
vase
is
not
permanent.
If
I
were
to
perceive
the
vase
to
be
truly
permanent,
that
mind
that
perceives
the
vase
to
be
truly
permanent,
is
that
a
root
of
samsara?
No,
that
would
not
be
the
root
of
Cyclic
Existence.
Because
it
is
easy
to
understand
that
is
incorrect;
all
you
have
to
realize
is
that
a
vase
is
not
permanent.
By
understanding
that,
you
know
the
vase
is
not
truly
permanent.
That’s
easy.
However,
since
the
vase
is
impermanent,
not
permanent.
And
to
us
it
is
truly
impermanent
and,
for
us,
that
is
not
easy
to
understand
because
for
that,
you
have
to
realize
the
Emptiness
of
vase
being
impermanent.
The
Emptiness
of
vase
being
permanent
doesn’t
exist
because
vase
being
permanent
doesn’t
exist.
So
that
is
the
point
of
this
presentation.
Some
people
get
it
wrong
and
think:
Any
mind
that
perceives
inherent
existence
must
be
the
root
of
Cyclic
Existence.
E.g.,
taking
the
inherently
existent
I
and
perceiving
that
to
be
truly
existent
-‐-‐
that
is
not
the
root
of
Cyclic
Existence.
Because
the
inherently
existent
I
does
not
exist.
So
its
lack
of
true
existence
is
not
Emptiness.
The
non-‐existence
of
the
truly
existent
Self
that
is
Emptiness,
that
is
the
Emptiness
of
the
Self.
But
saying,
truly
existing
Self
existing
truly
–
the
mind
the
perceives
that
is
not
the
root
of
Cyclic
Existence.
To
be
the
root
of
Samsara,
it
must
be
about
something
that
exists
on
the
basis
of
which
you
perceive
it
to
be
truly
existent.
So
this
is
what
today’s
topic
is
about.
If
you
understand
that,
the
rest
is
not
that
complicated.
But just before we get there, see what is happening here:
So it is not just true existence but truly existent experiencer
MAYA:
I
became
completely
lost
here.
If
you’re
talking
at
.
.
.
we’re
using
the
term
truly
existent,
so
that
is
a
wrong
mind
anyway.
GESHE
WANGMO:
No,
no.
Okay.
Just
think
of
X
and
Y or
A and
B.
This
is
A,
and
this
is
B.
So
you
take,
In
this
case,
give
me
an
example
of
object
of
experience.
STUDENT: Table.
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
5
Preparation
GESHE
WANGMO:
A
table,
okay.
You
can
have
a
conceptual
mind
that
perceives
a
table
to
be
an
object
of
experience.
And
that
is
a
correct
mind.
But
then
to
you
and
to
all
of
us,
not
only
is
the
table
an
object
of
experience,
the
table
truly
an
object
of
experience.
MAYA: But you just said that is a wrong mind, not just mistaken but a wrong mind.
GESHE WANGMO: Wait. Of course it is a wrong mind. It is the root of samsara.
TODD: Why.
Mere
Conventional
Imputation
mixed
with
Appearance
of
True/Inherent
Existence
is
Not
the
Root
of
Samsara:
the
Improper
Attitude
that
develops
from
correct
imputation
is.
GESHE WANGMO: Wait. A table is an object of experience; right?
So
when
you
actively
apprehend
a
table
to
be
an
object
of
experience:
Sometimes
there
are
minds
-‐-‐
because
not
every
mind
is
totally
wrong.
-‐-‐
there
are
minds
that
perceive
a
table
to
be
an
object
of
experience,
so
the
appearance
–
we’re
not
talking
about
the
appearance
here.
If
it
is
a
correct
mind,
that
mind
is
correct.
But
oftentimes,
not
all
the
time,
but
oftentimes,
especially
when
there
are
strong
emotions
involved,
say,
when
there’s
an
object
of
attachment.
This
is
just
an
example,
let’s
take
a
person
that
we
very
much
like,
and
we’re
attached
to.
That
person
has
certain
good
qualities,
they’re
kind.
So
on
first
meeting
the
person,
before
the
attachment
sets
in,
we
usually
just
think,
‘Oh,
this
person
is
kind.’
That’s
how
it
starts.
Yesterday
Jadho
Rinpoche
spoke
at
Tushita
about
the
improper
attitude.
I
don’t
know
another
way
to
translate
it.
That’s
basically
saying
that:
first,
you
perceive
something
about
an
object,
you
perceive
it
to
be
pleasant
or
unpleasant:
that’s
a
correct
mind
at
first.
And
then
that
correct
mind
becomes
an
improper
attitude.
Before,
the
mind
at
first
was,
‘Oh,
that
object
is
pleasant’.
But
now
it
perceives
that
object
to
be
truly
pleasant
or
the
person
to
be
truly
kind.
It’s
not
just
that
we’ve
imputed
them
to
be
kind.
We
see
them
as
kind,
that’s
just
imputed.
Because
the
person
is
imputed
to
be
kind,
therefore,
we
can
say,
conventionally,
‘the
person
is
kind’.
However,
at
some
point,
when
they
make
us
feel
good
and
we
want
to
be
with
the
person,
then
the
person
seems
to
be
truly
kind,
independent
of
my
perception.
From
their
own
side,
they
are
just
great,
and
a
little
better
than
great.
So
it’s
not
just
that
they
are
kind,
but
really,
really,
really
kind;
kinder
than
everyone
else.
And
on
top
of
that,
truly
kind.
So
the
initial
mind,
“that
person
is
kind”,
is
a
correct
mind.
And
then
it
became
a
wrong
consciousness,
perceiving
the
person
to
be
truly
kind.
Then
the
person
is
truly
kind,
truly
pleasant,
and
then
attachment
arises.
6
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
So
having
seen
the
person
as
truly
kind,
the
next
step
is
then
you
see
them
as
kinder
than
all
others,
exaggerating
the
kindness,
and
that’s
the
attachment.
So
you
see
those
steps?
First
we
see
something
or
a
person
as:
pleasant,
neutral
or
unpleasant.
Then
we
perceive
the
person
to
be
truly
that,
truly
unpleasant?
Then
anger
arises.
It’s
not
just
me
seeing
this
person
as
unpleasant.
It’s
not
just
that
I
have
a
part
in
this.
Rinpoche
explained
beautifully,
how
when
someone
attacks
you
with
a
knife
or
a
weapon
–
he
cited
a
verse
from
Santideva,
in
order
to
experience
harm,
you
need
50%
of
cause
of
harm
is
the
body
that
can
be
harmed
and
the
attacker
and
knife
are
the
other
50%.
You
need
the
harmer
and
the
thing
to
be
harmed,
both
sides,
in
order
for
there
to
be
harm.
So
we
are
also
responsible,
we
provide
the
body
has
the
karma
to
be
harmed,
and
the
other
person
provides
the
weapon,
but
we
see
the
other
person
as
100%
negative.
So
to
us,
they
are
truly
negative
and
I
am
truly
right.
These
are
the
steps
that
lead
us
to
afflictions.
So
here
is
an
in-‐between
step:
we
have
a
correct
consciousness
at
first.
And
then
we
have
a
wrong
consciousness.
Forget
about
appearance,
everything
appears
inherently.
I’m
not
worried
about
that.
So
the
table
appears
truly
pleasant;
okay.
That’s
not
the
main
problem.
Even
to
an
Arhat,
it
still
seems
to
be
truly
pleasant.
But
the
Arhat
does
not
actively
apprehend
it
to
be
truly
pleasant.
Illustration:
The
mirror
image
of
your
face
always
appears
to
be
your
face.
The
reflection
of
your
face
in
the
mirror
always
appears
to
be
your
own
face.
I’m
not
worried
about
that.
But
the
moment
you
start
believing
in
that
and
actively
perceiving
the
reflection
in
the
mirror
to
be
your
face,
then
trouble
arises.
If
I
have
an
itch,
I’d
scratch
the
reflection.
Here
we
are
not
just
talking
about
the
appearance.
The
appearance
to
us,
ordinary
beings,
the
appearance
of
everything
being
truly,
inherently
existent
is
always
there.
But
then
we
have
minds
that
actively
apprehend
that
to
be
the
case.
And
those
are
the
minds
that
lead
to
all
sorts
of
afflictions.
First
there’s
a
sense,
I
exist
inherently.
Usually
after
something,
some
harm
happens,
for
example.
Or
someone
does
something
wonderful
for
us.
Our
attachment
doesn’t
arise
immediately.
When
we
have
attachment
towards
something,
a
person,
a
situation,
attachment
doesn’t
arise
immediately.
There
are
certain
things
that
make
us
feel
good.
And
then
we
have
a
correct
mind
perceiving
that
to
be
pleasant.
And
then
that
correct
mind
starts
to
become
a
mind
that
perceives
it
to
be
truly
pleasant,
truly
that,
truly
this.
And
then
on
top
of
that
we
exaggerate.
It’s
not
just
truly
pleasant,
it’s
truly
super
pleasant.
And
then
we
add
a
few
qualities
that
the
object
doesn’t
have,
we
would
like
it
to
have,
just
add
them,
and
believe
in
their
existence,
and
then
really
grasp,
can’t
let
go.
So here, I’m talking about an active mind. Adele, you had a question.
ADELE:
When
you
perceive
it
to
be
pleasant,
you
say
that’s
a
correct
mind,
but
isn’t
that
also..
.
.
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
7
Preparation
All
Our
Minds
are
Mistaken
but
Mistaken
minds
are
distinguished
from
Wrong
Minds,
which
are
Roots
of
Samsara
GESHE
WANGMO:
It’s
a
mistaken
mind,
but
it
is
still
not
wrong:
its
object
exists.
All
our
minds
are
mistaken,
so
we
are
always
mistaken
unless
we
realize
Emptiness
directly.
So
as
ordinary
beings,
all
of
our
minds
are
mistaken.
That’s
okay.
You
can
still
do
a
lot
with
the
mistaken
mind.
For
a
mistaken
mind
But
the
moment
the
mind
becomes
wrong,
which
doesn’t
just
mean
the
appearance.
Merely
mistaken
just
means:
its
object
appears
one
way
and
exists
in
a
different
way.
But
when
the
mind
becomes
wrong,
not
only
does
it
appear
wrongly
but
we
believe
in
that
appearance,
we
actively
apprehend
it
that
way.
ADELE:
How
long
is
the
moment
between
when
it
is
mistaken
and
when
it
develops
into
wrong?
Is
there
a
way,
a
time
to
stop
that
mistaken
mind
from
becoming
wrong?
And
then
they
say,
it’s
.
.
.
GESHE
WANGMO:
You
can
when
you’re
highly
realized,
you’ve
realized
Emptiness.
You
can
remind
yourself,
it
doesn’t
exist
truly
the
way
it
appears.
ADELE:
,
,
,
there’s
a
way
you
can
stop
it
from
becoming
a
wrong
mind.
But
if
it
does,
it’s
too
late.
GESHE
WANGMO:
.
.
.
.
I
think
the
coarser
types
of
minds
(attachment)
we
might
be
able
to
stop
from
turning
into
wrong,
but
that’s
impossible
for
the
subtler
ones.
We’re
not
even
aware
of
the
subtle
ones,
forget
about
stopping
them.
Becoming
aware
is
a
challenge
.
.
.
Before
we
realize
Emptiness,
we
can’t
think
to
stop
them
and
even
after
we
realize
Emptiness,
we
can’t
stop
them
at
first
because
these
minds
are
so
powerful
and
constant.
They
arise
all
the
time
.
.
.
think
how
many
cravings
we
have
in
one
hour.
.
.
.
It’s
not
like
these
minds
conveniently,
five
seconds
before
my
attachment
so
I
can
.
.
.
ADELE: It’s not that we can’t enjoy sense objects . . . it’s the attachment that’s a problem.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Even
great
practitioners,
sometimes
as
monks,
they
have
such
attachment
to
their
monastery.
Sometimes
they
say
things
about
.
.
.
‘my
monastery,
my
lama.”
.
.
.
I’m
totally
like,
IBD,
don’t
criticize
my
monastery.
.
.
.
it’s
totally
natural
until
you
reach
a
very
high
level
when
it’s
all
like
a
magical
illusion
of
the
mind.
.
.
.
MARTA:
When
you
say
the
conceptual
conscious
focuses
on
something
and
apprehends
it
to
be
truly
existent
object
of
experience,
it
sounds
like
its
main
object
doesn’t
exist.
Because
it
focuses
on,
8
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
MARTA:
Sorry,
I
mean:
the
main
object
that
exists,
so
it
is
a
mistaken
consciousness
and
not
a
wrong
one.
.
.
.
GESHE
WANGMO:
The
focus
exists.
That
which
you
focus
on
always
has
to
exist.
If
you
take
the
horns
of
a
rabbit
and
perceive
them
to
be
truly
existent
object
of
experience,
well,
that
is
not
a
mind
that
is
the
root
of
samsara,
because
the
focus
always
has
to
exist.
And
not
only
does
the
focus
have
to
exist,
in
this
case,
the
focus
has
to
be
in
actuality
an
object
of
experience.
So
these
two
factors
have
to
be
existent.
So,
e.g.,
the
table
appears
–
some
say
it
appears
/
some
say
it
doesn’t
appear.
So
let’s
say,
the
table
appears
to
that
mind,
and
it
appears
to
be
truly
existent.
Okay,
from
the
point
of
view
of
that
aspect,
it
is
mistaken.
But
I’m
not
interested
in
that
aspect;
it’s
okay.
But
it
is
a
wrong
consciousness
when
it
perceives
that
table
(that
may
appear
truly,
but
never
mind
because
nonetheless
it
is
table
that
I
focus
on),
so
that
existent
table,
I
then
perceive
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience.
And
that
is
a
wrong
consciousness.
And
that
is
the
root
of
Cyclic
Existence.
How
do
I
check
whether
it
is
the
root
of
samsara:
I
have
to
check
that
mind.
I
have
to
check:
is
that
which
I
focus
on
existent?
And
on
top
of
that,
is
it
an
object
of
experience?
If
it
is
both
–
it
exists
and
it
is
an
object
of
experience,
then
the
mind
that
perceives
that
existent
thing
it
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience
that
is
the
root
of
samsara.
A
Root
of
Cyclic
Existence
(e.g.,
Conceptions
of
Objects
of
Perception
or
Conceptions
of
Experiencers)
must
be
a
Mind
that:
If
it
does
not
exist
–
say
I
take
the
inherently
existent
table
–
not
just
does
the
table
appear
to
me
to
be
inherently
existent
but
I
focus
on
an
inherently
existent
table,
focus
on
that
and
perceive
that
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience,
that
is
a
wrong
mind
but
not
the
root
of
samsara,
because
the
focus
does
not
exist.
The
focus
doesn’t
exist,
therefore
it
is
not
an
object
of
experience.
A
truly
existent
table
or
a
table
with
horns
is
not
an
object
of
experience;
so
therefore,
the
mind
that
perceives
the
table
with
horns
to
be
a
truly
existent
table
with
horns
is
a
wrong
consciousness
but
it
is
not
a
root
of
samsara.
You
can
easily
remove
that
by
understanding
that
the
table
with
horns
is
not
an
object
of
experience.
GESHE
WANGMO:
What
is
the
difference,
I
ask
you,
between
the
mind
that
perceives
the
table
and
that
table
appears
to
be
truly
existent,
as
opposed
to
a
mind
that
actively
perceives
the
table
to
be
truly
existent.
What
is
the
difference?
If
you
can
answer
that
question,
you
can
answer
your
own
question.
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
9
Preparation
What
is
the
difference
between
a
mind
that
perceives
table
through
correct
consciousness,
e.g.:
My
eye
consciousness
perceives
the
table
and
the
subsequent
conceptual
mind
perceives
the
table
and
mind
has
the
appearance
of
the
table
to
be
truly
existent
but
doesn’t
actively
hold
onto
it
to
be
truly
existent.
What
is
the
difference
between
that
mind
and
a
mind
to
which
not
only
does
the
table
appear
to
be
truly
existent,
the
mind
,
itself,
actively
apprehends
it
to
be
truly
existent?
What
is
the
difference
between
those
two
minds?
The
answer
to
that
question
is
the
answer
to
your
question.
MARTA:
You
can
say,
there’s
no
difference,
because
they
are
equivalent
because
we
always
have
this.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Okay.
The
mind
that
perceives
the
reflection
of
a
face
in
the
mirror.
Your
eye
consciousness
that
perceives
the
reflection
of
your
face
in
the
mirror
to
be
a
reflection.
Is
that
a
correct
mind?
MARTA: Yes.
GESHE
WANGMO:
But
it
appears
to
be
a
face,
but
the
mind
doesn’t
apprehend
it
to
be
a
face.
It
appears
to
be
a
face,
but
the
mind
perceives
the
reflection
of
the
face
in
the
mirror.
So
it
is
a
correct
mind.
It
is
mistaken
with
regards
to
the
appearance,
but
it
is
not
wrong.
As
opposed
to
a
mind
that
perceives
the
reflection
of
the
face
in
the
mirror
to
be
the
face.
That’s
wrong.
So
that
is
the
same
as
perceiving
the
table
-‐-‐
To
us,
the
reflection
of
the
face
always
appears
to
be
a
face,
they
are
too
similar.
So
therefore,
there’s
always
that
mistaken
appearance,
but
that
doesn’t
mean
we
believe
in
it.
When
we
believe
in
it,
all
sorts
of
absurdities
arise.
Likewise,
the
appearing
just
appearing
to
be
truly
existent
is
not
such
a
huge
problem.
You
can
be
free
of
afflictions,
free
from
attachment
or
anger
and
still
have
that
appearance.
Who
is
free
from
afflictions
and
still
has
that
appearance?
An
Arhat.
So
it
is
a
cause
for
the
misperception,
it
leads
to
the
misperception,
but
if
you
can
be
an
Arhat
and
only
have
the
appearance
and
it
doesn’t
induce
any
anger
or
attachment,
and
so
forth.
That’s
why
there’s
such
a
big
difference.
When
we
perceive
this
table
to
be
an
object
of
experience.
An
Arhat
perceives
this
table
to
be
an
object
of
experience,
and
has
the
mistaken
appearance
of
that
object,
this
table,
being
an
object
of
experience
and
it
appears
to
truly
be
that,
but
they
don’t
apprehend
it
that
way
so
no
afflictions
arise
in
relation
to
the
table.
So
they
don’t
have
trouble.
Why
are
we
in
trouble?
Because
not
only
do
we
have
the
appearance,
the
appearance,
we
believe
in
it.
The
mind
that
has
that
appearance
induces
a
mind
that
actively
apprehends
that
to
be
the
case.
That’s
where
we
get
into
trouble.
So does that make sense, Maya? Okay, these are very good questions.
10
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
Debates
regarding
the
two
Conceptions
undermined
on
the
Path
of
Preparation
–
TRACK
2
Debate
1
–
Refuting
someone’s
Wrong
Definitions
Conceptions
of
Objects
of
Perceptions
&
Conceptions
of
Perceivers
are
Contradictory
Okay.
Going
back
to
this.
The
question
here
is
the
definition
of
a
Conception
of
Perception
or
Perceiver.
How
do
you
define
those?
If
I
were
to
say
–
and
this
is
what
it
says
here:
the
definition
of
conception
of
objects
of
perceptions
–
I’ve
written
it
out
so
you
only
need
to
compare
(p.
3,
above)4
–
Someone
asserts
that
the
definition
of
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception
is:
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
its
focal
object,
.
.
.
It’s
focal
object
refers
to
some
object
of
perception.
So
on
the
blank
line
(on
the
whiteboard)
That
is
the
definition
of
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception.
So
what
did
the
person
leave
out
of
that
definition?
GESHE
WANGMO:
Truly
existent
objects
of
experience.
They
take
some
object
of
experience,
and
just
perceive
it
to
be
truly
existent.
Instead
of
focusing
on
some
object
of
experience
or
object
of
perception
and
perceiving
that
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience.
Okay.
So
you
take
some
object,
like
a
table
–
they
say,
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception
is
a
mind
that
perceives
some
object
of
perception
that
really
happens
to
be
such,
e.g.,
a
4
Immediately
preceding
text
in
Handout,
that
concluded
Class
15:
Analysis:
According
to
our
own
system,
whatever
is
a
conception
that
is
indicated
in
the
Ornament's
verses
on
the
Mahayana
path
of
preparation
is
not
necessarily
either
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception
or
a
conception
of
perceivers.
It
is
not
necessarily
one
of
the
two
because
the
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
Hearers'
and
Solitary
Realizers'
paths
and
results,
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
objects
of
disengagement
of
Bodhisattva
paths,
is
neither
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception
nor
a
conception
of
perceivers.
5
The
wrongly
asserted
definitions
continue
in
the
Handout:
The
definition
of
a
conception
of
perceivers
is:
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
its
focal
object,
perceivers,
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent.
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
11
Preparation
table,
to
be
truly
existent.
And
a
conception
of
perceiver
is
a
mind
that
takes
something
that
is
a
perceiver,
focuses
on,
e.g.,
another
mind,
an
awareness,
a
person,
and
perceives
that
person
to
be
truly
existent.
That
is
the
definition
of
conception
of
objects
of
perception
and
conceptions
of
perceivers.
What
is
the
problem
with
this
definition?
Look
in
your
text
and
tell
me.
This
is
on
page
62,
the
long
3rd
paragraph
from
the
bottom
of
the
page.
So
please
read
it
and
tell
me
what
is
wrong
with
that
definition.6
Okay.
These
two
definitions
are
not
correct
because
if
they
were
correct,
it
would
absurdly
follow
that
the
two
conceptions
(the
conception
of
objects
of
perception
and
the
conceptions
of
perceivers)
would
not
be
contradictory.
Does
that
make
sense?
Are
those
two
definitions
contradictory?
If
it
says
that
the
absurdity
is
that
they
“would
not
be
contradictory”,
what
is
implied?
That
they
are
contradictory.
So
the
problem
would
be
that
they
are
not
contradictory.
Is
there
something
that
is
both?
No,
there
isn’t.
So
this
established
by
saying
–
here,
this
becomes
clear.
Different
facts
about
these
two
conceptions
are
presented
in
this
text.
So,
one,
this
presentation
makes
it
clear
from
what
it
says,
these
definitions
are
wrong
because
the
definitions
are
not
contradictory.
The
definition
this
person
gave,
it
doesn’t
say
truly
existent
objects
of
experience
or
truly
existent
experiencer.
That
person
just
said,
truly
existent.
So
a
mind
that
perceives
-‐-‐
let’s
take
an
example
–
a
mind
perceives
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent.
Is
Heidel
an
object
of
experience?
Yes,
therefore,
a
conceptual
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent,
according
to
that
definition,
would
be
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception.
But
the
conceptual
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent
is
also
a
conception
of
perceiver.
Because
he
is
both,
an
object
of
experience
and
a
perceiver.
So
by
focusing
on
Heidel,
you
focus
on
something
that
is
an
object
of
6
These
two
definitions
are
not
correct
because
if
they
were
correct,
it
would
absurdly
follow
that
the
two
conceptions
(the
conception
of
objects
of
perception
and
the
conceptions
of
perceivers)
would
not
be
contradictory.
They
would
not
be
contradictory
because
the
conception
that
focuses
on
eye
consciousnesses
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
would
be
both
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception
and
a
conception
of
perceivers.
It
would
be
both,
because
eye
consciousnesses
are
both
objects
of
perception
and
perceivers.
Therefore,
the
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
eye
consciousnesses
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
would
be
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception
because
it
accords
with
the
definition
asserted
above
(of
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception).
It
accords
with
that
definition
because
it
is
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
objects
of
perception
(i.e.,
eye
consciousnesses)
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent.
Likewise,
the
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
eye
consciousnesses
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
would
be
a
conception
of
perceivers
because
it
accords
with
the
definition
asserted
above
(of
a
conception
of
perceivers).
It
accords
with
that
definition
because
it
is
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
perceivers
(i.e.,
eye
consciousnesses)
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent.
12
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
experience
–
right?
It
is
not
that
the
mind
thinks,
“Oh,
Heidel
is
an
object
of
experience.”
No.
You
focus
on
something,
a
person,
if
you
focus
on
Heidel,
you
focus
on
a
person.
You
focus
on
Heidel,
you
focus
on
an
object
of
experience;
right.
So
you
focus
on
an
object
of
experience
and
that
object,
Heidel,
to
be
truly
existent.
According
to
this
definition,
this
is
both:
a
conception
of
object
of
perception
and
conception
of
perceiver.
Because
he
is
both.
He
is
both
an
objection
of
experience
and
a
perceiver.
If
you
take
the
table,
that
is
not
a
perceiver.
A
table
is
not
a
perceiver.
A
perceiver
must
either
be
a
person
or
a
mind.
That
was
explained
earlier.
A
perceiver
is
either
a
person
or
a
consciousness.
Heidel
is
person,
so
that’s
okay.
Therefore,
if
this
definition
(of
conception
of
objects
of
perception)
was
correct,
if
we
were
to
say
that
a
conceptual
mind
that
focuses
on
some
object
of
experience,
or
object
of
perception
and
perceives
that
to
be
truly
existentˆ,
then
it
would
mean,
if
that
definition
was
correct
and
the
other
definition
for
conception
of
perceivers
(a
conceptual
mind
that
perceives
some
perceiver
to
be
truly
existent)
was
correct,
then
they
would
not
be
contradictory.
GESHE
WANGMO:
If
he
was
a
Buddha,
what’s
the
problem?
If
we
say
the
Buddha
is
Buddha
Heidel?
The
conceptual
mind
that
perceives
Buddha
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent.
Let’s
say
that’s
the
definition.
The
definition
from
now
on,
okay,
we
say
the
conception
of
perceptions,
the
definition
of
that
is:
focusing
on
some
object
of
experience
and
perceiving
that
to
be
truly
existent.
ALAIN: So when you say he’s a perceiver, he’s both, the object and a perceiver?
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
13
Preparation
GESHE
WANGMO:
I
don’t
really
see
that
as
a
question.
Does
anyone
else
see
that
as
a
question?
I
don’t
know.
Alain,
what
are
you
saying?
He’s
a
perceiver
or
not?
The
Buddha
is
a
perceiver.
The
Buddha
perceives
phenomena;
right?
ALAIN:
Yes,
but
right;
not
wrong.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Yes,
but
that
is
another
mind.
This
is
not
saying
that
the
Buddha
perceives
himself
to
be
truly
existent.
It’s
another
mind.
For
example,
I
can
perceive
a
Buddha
to
be
truly
existent;
right?
I
can
have
that
mind.
So
that
is
a
mind
that
perceives
a
perceiver
to
be
truly
existent.
I
have
that
mind;
not
the
Buddha.
If
you
focus
on
something
that
thing
doesn’t
have
to
be
you.
You
can
focus
on
a
table
to
be
truly
existent;
I’m
not
the
table.
I
can
focus
on
the
Buddha
to
be
truly
existent;
I’m
not
the
Buddha.
So
the
Buddha
doesn’t
perceive
himself
to
be
truly
existent;
but
we
perceive
the
a
perceiver
such
as
Buddha
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent.
So
according
to
that
person,
that
is
a
conception
of
object
of
perception.
Why?
Because
it
is
a
mind
that
perceives
something
that
is
an
object
of
perception
to
be
truly
existent.
It
is
also
a
conception
of
perceivers.
That’s
odd.
STUDENT:
If
you
have
two
perceivers
.
.
.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Yes.
Who’s
wrong.
Let’s
say
the
mind
is
in
your
consciousness;
you
have
the
wrong
consciousness.
So
you
are
the
person
who
has
the
misperception.
You
are
looking
at
Buddha
Heidel
and
perceive
Buddha
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent.
So
who
has
the
conception
of
perceiver?
You,
not
Heidel.
Alain,
does
that
make
sense?
So
we’re
talking
about
her
wrong
mind
focusing
on
him.
ALAIN:
It
doesn’t
matter
about
the
other
person
who
is
the
perceiver?
Whether
they’re
right
or
wrong.
GESHE WANGMO:
Right.
Exactly.
ALAIN:
Just
the
fact
that
they
are
a
perceiver.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Yes.
Just
the
fact
that
they
are
a
perceiver,
and
we
perceive
that
perceiver
to
be
truly
existent.
Clarification
of
Terminological
Differences
in
Geluk
&
Kagyu
Traditions
ADELE:
Except
they’re
not
a
perceiver.
He’s
a
Buddha.
GESHE
WANGMO:
They
are
perceivers.
ADELE:
Buddhas
are
not
perceivers.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Buddhas
are
perceivers.
They
perceive
things.
They
realize
things.
But
in
other
traditions,
they
sometimes
say
they
have
no
object.
But
that
just
means
they
do
not
have
an
ordinary
object.
It
just
depends
on
how
you
use
the
word
perception.
Some
of
the
traditions
say
that
a
perception
is
always
an
ordinary
perception.
But
in
this
tradition,
perception
can
mean
ordinary
or
extraordinary
so
the
word
is
used.
Buddhas
realize
all
phenomena.
They
are
omniscient.
Being
omniscient
yet
not
perceiving
anything?
What
makes
them
omniscient?
ADELE:
Because
there’s
no
duality
of
the
seer
and
the
seen.
14
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
GESHE
WANGMO:
Omniscient
means
what?
Omni
–
all,
scien
–knowing.
So,
knowing
all
without
perceiving?
ADELE:
Because
they’re
not
perceiving
in
terms
of
subjects
and
objects,
in
that
way.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Why
is
it
so
good
to
be
a
Buddha?
What
so
good
about
becoming
a
Buddha?
Because
they
know
exactly
what
you
need.
Knowing
what
you
need,
they
can
teach
you
in
accordance
with
your
predispositions,
your
interests,
and
your
aspirations.
ADELE:
But
spontaneously.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Spontaneously
perceiving
is
still
perceiving.
ADELE:
But
without
the
kind
of
object
/
subject
view.
GESHE
WANGMO:
That’s
true.
Absolutely,
that’s
true.
ADELE:
Completely
spontaneous,
without
.
GESHE WANGMO:
But
spontaneous
knowing
is
still
knowing.
Isn’t
it.
Spontaneous
perceiving
is
still
perceiving.
Isn’t
it.
I
didn’t
say,
is
spontaneous
knowing
or
is
spontaneous
perceiving
or
non-‐spontaneous
perceiving.
No.
Spontaneous,
perfectly,
non-‐
dually,
all
of
that,
but
therefore,
perceiving.
ADELE:
I
think
some
would
say
that’s
not
perception.
GESHE
WANGMO:
That’s
what
I’m
saying.
The
word
perception
–
the
Tibetan
word
is
holding,
apprehending.
Since
holding
doesn’t
necessarily
refer
to
a
mind,
I
use
the
word
perceiving;
sometimes
I
use
the
word
apprehending.
So
I
agree
with
you
that
in
some
systems,
they
say
apprehending
means
dualistically,
non-‐spontaneously,
etc.
So
the
word
is
just
defined
differently.
Do
they
mean
exactly
the
same?
Yes.
It
is
just
that
the
terminology
is
applied
differently.
Do
they
say
that
the
Buddha
knows
spontaneously
and
without
a
sense
of
me
here
and
you
over
there?
That’s
true,
but
nonetheless,
they
know.
So
the
word
is
just
used
differently.
So
you
need
to
redefine
the
meaning.
To
you,
that’s
what
it
means
and
that
is
correct
in
that
context
that
defines
it
that
way.
But
if
you
define
it
in
a
different
way,
spontaneous
perception
is
still
perception.
Does
that
make
sense.
It
just
takes
a
little
getting
used
to.
We
are
used
to
terminology.
But
terminology
is
merely
imputed.
We
can
use
words
the
way
we
want.
Let’s
not
believe
them
to
truly
have
that
meaning.
It’s
just
what
we
assign
to
them.
ADELE:
It’s
confusing
if
it
is
used
in
two
contexts.
GESHE
WANGMO:
It
only
gets
confusing
if
you
study
both
at
the
same
time.
It
gets
confusing,
I
agree.
For
example,
in
the
Kagyu
tradition,
they
say
the
Buddha’s
mind
is
permanent.
In
the
Geluk
tradition,
they
say
it
is
impermanent.
But
the
words
just
mean
different
things.
In
the
Kagyu
tradition,
for
example,
permanent
means
that
its
qualities
do
not
change;
they
do
not
degenerate.
Does
Geluk
tradition
ascertain
the
same,
yes,
they
do.
They
ascertain
that
there
are
no
qualities
of
the
Buddha’s
mind
that
can
ever
be
lost;
they
will
not
get
better
and
they
will
not
get
worse.
But
for
that,
they
do
not
use
the
word
permanent.
Though
it
is
the
same
meaning.
So
if
you
ask
them,
is
Buddha’s
mind
permanent?
That’s
what
I
told
you
before.
When
we
studied
the
Kagyu
tradition.
Our
teacher
would
say
something
in
class,
“Buddha’s
mind
is
permanent.”
Then
I’d
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
15
Preparation
think,
oh,
now,
I
definitely
have
something
to
debate.
I
can
prove
that
the
Buddha’s
mind
is
not
permanent.
But
then
when
I
debated,
in
the
end,
I
realized
that
they
asserted
exactly
the
same
as
I
did,
but
they
used
word
differently.
And
I’d
say,
“What
do
you
mean
by
permanent?”
The
Buddha’s
mind
is
changing
moment
by
moment;
it
is
a
dynamic
phenomenon.
But
here,
in
the
Kagyu
tradition,
permanent
means
something
different
than
not
changing
moment
by
moment.
If
you
study
both
together
at
the
same
time,
it
is
very
confusing.
Or
if
you
study
both
together,
and
you
know,
when
this
person
says
permanent
that’s
that
it
means.
When
that
person
says
permanent
.
.
.
And
this
happens
in
every
day
life.
Some
say
Buddhism
is
a
religion
is
and
some
say
it’s
not.
So
is
it
or
is
it
not?
It
just
depends
on
how
you
define
the
term
religion.
So
talking
to
one
person,
you
know
what
they
mean;
talking
to
another,
that’s
what
it
means.
So
it’s
confusing.
I
agree.
Still
I
think
its
great
to
know
both
systems.
For
everyone,
Terminology
is
very
powerful.
Some
people
find
what
Je
Rinpoche
said
to
be
very
beneficial,
while
others
find
the
teachings
of
other
traditions
to
be
more
beneficial.
Which
I
think
is
one
reason
some
people
just
feel
more
at
home
with
one
or
another
tradition,
because
its
terminology
really
conveys
to
you
the
meaning
in
the
way
that
is
the
most
effective.
And
that
has
only
to
do
with
the
person.
It
is
not
saying
that
one
tradition
is
better
than
the
other.
Clarification:
Truly
Existing
Experiencers
refers
to
Persons
&
Any
Awareness
VEN.
NORDRON:
I
had
a
misconception,
a
wrong
view
that
maybe
other
people
in
class
have
had
also.
So
when
we
were
talking
about
the
conception
of
objects
of
experience,
GESHE
WANGMO:
Conceptions
of
objections
of
perception.
VEN.
NORDRON:
.
.
.
I’m
talking
about
what
it
refers
to:
truly
existing
objects
of
experience
and
truly
existing
experiencer.
Because
I
can’t
actually
perceive
other
people’s
minds,
I
perceive
them
somewhat
like
objects,
living
objects.
GESHE WANGMO:
:
But
you
believe
that
they
have
minds?
VEN.
NORDRON:
I
do
believe
that,
but
I
don’t
have
access
to
others’
minds
.
.
.
so
I
misunderstood.
I
thought
you
meant
–
of
course,
the
first
one
is
the
easiest
one,
conceiving
of
the
object
of
experience
as
truly
existent.
Then
I
thought
you
were
talking
about
having
me
examine
my
own
mind
and
seeing
–
GESHE
WANGMO:
That
to
be
truly
existent.
That’s
one
example.
But
I
can
take
your
mind,
right.
VEN.
NORDRON:
Right.
Now.
I
didn’t
realize
that.
I
was
totally
confused
about
that.
GESHE
WANGMO:
:
It
doesn’t
have
to
be
yourself.
I
think
that’s
maybe
what
Alain
meant.
I
think
Alain
also
meant
the
same
thing.
In
order
to
have
a
mind
that
focuses
on
an
experiencer
and
perceiving
that
perceiver
to
be
truly
existent,
it
has
to
be
your
own
mind
and
so
Buddha
Heidel
doesn’t
have
that.
I
think
that’s
maybe
where
that
came
from.
I
just
gave
that
as
an
example,
take
your
own
mind.
But
I
assume
someone
else
has
anger,
someone
else
has
.
.
.
VEN.
NORDRON:
Maybe
instead
of
saying
truly
existent
experiencer,
a
truly
existent
sentient
being?
16
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
GESHE
WANGMO:
I
couldn’t
say
that.
VEN.
NORDRON:
Because
it
wouldn’t
include
Buddha.
VEN.
NORDRON:
It
wouldn’t
include
anger,
because
anger
is
not
a
being.
So
perceiving
anger
to
be
a
truly
existent
experiencer.
VEN.
NORDRON:
Anger
is
not
a
main
mind;
right.
So
an
experiencer
doesn’t
–
GESHE
WANGMO:
Have
to
be
a
main
mind.
VEN.
NORDRON:
Doesn’t
have
to
be
a
main
mind;
it
can
be
a
mental
factor.
GESHE WANGMO:
Any
awareness
or
a
person.
Sometimes
when
I
say
sometimes,
the
mind,
I
don’t
mean
mind
and
mental
factors.
Any
kind
of
awareness
is
an
experiencer.
Any
person,
because
they
an
awareness,
is
an
experiencer.
So
to
say,
instead
of
experiencer,
I
can’t
say
a
sentient
being.
I
can
say
the
meaning
of
experiencer
is
sentient
being.
Why?
Because
a
mind,
an
awareness
such
as
anger,
that
is
not
a
sentient
being,
but
it
is
an
experiencer.
Anyway,
I
know
it
is
a
little
complicated
if
you
are
not
used
to
thinking
–
I
know
where
the
confusion
lies.
You
hold
onto
one
object,
and
instead
of
–
like
when
I
say
of
experiencer,
perceiving
it
to
be
truly
existent,
suddenly
in
your
mind,
it
becomes
my
experiencer.
You’re
not
even
aware
possibly
that
this
is
the
misperception.
But
that
is
not
what
I
said
ever.
I
can
take
any
experiencer
and
perceive
that
to
be
a
truly
existent
experiencer
or
I
can
take
any
object
of
experience
and
perceive
that
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience.
Trust
me,
this
is
the
only
time
it
gets
that
complicated.
Buddha
Nature
is
relatively
easy.
You
have
to
think
along
these
lines:
A
is
truly
existent
B.
What
do
you
mean
by
the
A?
What
do
you
mean
by
the
B?
It’s
a
little
complicated.
ALAIN:
Would
you
say
that,
for
example,
Maya:
If
I’m
looking
at
Maya,
Maya
would
be
the
experiencer.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Maya
is
an
object
of
experience
and
she’s
also
an
experiencer.
Why
is
she
an
object
of
experience?
I
perceive
her
with
my
own
mind.
Why
is
she
an
experiencer?
Because
she
experiences
happiness.
That’s
just
a
reason,
that’s
the
reason
for
why
she
is
an
experiencer.
But
you
don’t
perceive
the
experiencer
and
therefore
have
to
perceive
her
to
be
happy.
That’s
just
the
reason.
So
to
formulate
it
correctly,
you
would
have
to
say:
She
is
an
experiencer
because
she
is
happy.
She
is
an
object
of
experience
because
she
is
an
object
of
perception
of
my
mind.
That
would
be
totally
correct.
TODD:
Are
those
two
perceptions
all-‐inclusive?
They
involve
all
objects
of
knowledge;
is
that
correct?
GESHE
WANGMO:
Are
those
two
perceptions
.
.
.
formulate
the
question
correctly.
TODD:
These
two
phenomena,
objects
of
experience
and
experiencers,
does
that
cover
all
objects
of
knowledge?
GESHE
WANGMO:
Yes.
Can
you
even
make
them
smaller?
Leave
one
out
and
still
cover
all
phenomena?
Objects
of
experience
covers
all
phenomena.
Anything
that
exists
is
an
object
of
experience.
Yes.
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
17
Preparation
Is
a
Mind
that
is
a
Root
of
Samsara
Necessarily
Either
a
Conception
of
Objects
of
Perception
or
Conception
of
Perceivers?
But
is
a
mind
that
is
the
root
of
samsara
necessarily
one
of
those
two?
If
we
define
them
the
way
I
did,
which
is
the
correct
definition.
Regarding
the
subject
–
okay.
Here
the
definition
is:
the
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
something
and
perceives
that
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience.
MARK:
No.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Give
me
an
example.
MARK:
Rabbit
horns.
GESHE
WANGMO:
No.
The
mind
that
perceives
truly
existent.
It
is
still
a
mind
that
is
the
root
of
samsara,
the
mind
that
perceives
rabbit
horns
is
not
a
root
of
samsara.
MARTA:
A
mere
not
knowing
.
.
.
GESHE
WANGMO:
That
is
not
the
root
of
samsara.
Just
not
knowing
is
not
the
root
of
samsara.
Not
knowing
the
alphabet
is
not
root
of
samsara.
MARTA:
Not
the
alphabet
but
the
reality
.
.
.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Just
not
knowing
is
not,
no.
What
is
the
root
of
samsara?
A
mind
that
actively
perceives
true
existence.
Actively.
So
just
now
knowing,
a
mind
that
just
doesn’t
know
is
not
the
root
of
Cyclic
Existence.
So
it
has
to
actively
misperceive.
Distinguishing
a
mind
that
perceives
its
Focus
as
Truly
Existent
[not
a
Root
of
Samsara]
&
a
mind
that
[actively]
apprehends
that
Focus
to
be
a
Truly
Existent
Object
of
Experience.
However,
taking
a
mind
that
actively
misperceives
reality,
the
mind
that
perceives
this
table
to
be
truly
existent,
is
it
one
of
those
two
[conceptions]?
STUDENt:
I
have
a
question.
GESHE
WANGMO: No, no. I have a question. First answer my question, please. The mind
that perceives the table to be truly existent, is that one of the two minds here?
STUDENT:
Yes.
GESHE
WANGMO: Which one? Regarding a mind that perceives
this
table
to
be
truly
existent,
does
it
necessarily
have
to
perceive
the
table
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience?
STUDENT:
No.
GESHE
WANGMO: So therefore, the mind that perceives this table to be truly existent, it
follows that it is not a mind that perceives the table to be a truly existent object of experience.
Right?
It
itself,
perceives
true
existence.
It
doesn’t
perceives
this
table
to
be
a truly
existent object of experience.
MARTA:
But
the
root
of
samsara
must
be
a
conceptual
consciousness?
18
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
GESHE
WANGMO:
Yes,
that’s
true.
I
didn’t
say
that
it
wasn’t.
It
has
to
be.
I
totally
agree.
A
mind
that
is
the
root
of
samsara
has
to
be
conceptual
mind.
It
has
to
be
a
wrong
mind.
It
has
to
be
a
mind
that
perceives
true
existence.
But
it
doesn’t
have
to
be
one
of
the
two.
If
it
is
one
of
the
two,
it
is
necessarily
a
root
of
samsara,
but
if
it
is
a
root
of
samsara
it
doesn’t
have
to
be
one
of
the
two.
Okay.
I
can
have
a
root
of
samsara
that
just
perceives
the
table
to
be
truly
existent.
It
doesn’t
perceive A
to
be
truly
existent
B.
It
just
perceives
A
to
be
truly
existent.
Don’t
forget:
there’s
A
and
B:
KIKO:
What
is
difference
in
practical
terms
between
perceiving
this
table
as
truly
existent
and
perceiving
this
table
as
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience?
Since
I’m
perceiving
the
mind
.
.
..
GESHE
WANGMO:
Let’s
go
back
to
the
attachment.
I
perceive
the
person
to
be
truly
existent;
as
opposed
to
perceive
the
person
to
be
truly
existent
wonderful.
Which
one
is
more
likely
to
induce
attachment?
STUDENT:
The
second.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Okay,
you
see.
So
the
object
of
experience
is
just
an
example.
In
the
Buddhist
context,
phenomena
are
objects
of
experience
and
they
are
experiencers.
But
not
just
that,
we
perceives
them
to
be
truly
existent
that.
It
is
just
an
example
of
taking
of
quality
of
something,
and
then
a
mind
that
perceives
that
to
be
truly
that
quality.
And
why
is
this
a
problem?
We
need
to
take
it
back
to
the
original
example.
I
don’t
get
so
attached
by
perceiving
this
table
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience.
It’s
not
like
I
go
home
and
think,
‘Oh,
I’m
so
attached
tot
hat
table
because
it
is
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience.
It’s
not
like
that.
It’s
something
truly
existent
pleasurable
or
truly
existent
wonderful
or
truly
existent
horrible
that
anger
and
attachment
arise.
It
is
just
an
example.
Just
to
train
our
mind.
Make
it
more
complicated,
better.
Okay,
the
last
two
questions.
ADELE:
.
.
.
I
think
that’s
a
little
bit
of
tricky
words.
Because
someone
might
say,
that
first
statement
-‐-‐
GESHE
WANGMO:
Perceive
the
table
to
be
truly
existent.
ADELE:
You
are
still
saying
there’s
something
that
is
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience
because
you’re
still
saying
the
table
is
truly
existent
something.
Then
it
has
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
to
make
that
statement
.
.
.
GESHE
WANGMO:
No,
you
don’t
always
have
to.
You
can
just
perceive
table.
You
don’t
always
have
to
perceive
table
exists,
table
as
permanent,
table
as
this.
For
a
table
to
exist
it
must
have
characteristics,
but
it
doesn’t
mean
that
every
time
you
perceive
the
table
you
perceive
all
sorts
of
characteristics
about
it.
Likewise,
even
though
the
table
–
if
it
were
to
exist
truly,
it
would
have
to
be
a
truly
existent
this,
that
or
the
other.
It
doesn’t
mean
that
the
mind
always
has
to
perceive
that.
So
you
can
perceive
table,
and
perceive
table
to
be
truly
existent.
You
can
also
perceive
table
to
be
beautiful,
truly
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
19
Preparation
existent
beautiful.
You
can
do
that,
too.
It’s
not
that
the
mind
has
to
perceive
that
in
actuality
its
true.
In
actuality,
for
Kiko
to
exist,
there
has
to
be
a
non-‐truly
existent
Kiko.
Does
my
mind
always
have
to
be
aware
of
that.
I
can
just
perceive
Kiko
and
be
totally
unaware
of
his
lack
of
intrinsic
existence.
So
in
actuality,
what
is
there
and
what
the
mind
perceives,
there
can
be
a
huge
disparity.
You
are
right
that
if
the
table
were
to
exist
truly,
hypothetically,
if
the
table
existed
truly,
it
would
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience,
but
that
doesn’t
mean
that
if
you
perceive
the
table
to
be
truly
existent
you
would
have
to
perceive
the
table
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience.
ADELE:
But
it’s
implicit
in
the
object.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Well,
it’s
implicit
that
you
lack
inherent
existent.
Every
time
I
see
you,
I
don’t
think
that
you
lack
inherent
existent.
It’s
implicit.
You
couldn’t
exist
if
you
did
not
exist
non-‐inherently.
You
couldn’t
exist.
Do
I
perceive
that
you
exist?
Absolutely.
Do
I
think
about
Adele?
Do
I
take
Adele
to
mind?
Absolutely.
Do
I
think
every
time,
‘Oh,
non-‐inherently
existent
Adele’?
No.
It’s
implicit
but
my
mind
just
can’t
get
it
because
of
the
misperception
of
reality.
Obstructions.
That’s
why
a
Buddha,
free
of
the
obstructions,
to
a
Buddha
it
is
obvious.
Anything
about
anything
is
obvious.
But
our
minds
are
obstructed.
We
can
only
take
a
little
bit.
Our
minds
are
very
narrow.
We’re
very
narrow-‐minded.
All
of
these
words,
narrow-‐
minded,
can’t
perceive
the
whole
picture.
It’s
implicit.
Come
on,
it’s
obvious:
you
lack
inherent
existence.
Maya,
did
you
get
to
ask
your
question?
MAYA:
I
know
Kiko.
I
see
Kiko
and
then
I
see
inherently
wonderful
Kiko.
As
I
understand,
inherently
wonderful
Kiko
has
to
be
an
experiencer.
GESHE
WANGMO:
You
don’t
have
to
perceive
that.
You
don’t
have
to
perceive
–
do
you
mean
that
just
by
perceiving
him
to
be
truly
wonderful
that
you
also
have
to
perceive
him
to
be
a
truly
existent
experiencer?
Why?
GESHE
WANGMO:
Because
whatever,
because
whomever
is
wonderful
must
be
an
experiencer
,
therefore,
well,
then
every
time
I
perceive
Kiko,
I
have
to
perceive
a
non-‐
truly
existent
Kiko
because
in
order
for
someone
to
be
Kiko,
he
has
to
be
non-‐truly
existent.
This
is
the
same
question
that
Adele
asked.
So
just
because
someone
is
wonderful,
therefore,
it
means
they
are
not
a
corpse;
they
are
an
experiencer.
If
the
person
is
alive
and
is
wonderful.
If
I
say
something
about
a
person,
they
are
wonderful,
it
means
they
have
a
mind.
It
means
that
they
are
an
experiencer;
but
for
me,
my
mind
doesn’t
have
to
perceive
that
necessarily.
If
I
perceive
you
to
exist,
it
doesn’t
mean
that
–
if
you
exist,
you
must
be
impermanent,
no
other
way.
it’s
implied.
But
when
I
perceive
you,
I
don’t
perceive
you
to
be
impermanent.
20
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
If
when
you
perceive
Kiko
is
wonderful,
you
must
also
perceive
that
he’s
an
experiencer
that
means
you
must
also
perceive
that
he
is
impermanent.
If
you
perceive
him
to
be
truly
existent
wonderful,
you
have
to
perceive
him
to
be
a
truly
existent
man,
truly
existent
impermanent,
all
that.
But
we
don’t
have
to.
If
hypothetically,
he
was
truly
existent,
and
truly
existent
wonderful,
he
would
also
be
a
truly
existent
experiencer.
He,
himself,
if
he
is
a
truly
existent
wonderful
person,
he
has
to
be
a
truly
existent
man,
etc.
But
it
doesn’t
mean
that
the
mind
has
to
perceive
that.
Anyway,
the
definition
should
be
this.
You
could,
of
course,
widen
it,
but
we
are
talking
about
a
very
specific
mind
that
perceives
certain
things
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience
and
something
else
to
be
a
truly
existent
experiencer.
And
those
are
the
two
types
of
mind
here.
Now,
if
one
was
to
say
the
definition
was
focusing
on
Kiko
as
being
truly
existent
or
focusing
on
an
object
of
experience
and
perceiving
that
to
be
truly
existent
–
that
being
(someone’s
mistaken)
definition
of
the
first
misconception;
and
their
definition
of
the
second
misconception
being:
focusing
on
an
experiencer
and
perceiving
that
experiencer
to
be
truly
existent,
those
are
not
correct
definitions
because
if
I
focused
on
Heidel
and
perceived
him
to
be
truly
existent,
that
mind
would
be
both
a
conception
of
objects
of
perceivers
and
a
conception
of
perceivers.
So
I
need
to
have
those,
objects
of
experience
and
experiencers,
I
need
to
have
those
two
characteristics.
All right. So that is one of the debates in here.
Debate
2
-‐
Refuting
the
objection
that
an
absurd
consequence
follows
from
our
definitions
of
the
two
conceptions.
So
the
definition
that
is
given
is
on
page
62:
According
to
our
own
system,
the
definition
of
conceptions
of
objects
of
experience
is:
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
objects
of
perceivers
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
objects
of
experience.
The
definition
of
conceptions
of
perceivers
is:
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
perceivers
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers.
Another Debate.7
7
This
debate,
HANDOUT
p.
62-‐3:
• Someone
holds
that
these
definitions
are
not
correct
because
if
they
were
correct
it
would
absurdly
follow
that
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
eye
consciousnesses
and
apprehends
them
to
be
both
truly
existent
objects
of
experiences
and
experiencers,
would
be
both
(1)
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception
and
(2)
a
conception
of
objects
of
perceivers.
A
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
eye
consciousnesses
and
apprehends
them
to
be
both,
truly
existent
objects
of
experiences
and
experiencers,
would
be
both
(1)
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception
and
(2)
a
conception
of
objects
of
perceivers
because
it
is
both
(1)
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
objects
of
perceivers
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
21
Preparation
Someone
says
these
are
not
correct
because
the
mind
that
perceives
both,
Heidel
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience
and
a
truly
existent
experiencer,
both
–
right?
You
could
have
a
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
not
just
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience
but
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience
and
truly
existent
experiencer.
You
could
have
that
mind;
right?
That
mind
is
both
those
two
minds.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Couldn’t
you
do
it
at
the
same
time?
Could
you
perceive
this
table
and
that
table
at
the
same
time?
Can
you
perceive
those
two
tables,
when
you
look
at
them,
can
you
perceive
both
tables?
Right.
Our
eye
consciousness
can
perceive
two
objects
at
the
same
time.
She’s
right.
There
is
this
debate
and
it’s
not
easy.
But
let’s
say,
if
not
at
the
same
moment,
you
could
have
a
mind
that
last
for
five
moments
and
it
perceives
–
even
though
in
sequence
–
it
perceives
first
GESHE
WANGMO:
Sequence
is
okay;
let’s
agree
on
that.
There
is
some
debate
on
this;
she’s
absolutely
right.
As
far
as
I
remember,
in
the
sngag
rim
chenmo,
the
Great
Exposition
of
Secret
Mantra8,
Je
Rinpoche
says
that
you
cannot
perceive
the
right
hand
of
a
deity
and
the
left
hand
of
the
deity,
when
you
do
the
visualizations
simultaneously;
you
can
only
visualize
the
different
parts
of
the
meditational
deity
in
sequence.
So
there
is
definitely
that
quote.
You
could
argue
that
the
eye
consciousness
can
take
everything
in
sphere
of
vision
but
then
conceptual
consciousness
can
only
think
about
those
in
sequential
stages.
“Oh,
there
was
a
green
table.
A
red
table.”
But
you
could
still
take
the
mind
that
perceives
those
two,
perceiving
Heidel
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience
and
a
truly
existent
experiencer.
So
the
first
moment
the
mind
does
that,
and
the
next
moment
does
that,
but
does
it
perceive
both?
Not
simultaneously,
but
it
still
perceives
both.
Okay.
STUDENT: . . .
GESHE
WANGMO:
Yes,
it’s
two
moments
of
a
mind,
but
you
just
talk
about
it
–
if,
for
example,
I
say
Alain;
right.
It’s
actually
many
moments
of
Alain.
So
I
can
talk
about
Alain,
just
Alain.
Does
Alain
mean
just
one
moment?
No,
there
are
many
moments
in
time
of
Alain.
Is
that
one
Alain?
I
can
still
say
one
Alain.
Because
even
Alain
this
morning
consisted
of
many
moments.
objects
of
experience
and
(2)
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
perceivers
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers.
!གས་རིམ་ཆེན་མོ་
-‐
common
abbreviation
of
full
title
–
The
Stages
of
the
Path
to
a
Conqueror
and
8
The
point
is
that
you
can
have
a
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent.
Okay.
Is
that
one
of
those
two?
The
answer
is:
it
is
neither
of
those
two.9
You
can
have
such
a
mind.
But
a
mind
that
is
the
first
type
of
mind
only
perceives
Heidel
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience
or
only
perceives
Heidel
to
be
a
truly
existent
experiencer.
If
it
is
one
of
those
two
minds,
it
only
focuses
on
one
of
those.
Whereas,
that
which
does
both
is
a
misperception,
however,
it
is
not
one
of
those
two.
This
is
how
Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa
explains
it
here.
You
can
argue
and
you
can
debate
with
it.
He
does
gives
a
nice
reason
for
that
explanation.
This
is
what
I
want
to
get
into.
For
example,
you
can
perceive
Heidel
to
be
a
truly
existent
impermanent;
right?
I
can
perceive
Heidel
to
be
impermanent
and,
not
just
that,
truly
existent
impermanent.
That
mind
is
none
of
the
two
(conceptions).
I
can
have
a
misperception
of
Heidel
being
truly
existent
impairment.
I
can
have
a
mind
perceiving
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent
permanent
and
truly
existent
impermanent.
I
can
have
that
mind;
right.
In
one
moment,
no,
but
in
sequence.
Nonetheless,
you
can
have
a
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent
permanent
and
truly
existent
impermanent.
Why
not?
There’s
no
limit
to
what
we
can
misperceive.
Is
that
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent
permanent
and
impermanent,
is
that
a
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent
impermanent?
No.
Because
the
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent
permanent
and
truly
existent
impermanent
is
not
the
root
of
samsara
because
Heidel
is
not
both
permanent
and
9
According
to
our
own
system,
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
eye
consciousnesses
and
apprehends
them
to
be
both,
truly
existent
objects
of
experience
and
experiencers,
is
neither
(1)
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception
nor
(2)
a
conception
of
perceivers.
It
is
neither
(1)
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception
nor
(2)
a
conception
of
perceivers
because
it
is
neither
(1)
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
apprehends
eye
consciousnesses
to
be
truly
existent
objects
of
experience
nor
is
it
(2)
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
apprehends
eye
consciousnesses
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers.
If
it
were
both
(1)
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
apprehends
eye
consciousnesses
to
be
truly
existent
objects
of
experience
and
(2)
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
apprehends
eye
consciousnesses
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers,
it
would
absurdly
follow
that
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
eye
consciousnesses
and
apprehends
them
to
be
both
truly
permanent
and
impermanent
would
be
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
apprehends
eye
consciousnesses
to
be
truly
impermanent.
However,
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
apprehends
eye
consciousnesses
to
be
both
truly
permanent
and
impermanent
is
not
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
apprehends
eye
consciousnesses
to
be
truly
impermanent
because
it
is
not
an
awareness
grasping
at
true
existence,
whereas
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
apprehends
eye
consciousnesses
to
be
truly
impermanent
is
necessarily
an
awareness
grasping
at
true
existence.
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
23
Preparation
impermanent.
Nothing
is
both
permanent
and
impermanent.
So
if
you
perceive
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent
permanent
and
impermanent,
that
is
not
the
root
of
samsara.
Whereas
the
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
truly
existently
impermanent
is
a
root
of
samsara.
So
this
is
the
heart
of
the
argument
he
is
giving
here.
A
mind
that
perceives
both
–
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent
object
of
experience
and
truly
existent
experiencer
–
the
mind
that
perceives
those
two,
is
not
a
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience.
It
is
also
not
a
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
a
truly
existent
experiencer
.
Why
not?
Because
if
were
the
both,
you
would
have
to
say
that
a
mind
perceives
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent
permanent
and
impermanent
would
have
to
be
a
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent
impermanent.
But
it
is
not
because
a
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
both
truly
existent
permanent
and
impermanent
is
not
the
root
of
Cyclic
Existence,
because
the
fact
that
Heidel
is
not
truly
existent
permanent
and
not
truly
existent
impermanent
can
be
understood
even
by
someone
who
doesn’t
understand
Emptiness.
All
you
need
to
understand
is
that
Heidel
is
not
both
permanent
and
impermanent.
If
you
know
that
Heidel
is
not
both
permanent
and
impermanent,
you
know
that
he
is
not
truly
permanent
or
impermanent.
So
Heidel’s
lack
of
being
truly
existent
permanent
or
truly
existent
impermanent
is
not
Emptiness.
Right?
Heidel’s
lack
of
being
a
truly
existent
woman
is
not
Emptiness.
The
lack
of
Heidel
being
a
truly
existent
woman
is
not
Emptiness.
I
can
understand
that.
I
can
understand
that
he’s
not
a
woman,
therefore,
I
understand
that
he
is
not
a
truly
existent
woman.
There’s
no
different.
But
him
being
a
man,
I
cannot
understand
that
he
lacks
being
a
truly
existent
man,
because
I
cannot
understand
that
he
is
not
man
because
he
is
a
man.
It
would
have
to
be
a
wrong
consciousness
that
perceives
him
not
to
be
a
man.
A
correct
mind
can
never
perceive
that
he
is
not
a
man,
because
he
is
a
man.
Therefore,
the
lack
of
Heidel
being
a
truly
existent
man,
that
is
Emptiness.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Let’s
not
take
man
and
woman.
I
don’t
want
to
go
into
that
discussion.
That’s
a
different
discussion
altogether.
Let’s
take
permanent
and
impermanent.
Heidel
is
impermanent.
Heidel
being
truly
existent
permanent,
the
mind
that
perceives
is
not
the
root
of
samsara
because
the
opposite
of
the
lack
of
Heidel
being
truly
existent
permanent
is
not
Emptiness,
because
I
can
understand
that.
I
can
realize
he’s
not
permanent.
Well,
it’s
a
little
hard,
but
still
let’s
say,
I
would
be
able
to
understand
that
Heidel
is
not
permanent.
Then
I
would
not
that
Heidel
is
not
truly
existent
permanent.
If
I
know
Heidel
is
not
the
horns
of
a
rabbit,
I
know
that
Heidel
is
not
truly
existent
horns
of
a
rabbit.
So
the
lack
of
Heidel
being
truly
existent
horns
of
a
rabbit
is
not
Emptiness.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Your
right.
Yes,
but
still,
Even
though
in
one
case,
permanent
and
impermanent,
nothing
is
both,
he’s
saying
that
if
you
were
to
accept
one,
you
would
have
to
accept
the
other.
That’s
this
argument,
then
you
can
debate
and
say,
‘No,
that’s
not
the
same.”
That’s
up
to
you.
I’m
just
presenting
what
Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa
said:
if
a
mind
that
perceives
him
to
be
both,
truly
existent
object
of
experience
and
truly
existent
experiencer,
if
it
had
to
be
both
of
those
two,
then
it
would
absurdly
follow.
24
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
That’s
Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa’s
argument.
You
can
argue
against
it,
because
in
one
case
there
is
something
that
is
both
(object
of
experience
and
experiencer)
but
there
is
nothing
that
is
permanent
and
impermanent.
But
this
is
what
you
do
on
the
debate
ground.
What
Marta
says
is
correct.
You
could
against
what
Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa
says
here
because
he
says
that
the
mind
perceives
him
to
be
both,
object
of
experience
and
experiencer,
it
could
be
both
of
those
because
it
is
in
itself
a
root
of
samsara.
It
is
in
itself,
something
that
is
both.
The
mind
that
perceives
Heidel
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience
and
a
truly
existent
experiencer,
the
mind
that
perceives
both
is
a
root
of
samsara.
Whereas
the
mind
that
perceives
both
Heidel
to
be
truly
existent
permanent
and
truly
existent
impermanent
is
not
root
of
Cyclic
Existence.
Anyway,
this
is
just
his
argumentation.
It’s
not
so
much
whether
he
is
right
or
not.
We
learn
something
about
it.
This
idea
that
even,
as
Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa
says
here10,
a
follower
of
Mind
Only
school
could
understand
the
lack
of
him
being
truly
existent
permanent
and
impermanent.
A
Chittamatra
follower
does
not
realize
Emptiness.
They
do
not
even
accept
Emptiness.
They
do
not
accept
the
existence
of
Emptiness.
To
a
follower
if
Chittamatra,
everything
exists
inherently.
So
with
that
assertion
it
is
difficult
to
perceive
the
lack
of
inherent
existence.
But
they
could
know
that
he
is
not
inherently
permanent
and
impermanent.
Why?
Because
they
would
know
that
he
is
not
both,
permanent
and
impermanent.
10
A
conceptual
consciousness
that
apprehends
eye
consciousnesses
to
be
both
truly
permanent
and
impermanent
is
not
an
awareness
grasping
at
true
existence,
because
the
lack
of
eye
consciousnesses
being
both
truly
permanent
and
impermanent
is
not
emptiness.
The
lack
of
eye
consciousnesses
being
both
truly
permanent
and
impermanent
is
not
emptiness
because
proponents
of
the
Chittamatra
School
realize
the
lack
of
eye
consciousnesses
being
both
truly
permanent
and
impermanent
but
do
not
realize
emptiness.
Proponents
of
the
Chittamatra
School
do
not
realize
emptiness
because
they
do
not
assert
the
lack
of
true/inherent
existence.
But
proponents
of
the
Chittamatra
School
realize
the
lack
of
an
eye
consciousness
being
both
truly
permanent
and
impermanent
because
they
realize
the
lack
of
eye
consciousnesses
being
both
permanent
and
impermanent.
Please
note
that
eye
consciousnesses
are
impermanent,
not
both
permanent
and
impermanent.
There
is
nothing
that
is
both
permanent
and
impermanent.
Therefore,
'eye
consciousnesses
being
both
permanent
and
impermanent'
does
not
exist,
which
is
why
'eye
consciousnesses
being
both
permanent
and
impermanent'
cannot
serve
as
the
basis
of
emptiness
since
the
basis
of
emptiness
must
be
something
that
exists.
However,
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
apprehends
eye
consciousnesses
to
be
truly
impermanent
is
necessarily
an
awareness
grasping
at
true
existence
because
the
lack
of
eye
consciousnesses
being
truly
impermanent
is
emptiness.
The
lack
of
eye
consciousness
being
truly
impermanent
is
emptiness
because
'eye
consciousness
being
impermanent'
exists.
[HANDOUT
P.
63]
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
25
Preparation
Debate
3
-‐
Someone
says
that
a
conceptual
awareness
that
focuses
on
a
conceptual
consciousness
perceiving
vases
and
apprehends
it
to
be
truly
impermanent
is
a
conceptual
awareness
that
focuses
on
the
conceptual
consciousness
perceiving
vases
and
apprehends
it
to
be
impermanent.
TRACK
3
Then
there
is
another
debate
that
is
complicated.11
The
meaning
is
not
so
difficult.
But
it
forces
us
to
try
to
really
understand
these
different
misperceptions.
So
let
us
take
a
conceptual
mind,
a
conceptual
awareness
that
focuses
on
another
mind.
This
is
what
is
so
complicated.
You
have
one
mind
that
perceives
another
mind
that
perceives
a
vase.
I
have
a
misperception
that
perceives
another
mind
that
perceives
vase,
and
perceives
that
mind
that
perceives
vase
to
be
truly
impermanent.
Is
that
a
mind
that
perceives
the
mind
that
perceives
the
vase
to
be
impermanent?
No.
Right?
Okay.
Instead
of
saying
mind,
that’s
where
it
gets
so
confusing.
These
debates
are
made
more
complicated
on
purpose,
so
that
you’ll
pay
more
attention.
So
if
I
were
to
say,
a
mind
that
perceives
this
table
to
be
truly
impermanent,
is
that
a
mind
that
perceives
this
table
to
be
impermanent?
A
mind
that
perceives
this
table
to
be
truly
impermanent,
is
that
a
mind
that
perceives
this
table
to
be
impermanent?
A
mind
that
perceives
this
table
to
be
truly
impermanent
is
not
a
mind
that
perceives
this
table
to
be
impermanent.
Why
not?12
GESHE
WANGMO:
Yes,
you
understand
that
it
is
impermanent.
I’m
just
asking,
is
the
mind
that
perceives
the
table
to
be
truly
impermanent,
is
that
a
mind
that
perceives
the
table
to
be
impermanent?
Why
not.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Because
the
mind
that
perceives
the
table
to
be
truly
impermanent
–
its
focal
object
exists,
the
table.
consciousness
perceiving
vases
and
apprehends
it
to
be
impermanent
is
necessarily
a
correct
awareness,
whereas
whatever
is
a
conceptual
awareness
that
focuses
on
a
conceptual
consciousness
perceiving
vases
and
apprehends
it
to
be
truly
impermanent
is
necessarily
a
wrong
consciousness.
[HANDOUT
P.
63]
26
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
GESHE
WANGMO:
Because
table
being
truly
impermanent
doesn’t
exist.
It
is
an
incorrect
mind.
Whereas,
the
mind
that
perceives
table
to
be
impermanent
is
a
correct
mind.
And
an
incorrect
mind
cannot
be
a
correct
mind.
A
mind
that
perceives
a
table
to
be
truly
impermanent
is
not
a
mind
that
perceives
the
table
to
be
impermanent,
because
it
is
a
wrong
mind.
The
mind
that
perceives
the
table
to
be
truly
impermanent
does
not
perceive
the
table
to
be
impermanent.
It
perceives
the
table
to
be
truly
impermanent.
So
it
is
totally
mistaken
with
regard
to
its
main
object;
right.
It
is
mistaken
with
regard
to
its
main
object.
Whereas
if
it
were
a
mind
that
perceives
table
to
be
impermanent,
it
would
be
a
correct
mind.
You
cannot
have
a
mind
that
is
both
correct
and
incorrect.
You
can
have
different
minds
arising.
I
can
have
a
mind
that
perceives
this
table,
and
that
is
a
correct
mind.
And
I
can
have
another
mind
that
perceives
this
table
to
exist
truly.
So
I
have
a
correct
mind
and
an
incorrect
mind.
But
an
incorrect
mind
can
never
be
a
correct
mind.
So
mind
that
perceives
table
to
be
truly
impermanent
does
not
perceive
the
table
to
be
impermanent.
So
this
is
what
this
is
saying
here.
But
instead
of
taking
the
table,
it
takes
the
mind
that
perceives
vase.
Another
conceptual
mind
that
perceives
an
eye
consciousness
that
apprehends
vase
to
be
truly
impermanent,
that
is
not
a
conceptual
mind
that
perceives
the
eye
consciousness-‐apprehending
vase
to
be
impermanent.
It’s
changing
the
object
here.
STUDENT:
Doesn’t
truly
existent
have
more
to
do
with
emotions.
Because
it
is
not
.
.
.
with
a
table,
it’s
quite
easy
to
understand.
But
truly
.
.
.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Inherently.
I
just
use
the
word
truly
because
it
is
shorter
than
inherently.
They
have
the
same
meaning:
truly,
inherently,
intrinsically,
objectively,
independently,
substantially.
These
are
different
words
but
they
are
longer,
so
truly
is
easier,
so
I
use
the
word
truly
meaning
inherently.
Debate
4
–
Perception
of
an
independent
self
apprehended
to
be
truly
impermanent
object
of
perception
is
not
a
conception
that
is
a
root
of
samsara
because
its
focal
object
does
not
exist.
Then
someone
else
says13,
a
mind
that
perceives
“an
independent
self
and
apprehends”
that
independent
self
to
be
truly
impermanent
or
to
be
a
truly
independent
experiencer
–
what
does
it
say
here,
“truly
existent
object
of
perception“
.
.
.
[interruption].
So the mind that focuses on “an independent self”, does an independent self exist?
13
Someone
asserts
that
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
an
independent
self
and
apprehends
such
a
self
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
perception
is
'a
conception
of
objects
of
perception'.
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
27
Preparation
No.
We’re
not
thinking
about
independence,
like
independence
for
Tibet.
So
an
focusing
“on
an
independent
self”
and
apprehending
that
“to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
experience,”
is
that
an
example
of
a
conception
of
objects
of
perception?
No.14
Because
there
is
no
independent
self.
The
focal
object
has
to
exist.
The
independent
self
is
not
an
object
of
experience
because
it
doesn’t
exist.
So
this
is
the
same
thing.
If
you
do
these
exercises
a
couple
of
times
that
I’m
quickly
taking
you
through,
they’re
not
that
hard.
Debate
5
–
Someone
says
that
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
vases
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
perceivers
is
a
conception
of
perceivers.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Well
that’s
not
a
correct
reason.
Whatever
is
an
object
of
experience
is
not
necessarily
not
an
experiencer.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Yes,
that’s
the
correct
reason.
Because
vase
is
not
an
experiencer.
So
a
mind
that
perceives
vases
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers
is
not
the
root
of
samsara.
By
understanding
that
vases
are
not
experiencers,
you
understand
they’re
not
truly
existent
experiencers,
but
that
doesn’t
mean
you
have
realized
the
Emptiness
of
the
vase.
Good.
That’s
easy,
relatively.
14
It
is
not
correct
that
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
an
independent
self
and
apprehends
such
a
self
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
perception
is
'a
conception
of
objects
of
perception'
because
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
an
independent
self
and
apprehends
such
a
self
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
perception
is
not
an
awareness
grasping
at
true
existence.
It
is
not
an
awareness
grasping
at
true
existence
because
an
inherently
existent
self
is
not
an
object
of
perception.
An
inherently
existent
self
is
not
an
object
of
perception
because
it
does
not
exist.
[HANDOUT
P.
64]
15
That
is
not
correct
because
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
vases
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
perceivers
is
not
an
awareness
grasping
at
true
existence.
It
is
not
an
awareness
grasping
at
true
existence
because
vases
are
not
perceivers.
28
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
Debates
regarding
Conceptions
of
Thoroughly
Afflicted
&
Very
Pure
Phenomena
as
Objects
of
Perception
Debates
6
–
The
object
of
a
Conception
of
a
Very
Pure
Phenomena
can
be
a
Truth
of
Suffering.
So
the
next
couple
of
debates.
We
have
heard
that,
of
course,
it
is
more
complicated
than
just
those
two
(conceptions),
but
we
have
minds
that
perceive
thoroughly
afflicted
phenomena.16
Okay.
A
mind
that
perceives
thoroughly
afflicted
phenomena
to
be
objects
of
perception.
We
take
something
that
is
on
thoroughly
afflicted
side,
and
perceive
that
to
be
truly
existent
object
of
experience.
Okay.
What
does
it
mean
to
be
on
thoroughly
afflicted
side?
That
is
the
debate
here.17
Someone
say
to
be
a
truth
of
suffering.
Usually
we
talk
about
truth
as
an
abstract.
But
in
Buddhism,
truth
is
not
an
abstract;
truth
is
an
actual
phenomenon.
This
table
and
my
body
are
both
truths
of
suffering.
So
don’t
think
of
a
truth
of
suffering
as
some
abstract.
Or
a
statement,
“such
and
such
is
the
truth”
Here,
my
body
is
a
truth
of
suffering.
Someone
saying
that
a
phenomenon
that
is
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side
refers
to
a
truth
of
suffering
–
that
is
not
correct.
This
is
all
about:
how
do
you
define
something
that
is
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side.
Here
(Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa
response
to
the
mistaken
definition18)
the
example
that
is
given
is
something
that
is
a
truth
of
suffering
but
is
not
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side.
What
does
it
mean
to
be
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side.?
It’s
difficult
to
define.
16
Ornament
VERSE
36
-‐
[HANDOUT
P.
50]:
consciousness
that
focuses
on
truths
of
suffering
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
objects
of
perception
is
not
necessarily
a
conception
of
thoroughly
afflicted
phenomena.
For
instance,
a
conceptual
consciousness
focusing
on
the
faculty
of
faith
that
is
a
truth
of
suffering
and
apprehending
such
a
faculty
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
perception
accords
with
that
definition
but
is
not
a
conception
of
thoroughly
afflicted
phenomena
being
objects
of
perception.
It
is
not
a
conception
of
thoroughly
afflicted
phenomena
being
objects
of
perception
because
the
faculty
of
faith
that
is
a
truth
of
suffering
is
not
a
phenomenon
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side.
It
is
not
a
phenomenon
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side
because
it
is
a
faculty
of
faith
that
is
on
the
very
pure
side.
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
29
Preparation
Here,
they
take
the
faculty
of
faith,
having
faith.
Faith
in
the
lama,
e.g.,
it
can
be
a
truth
of
suffering,
it
can
be
a
cause
of
Cyclic
Existence,
it
can
be
a
result
of
affliction.
We’ve
heard
this
before;
remember?
If
you
have
entered
the
Path,
are
on
the
path:
is
every
virtuous
mind
a
path
consciousness?
No.
Because
there
are
some
virtuous
minds
that
are
not
path
consciousnesses.
Why?
They’re
virtuous
but
they’re
influenced
by
afflictions,
e.g.,
out
of
attachment
I
help
someone.
The
virtuous
mind
is
conjoined
with
or
induced
by,
influenced
by
attachment.
So
we
cannot
say
it
is
an
antidote
to
Cyclic
Existence.
It
actually
benefits
samsara.
But
they’re
the
best
we
can
manage
now.
Even
our
positive
actions,
at
this
point,
may
actually
help
samsara,
but
they
slowly
become
change.
When
I
generate
Renunciation
and
even
better,
Bodhicitta,
then
the
virtuous
minds
can
actually
become
causes
of
my
own
enlightenment.
in
the
meantime
I
can
have
a
faith
that
is
a
truth
of
suffering.
Definition
of
the
truth
of
suffering:
Something
that
is
included
within
samsara
and
it
is
caused
by
contaminated
karma
and
afflictions.
The
truth
of
suffering
is
included
within
Cyclic
Existence
and
is
the
result
of
its
own
causes,
contaminated
karma
and
afflictions.
Okay.
So
you
can
have
faith
that
is
the
result
of
afflictions.
I
can
have
faith
in
the
lama
as
a
result
of
attachment
to
the
lama.
I
mean
attachment
to
a
lama
doesn’t
necessarily
mean
anything
sleazy.
It
can
just
be,
I
want
to
be
around
my
lama
all
the
time.
If
you
always
want
to
be
around
this
person,
it’s
a
pretty
sure
sign
that
you
have
attachment
to
the
lama.
Because
if
you
didn’t
have
attachment,
just
pure
faith,
it
wouldn’t
matter
if
they
were
in
your
vicinity
or
not.
It
would
be
enough
to
think
of
their
instructions
and
practice
accordingly.
Of
course
it
is
difficult
to
keep
that
mind
pure,
initially,
and
slowly
it
becomes
purer.
But
the
point
here
is
that
you
can
have
pure
faith
that
is
still
a
truth
of
suffering.
But
is
that
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side?
No.
It
is
faith.
Even
though
it
is
a
truth
of
suffering,
even
though
it
keeps
you
within
samsara,
it’s
on
the
very
pure
side.
It’s
still
something
positive,
something
you
want
to
generate,
because
it
takes
you
closer.
Still
you
would
say
it
belongs
more
to
the
side
of
the
pure.
So
this
is
what
someone
is
saying
here
is
that
an
example
of
“a
conception
of
thoroughly
afflicted
phenomena
being
objects
of
perception
is
a
mind
that
focuses
on
the
truths
of
suffering
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
objects
of
perception.”
So
that
is
not
correct,
because
a
mind
that
focuses
on
pure
faith,
that
is
a
truth
of
suffering,
does
not
focus
on
phenomena
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side.
Because
it
focuses
on
an
object
of
the
very
pure
side.
30
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
So
what
do
we
mean
by
pure
faith?
What
is
pure
faith
as
opposed
to
impure
faith?
That’s
an
object
to
debate
here.
So
how
do
you
define
something
that
is
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side.
That’s
something
you
do
in
debate.
Debates
7
–
Re
Conception
of
a
Thoroughly
Afflicted
Phenomena
being
Objects
of
Perception:
a
Main
Mind
is
not
an
Affliction
Now,
someone
says
that
something
that
is
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side
is
an
affliction,
itself.
19
That
is
not
correct,
because
a
main
mind
is
not
an
affliction.
A
main
mind
can
never
be
an
affliction.
An
affliction
is
always
a
mental
factor.
So
a
main
mind
that
has
the
function
of
apprehending
its
object.
But
an
affliction
like
anger,
etc.,
is
always
a
mental
factor
because
it
is
always
a
specific
function.
Anger
does
not
just
apprehend
its
object.
Its
main
function
is
to
perceive
a
specific
object,
exaggerate
its
negative
qualities
and
then
wanting
to
be
separated
from
that
or
to
harm
that
object.
That’s
anger.
So
a
main
mind
is
just
that
aspect
of
the
mind
that
apprehends
its
object.
So
this
is
what
Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa
is
saying
here.20
And
then
afterwards
you
have
the
definition
according
to
our
own
system.
According
to
our
own
system,
the
definition
of
a
conception
of
thoroughly
afflicted
phenomena
being
objects
of
perception
is:
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
phenomena
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
objects
of
experience.
As
mentioned
above,
a
conception
of
thoroughly
afflicted
phenomena
being
objects
of
perception
can
be
categorized
into
nine
different
types
such
as
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
afflicted
ignorance
and
apprehends
it
to
be
a
truly
existent
object
of
perception.
Never mind what they all are [See, Handout p. . And then:
19
Someone
says
that
the
definition
of
'a
conception
of
thoroughly
afflicted
phenomena
being
objects
of
perception'
is:
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
afflictions
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
objects
of
perception.
20
This
is
not
correct
because
whatever
is
a
conception
of
thoroughly
afflicted
phenomena
being
objects
of
perception
does
not
necessarily
accord
with
the
definition.
For
instance,
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
main
minds
that
are
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
objects
of
perception
is
a
conception
of
thoroughly
afflicted
phenomena
being
objects
of
perception
but
not
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
afflictions
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
objects
of
perception.
It
is
not
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
afflictions
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
objects
of
perception
because
main
minds
that
are
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side
are
not
afflictions.
Main
minds
that
are
on
the
thoroughly
afflicted
side
are
not
afflictions
because
whatever
is
an
affliction
is
necessarily
a
mental
factor.
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
31
Preparation
The
definition
of
a
conception
of
very
pure
phenomena
being
objects
of
perception
is:
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
phenomena
on
the
very
pure
side
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
objects
of
experience.
And then with the other definitions, they are similar. Okay.
So
there
is
one
last
thing.
We
don’t
have
enough
time
to
go
into
it.
You
can
read
this
on
your
own.
It’s
a
little
complicated
and
I
don’t
want
to
go
into
a
lot
of
explanations
now
about
substantial
existent,
imputed
existent.21
So
I’ll
do
the
other
part
now,
and
see
if
there’s
time.
21
Regarding
Verse
37
[HANDOUT
P.
50]:
Since
they
are
endowed
with
the
support
of
the
substantial
and
imputed,
Conceptions
of
perceivers
are
also
asserted
to
be
of
two
types.
Since
there
is
the
entity
of
an
independent
self,
and
so
forth,
As
well
as
the
support,
the
aggregates
and
so
forth,
they
are
similar
Conceptions
of
perceivers
can
be
categorized
into
(1)
conceptions
of
perceivers
of
substantial
existents
and
(2)
conceptions
of
perceivers
of
imputed
existents.
The
definition
of
'a
conception
of
perceivers
of
substantial
existents'
is:
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
perceivers
of
substantial
existents
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers.
The
definition
of
'a
conception
of
perceivers
of
imputed
existents'
is:
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
perceivers
of
imputed
existents
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers.
• Someone
holds
that
the
definition
of
'a
conception
of
perceivers
of
substantial
existents'
is:
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
substantial
existents
or
on
perceivers
of
substantial
existents,
and
apprehends
either
one
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers.
The
definition
of
'a
conception
of
perceivers
of
imputed
existents'
is:
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
imputed
existents
or
on
perceivers
of
imputed
existents,
and
apprehends
either
one
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers.
These
two
definitions
are
not
correct
because
whatever
accords
with
the
first
definition
is
not
necessarily
'a
conception
of
perceivers
of
substantial
existents'
and
whatever
accords
with
the
second
definition
is
not
necessarily
'a
conception
of
imputed
existents'.
An
example
of
a
conception
that
accords
with
the
first
definition
but
is
not
'a
conception
of
perceivers
of
substantial
existents'
is
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
substantial
existents
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers.
A
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
substantial
existents
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers
is
not
a
conception
of
perceivers
of
substantial
existents
because
substantial
existents
are
not
experiencers.
An
example
of
a
conception
that
accords
with
the
second
definition
but
is
not
'a
conception
of
perceivers
of
imputed
existents'
is
a
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
imputed
existents
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers.
A
conceptual
consciousness
that
focuses
on
imputed
existents
and
apprehends
them
to
be
truly
existent
experiencers
is
not
a
conception
of
perceivers
of
imputed
existents
because
imputed
existents
are
not
experiencers.
Substantial
existents
and
imputed
existents
are
not
experiencers
because
they
are
not
object-‐
possessors
(i.e.,
awarenesses,
living
beings,
or
expressive
sounds).
[Handout
p.
65]
32
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
Mode
of
Association
of
the
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
–
Concluding
Remarks
This
completes
the
Mode
of
Association
of
the
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
(Ornament-‐
vs.
36-‐7).
This
is
the
most
difficult
part
of
the
Path
of
Preparation
and
without
debating
it,
it
is
difficult.
I
can
see
your
minds
aren’t
trained
in
the
debate.
Certain
things
are
more
difficult.
The
moment
you
have,
such
and
such
truly
existent
mind,
and
so
forth.
If
you’re
trained
in
the
debate,
it’s
not
that
difficult.
But
if
you
go
over
this
again
and
again
in
your
mind,
it
becomes
clearer.
But
it
doesn’t
matter
if
you
don’t
get
all
the
nitty-‐gritty
details.
What’s
most
important
is
that
you
get
a
sense
of
these
awareness.
You
get
a
sense
of
the
minds
that
misperceive
reality.
What
is
a
root
of
Cyclic
Existence
and
what
is
not.
It
may
be
frustrating
if
you
understand
50%
or
less,
but
I’m
confident
you
understand
the
most
important
part
that
allows
you
to
continue
on
and
have
a
good
basis.
A
lot
of
the
details
are
very
helpful
but
they
are
intended
for
debate
context
and
making
mind
more
flexible.
You’ve
got
a
good
sense
that
different
levels
of
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation,
although
they
realize
the
same
objects,
all
realize
emptiness
conceptually;
nonetheless,
they
differ
in
terms
of
strength
so
they
can
weaken
or
undermine
certain
misperceptions
on
the
first
level,
and
then
you
get
better
at
it
the
second,
third
level
and
you
weaken
more
and
more
misperceptions.
If
you
understand
that,
that’s
one
of
the
main
parts
to
be
understood.
What
else
you
need
to
understand
is
that
a
mind
that
misperceives
reality
and
is
a
root
of
Cyclic
Existence
and
induces
other
afflictions,
is
not
necessarily
simple.
It’s
not
necessarily
straightforward,
it’s
much
more
complicated.
Start
watching
your
own
mind
when
pain
arrases,
when
you’re
feeling
unhappy.
That’s
the
time
to
check
your
mind.
Why
am
I
feeling
unhappy?
Because
I’m
not
getting
what
I
want.
Oh,
that
is
a
sure
sign
of
attachment.
I’m
attached
to
something.
Attachment
towards
what?
Well,
the
thing
I’m
not
getting,
obviously.
That
which
makes
me
unhappy
because
I’m
not
getting
it,
I’m
not
around
or
near
it.
I’ve
lost
it.
Okay.
How
did
I
get
to
that
attachment,
how
did
it
arise,
a
step
before.
Also
when
attachment
is
newly
arises.
I
usually
take
a
person
because
that’s
the
most
obvious.
But
there
are
much
subtler
forms.
Attachment
to
situations,
to
my
lama
smiling
at
me,
or
to
do
with
the
dharma,
hearing
pleasant
words
from
others,
not
getting
something.
Checking
and
seeing
and
then
look
for
the
improper
attitude
that
led
to
the
attachment.
So
it’s
not
just
perceiving
a
cup
of
coffee
as
inherently
existent,
but
.intrinsically,
from
its
own
side
being
something
positive.
So
that
is
what
is
called
the
improper
attitude.
It’s
a
kind
of
grasping
onto
true
existence
but
it
is
more
particularly
grasping
onto
characteristics
of
an
object
that,
previously,
we
actually
apprehended
correctly.
We
apprehended
something
about
the
object
correctly,
so
the
first
step
is
to
just
apprehend
it
for
what
it
is,
there’s
a
kind
of
raw
perception.
“Oh,
this
is
a
beautiful
table.”
His
Holiness
sometimes
gives
the
example
of
when
we
walk
into
a
store
and
see
objects,
we
perceive
laptop
has
having
good
qualities.
But
then
desire
arises
to
an
object
that
is
almost
radiating
its
qualities,
by
exaggerating
its
great
qualities.
Then
I
buy
it,
and
its
inherently
mine,
the
inherently
more
precious
than
other
self
.
.
.
wow,
I
struck
a
good
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
33
Preparation
idea
.
.
.
so
many
different
minds
that
preceded
it
.
.
but
also
what
we
learned
about
those
different
minds
is
that
some
are
easier
to
undermine
than
others.
We also learned that it is easier to undermine some minds than others.
It’s
much
harder
to
eliminate
the
grasping
after
the
true
existence
of
something
pure
than
of
something
I
don’t
want.
My
anger,
sure,
it
doesn’t
exist
truly.
My
good
qualities
exist
more
truly
than
the
negative.
My
lama
exists
more
truly
than
the
criminal
I
saw
on
TV
.
.
.
this
is
something
we
need
to
become
aware
of.
You
didn’t
get
all
the
nitty-‐gritty
details
and
the
most
important
is
to
get
the
essence.
This
is
the
part
you
can
walk
away
with
having
learned
that
is
most
important.
With
this
we
finish
all
the
other
characteristics.
Despite
all
the
complications,
I
feel
you
got
the
main
message
of
it.
Of
course,
Buddha
Nature
is
easier.
Well,
I
hope
I
haven’t
promised
too
much.
Inner
&
Outer
Special
Tutors
on
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
Let’s
do
the
very
last
verse
that
deals
with
the
Special
Tutor.
In the Ornament for Clear Realization, verse 38 [HANDOUT P. 51]:
A
“Mind
that
is
undaunted,
and
so
forth”
is
talking
about
the
Special
Inner
Tutor.
Don’t
just
think
of
tutor
as
teacher.
It
means
teacher
in
Tibetan
and
has
the
connotation
of
holding
completely,
holding
one
tightly,
being
able
to
hold
and
protect
one.
Tutor
basically
means
teacher,
but
Special
Tutor
in
this
context
means
that
for
someone
on
the
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation,
there’s
a
Special
Inner
Tutor
and
a
Special
Outer
Tutor.
So
what
is
this
Special
Inner
Tutor?
Bodhicitta,
compassion.
These
make
the
Mahayana
practitioner
special.
It
is
not
the
realization
of
Emptiness,
because
one
can
realize
Emptiness
without
Great
Compassion,
Bodhicitta.
Hinayana
practitioners
also
realize
Emptiness.
However,
those
qualities
take
you
closer
to
enlightenment.
They
are
the
most
decisive.
Even
though
Emptiness
is
extremely
important,
because
without
Emptiness
we
can’t
become
enlightened.
Without
Bodhicitta
and
Great
Compassion
we
can’t
become
enlightened.
The
mind
that
realizes
Emptiness
is
not
called
a
special
tutor,
because
that
mind
is
the
ax
that
cuts
the
poisonous
tree’s
root,
the
antidote.
What’s
most
important
is
who
is
holding
the
ax.
With
Bodhicitta
and
Great
Compassion,
using
the
method
of
the
mind
that
realizes
Emptiness
directly,
you
cut
deeper
and
eliminate
more
obstructions
than
what
is
necessary
to
become
liberated,
i.e.,
the
cognitive
obstructions.
So
that
is
the
Special
Inner
Tutor.
The
mind
that
realizes
Emptiness
directly
becomes
the
tool
for
Enlightenment
because
of
Bodhicitta
and
compassion.
34
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
The
Special
Outer
Tutor
is
the
person
who
can
show
you
the
path
to
full
enlightenment.
Not
just
can,
but
who
does
show
it
to
you
because
you
are
ready.
In
the
case
of
the
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation,
the
Outer
Tutor
is
the
cause
or
empowering
condition
in
terms
of
that
person
showing
you
the
entire
path
to
enlightenment.
It
says
here
it
should
be
a
Buddha,
and
I’m
still
not
sure
if
it
needs
to
be
a
Buddha,
but
that
makes
sense
as
the
best
qualified
person
to
show
you
the
entire
path
to
enlightenment
is
a
Buddha.
I
guess
this
idea
that
we
should
rely
on
a
Buddha
to
become
fully
enlightened,
in
the
tantric
path
you
rely
on
a
Buddha.
You
visualize
your
lama
to
be
a
Buddha.
But
whether
or
not
they
are
a
Buddha
or
not
doesn’t
matter:
you
receive
the
blessings
of
a
Buddha.
That’s
the
beauty
of
it.
Of
course,
we
need
to
check
the
lama,
first;
make
sure
they’re
qualified.
But
whether
or
not
they
are
a
Buddha,
once
we’ve
determined
they’re
qualified,
if
we
rely
upon
them
as
if
they
were
a
Buddha,
we
get
the
full
benefit
as
though
they
were
actually
Buddha.
ADELE:
Would
it
be
that
we’re
to
visualize
all
sentient
beings
as
Buddhas?
Because
all
sentient
beings
have
Buddha
Nature.
GESHE
WANGMO:
No,
they’re
not
all
Buddhas.
Having
Buddha
Nature
is
not
the
same
as
being
a
Buddha.
All
sentient
beings
are
very
special.
There
are
tantric
teachings
where
you
see
everyone
as
an
emanation
of
the
tantric
deity.
Also,
this
is
again
different
in
this
system.
I
believe
it
is
just
a
matter
of
applying
different
terminology.
In
other
systems,
even
thought
they
say
we
are
“already
enlightened,”
but
it
doesn’t
mean
that
we
are
equal
to
Buddhas.
That
terminology,
already
enlightened,
is
used
to
stress
the
fact
we
have
Buddha
Nature.
ADELE:
There
are
the
two-‐fold
purities,
so
right
now,
we
are
pure
but
we
do
not
have
the
full
purity.
.
.
.
but
in
terms
of
purity,
we
are
fundamentally
pure.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Yes,
exactly.
In
this
tradition
that
is
also
explained
the
same.
Fundamentally,
We
have
all
the
ingredients,
everything
we
need
to
become
enlightened.
It’s
a
matter
of
getting
rid
of
/eliminating
obstacles;
we
don’t
need
to
get
anything
else.
But
it
doesn’t
mean
that
we
are
already
enlightened,
because
–
as
the
way
you
put
it
–
we
are
not
fully
purified
or
fully
pure
yet.
That’s
the
same
idea.
But
this
here
is
different:
this
is
looking
at
a
lama
as
being
fully
purified.
Buddhas
and
sentient
beings
are
equally
important.
Kind
of
50/50.
We
need
lamas
to
teach
and
guide
us
and
sentient
beings
to
put
into
actual
practice.
We
should
equally
respect
sentient
beings
because
we
need
them
equally.
My
point
is
here
that
actually
the
best
outer
teacher
would
be
someone
who
is
a
Buddha.
However,
in
this
sutric
tradition,
there’s
no
sutric
tradition
that
you’re
supposed
to
see
your
teacher
as
a
Buddha.
You
can
do
it
according
to
the
tantric
system.
There’s
no
harm
if
you’ve
received
tantric
teaching.
The
Tibetan
system
is
very
much
a
mixture
of
sutra
and
tantra.
If
you
recite,
Om
Mani
Padme
Hum,
that’s
not
sutra.
Of
course,
it
is
important
to
know
which
is
which.
But
here,
it
is
basically
saying
that
a
Buddha
is
the
best
Special
Outer
Tutor.
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
35
Preparation
I’ll
read
this
part
to
you
from
Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa’s
Decisive
Analysis
,
the
text
that
analyzes
and
presents
debates.
Usually
when
a
new
topic
begins,
the
text
goes
back
to
the
root
text,
:
Elaborating
on
the
verse
of
the
Ornament
that
presents
the
characteristic
of
the
special
tutor:
Mind
that
is
undaunted,
and
so
forth,
and
so
on,
Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa
posits
the
following
syllogisms:
The
subject,
great
compassion
in
the
continuum
of
a
Bodhisattva
is
a
Bodhisattva's
inner
special
tutor
because
it
is
a
clear
realization
of
a
Bodhisattva
which
has
not
fallen
to
the
extreme
of
Samsara
nor
to
the
extreme
of
Peace
(i.e.,
self-‐liberation).
Clear
realization
is
another
name
for
path
consciousness.
That
“which
has
not
fallednto
the
extreme
of
Samsara
nor
to
the
extreme
of
Peace”
refers
to
Great
Compassion,
itself.
Asking
why
Great
Compassion
has
not
fallen
into
the
extreme
of
Samsara
is
another
way
of
saying:
Great
Compassion
not
a
mind
that
supports
samsara.
Why
not?
STUDENTS: . . .
Great
Compassion
is
not
Bodhicitta.
Great
Compassion
is
not
Bodhicitta.
Bodhicitta
is
a
different
mind
altogether.
Bodhicitta
is
a
mind
that
wishes
to
become
enlightened
for
the
benefit
of
all
sentient
beings.
What is Great Compassion? How do you defint Great Compassion?
Great
Compassion
is
a
loving
attitude
that
wants
all
sentient
beings
to
be
free
from
suffering.
What
does
suffering
mean
here?
GESHE
WANGMO: Yes. So the third type of Suffering, uncontrolled
rebirth
in
samsara.
So
if
you
want
someone
to
be
free
from
that,
you
are
definitely
not
assisting
samsara.
So
Great
Compassion
has
not
fallen
to
the
extreme
of
samsara
means
this
mind
doesn’t
assist
Cyclic
Existence
in
any
way
because
it’s
a
mind
that
wishes
for
all
sentient
beings
to
be
free
of
Cyclic
Existence.
And it also does not fall into the extreme of peace. What is peace?
Self-‐Liberation,
so
ot
doesn’t
assist
Self-‐Liberation.
So
from
point
of
view
of
wishing
for
freedom
from
Cyclic
Existence,
it
doesn’t
fall
into
the
extreme
of
samsara
and
now
why
does
it
not
fall
into
the
extreme
of
peace?
STUDENT:
Because
you
have
Bodhicitta.
GESHE
WANGMO:
No,
a
person
who
does
not
yet
have
Bodhicitta.
A
person
who
just
has
Great
Compassion,
as
an
example,
has
a
loving
attitude
that
wishes
for
all
sentient
36
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
beings
to
be
free
from
suffering.
So
why
does
that
not
assist
the
mind
that
wishes
for
Self-‐Liberation?
That’s
what
it
means.
Adele:
Wants
all
to
be
free
from
the
all
pervasive
suffering.
GESHE
WANGMO:
So
a
Hinayana
practitioner
doesn’t
have
that.
Adele:
No,
they
want
them
to
attain
full
enlightenment
to
be
free
of
the
suffering
of
the
cognitive
obscurations.
GESHE
WANGMO:
So
the
suffering
here
doesn’t
just
mean
the
three
types
of
suffering,
it
also
means
the
suffering
of
cognitive
obscurations?
This
is
another
debate
that
I’ve
mentioned
before.
This
idea
of
Great
Compassion
wanting
all
beings
to
be
free
of
suffering.
What
is
the
suffering
meant
here?
First
of
all:
not
all
sentient
beings
have
suffering,
the
three
types
of
suffering,
becuase
there
are
Arhats
without
remainder.
So
sometimes
people
say
this
suffering
may
include
wanting
beings
to
be
from
from
cognitive
obstructions.
So
wishing
all
beings
to
be
free
from
cognitive
obstructions
definitely
has
nothing
to
do
with
Self-‐Liberation.
First
there’s
Great
Compassion,
may
all
sentient
beings
be
free
from
any
imperfection
–
basically.
Then
the
next
step
is
the
Special
Altruistic
Attitude,
which
means:
I,
myself,
will
do
something
about
it.
And
then,
I
want
to
become
enlightened
to
bring
this
about
and
that
would
be
Bodhicitta.
But
Great
Compassion
is
already
taking
us
in
the
direction
of
Buddhahood.
Therefore,
that
mind
does
not
assist
Cyclic
Existence
or
the
extreme
of
Nirvana,
i.e.,
self-‐liberation.
That
is
what
this
is
saying
here.
Great
Compassion
in
the
continuum
of
a
Bodhisattvas,
in
the
continuum
of
a
non-‐Bodhisattva,
but
here
it
is
referring
to
a
Bodhisattva,
that
mind
does
not
assist
samsara
nor
assist
the
peace
of
nirvana.
Because
those
are
two
extremes
that
a
Bodhisattva
wants
to
avoid.
The
main
wish
of
a
Bodhisattva
is
to
lead
all
sentient
beings
to
enlightenment.
That
indicates
the
Inner
Special
Tutor.
Then,
The
subject,
a
Bodhisattva's
empowering
condition,
a
Supreme
Emanation
Body,
is
a
Bodhisattva's
outer
special
tutor
because
it
is
a
Bodhisattva's
empowering
condition,
a
virtuous
guide
who
thoroughly
teaches
method
and
wisdom.
Supreme
Emanation
Body
refers
to
a
founding
Buddha,
an
historical
Buddha.
Our
Supreme
Emanation
Body
is
Shakyamuni
Buddha.
The
next
will
be
Maitreya.
We
cannot
say
an
Emanation
Body
here,
a
Buddha
who
can
teach
us.
We
cannot
say
an
Enjoyment
Body
because
on
the
Path
of
Preparation,
you
cannot
perceive
or
communicate
with
Saṃbhogakāya
Buddha;
only
Aryas
(who
have
directly
realized
emptiness)
can
directly
communicate
with
Saṃbhogakāya
Buddhas.
So
emanations
of
Buddhas.
Let’s
say
our
lama,
perceiving
the
lama
to
be
a
Buddha.
Are
we
perceiving
the
lama
to
be
an
Emanation
Body
or
an
Enjoyment
Body?
Definitely
an
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
37
Preparation
Emanation
–
assuming
that
you
are
not
Aryas.
We’re
able
to
perceive
the
lama
so,
therefore,
so
the
lama
is
an
Emanation.
Therefore,
the
definition
of
an
inner
special
tutor
is:
a
clear
realization
of
a
Bodhisattva
which
has
not
fallen
to
the
extreme
of
Samsara
nor
to
the
extreme
of
Peace
(i.e.,
self-‐liberation).
You
could
say
the
mind
realizing
Emptiness
conjoined
with
Bodhicitta
would
be
a
Special
Inner
Tutor.
But
just
the
mind
realizing
Emptiness
in
the
continuum
of
a
Hinayana
practitioner
assists
the
extreme
of
nirvana
The
definition
of
an
outer
special
tutor
is:
a
Bodhisattva's
empowering
condition,
a
virtuous
guide
who
thoroughly
teaches
method
and
wisdom
to
a
Bodhisattva.
The
text
does
not
explicitly
say
this
is
the
definition
as
it
does
with
the
first
one,
but
it
is
implied.
• Someone
asserts
that
the
definition
of
an
outer
special
tutor
is
not
correct
because
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
may
have
an
outer
special
tutor
who
is
a
proponent
of
the
Chittamatra
School.
Does a proponent of the Chittamatra School thoroughly teach method and wisdom?
They
teach
Method.
The
Mind
Only
School
teaches
a
very
limited
wisdom:
the
wisdom
of
understanding
subtle
impermanent,
for
example.
But
which
wisdom
do
they
not
teach?
The
lack
of
inherent
existence.
And
why
do
they
not
teach
that?
They
believe
in
inherent
existence.
Exactly.
A
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
may
have
an
outer
special
tutor
who
is
a
proponent
of
the
Chittamatra
School
because
he
may
have
a
special
tutor
who
is
a
proponent
of
the
Chittamatra
School.
A
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
may
have
a
special
tutor
who
is
a
proponent
of
the
Chittamatra
School
because
he
may
have
a
lama
who
is
a
proponent
of
the
Chittamatra
School.
38
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
There
is
no
pervasion,
i.e.,
even
though
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
may
have
a
lama
who
is
a
proponent
of
the
Chittamatra
School,
this
does
not
mean
that
he
has
a
special
tutor
who
is
a
proponent
of
the
Chittamatra
School.
There’s
a
difference
between
lama,
even
a
very
highly
qualified
lama
on
the
Path
of
Accumulation,
you
can
have
a
Bodhisattva
who
is
a
follower
of
the
Mind
Only
School,
who
is
on
the
Path
of
Accumulation.
Which
of
the
three
levels
of
the
Path
of
Accumulation
could
this
Chittamatra
Bodhisattva
be
on?
GESHE
WANGMO:
Wait
a
minute.
What
did
you
say
before?
Can
a
Chittamatra
Bodhisattva
realize
Emptiness?
You
just
said
before
that
they
cannot,
because
they
do
not
accept
the
lack
of
inherent
existence;
right?
So
a
person
who
is
a
Chittamatra
Bodhisattva,
a
Bodhisattva
who
is
a
follower
of
the
Mind
Only
School.
But
which
level
of
the
Path
of
Accumulation
can
they
not
go
beyond?
GESHE
WANGMO:
That’s
true.
They
can
generate
Earth-‐like
Bodhicitta
on
the
Small
Path
of
Accumulation.
Why
can’t
they
go
beyond
the
Small
Path
of
Accumulation?
MARK: Because they need to seal it with an conceptual insight . . .
GESHE
WANGMO:
Of
the
lack
of
inherent
existence.
Because
to
move
onto
the
next
level,
the
Middling
Path
of
Accumulation,
and
attain
Gold-‐like
Bodhicitta,
they
have
to
realize
the
lack
of
inherent
existence,
Emptiness.
If
someone
asserts
all
phenomena
exist
inherently
,
that
is
a
huge
obstacle
to
realizing
that
they
don’t
exist
inherently.
Right.
Forget
about
realizing;
you
don’t
even
have
a
correct
assumption
that
all
phenomena
lack
inherent
existence.
Why?
Because
you
assume
they
all
exist
inherently.
Therefore,
a
Chittamatra
follower
could
be
an
incredible
lama
in
terms
of
teaching
Method
correctly,
and
some
part
of
Wisdom
they
could
teach
correctly;
however,
they
could
not
be
an
outer
special
tutor
because
they
cannot
thoroughly
teach
method
and
wisdom.
Okay.
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
39
Preparation
What
is
an
Inner
Lama?
The
reason
is
that
whoever
is
an
inner
lama
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
is
not
necessarily
an
inner
special
tutor
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation.
Whoever
is
an
inner
lama
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
is
not
necessarily
an
inner
special
tutor
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
because
whoever
is
an
inner
lama
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
is
not
necessarily
an
inner
special
tutor
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation,
and
whoever
is
an
outer
lama
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
is
not
necessarily
an
outer
special
tutor
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation.
So what is an inner lama? I have no idea. I asked my teacher, what is an inner lama?
An
outer
lama
is
clear,
another
person
who
teaches
us.
So
they’re
not
necessary
an
outer
special
tutor,
because
an
outer
special
tutor
must
teach
the
highest
view
and
possibly
needs
to
be
a
Buddha.
But what is an inner lama? My teacher couldn’t tell me.
GESHE WANGMO: Yes, but this is Panchen Sonam Drakpa saying this.
Whoever
is
an
inner
lama
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
is
not
necessarily
an
inner
special
tutor
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
because
whoever
is
an
inner
lama
is
necessarily
a
person.
Yes.
STUDENT:
Sambhogakaya.
GESHE
WANGMO:
An
inner
lama
is
the
Sambhogakaya?
The
Sambhogakaya
could
be
an
inner
special
tutor
–
oh,
could
not
be
an
inner
special
tutor,
because
an
inner
special
tutor
is
always
a
mind.
But
why
do
you
not
say
that
the
Sambhogakaya
is
not
an
outer
special
lama?
STUDENT:
Because
I
think
the
inner
teachings
come
from
the
Sambhogakaya.
.
.
.
GESHE
WANGMO:
No.
Actually
when
you
become
enlightened,
you
will
become
the
Sambhogakaya
of
a
Buddha.
You
will
become
the
Sambhogakaya,
it’s
like
the
original.
It’s
another
person.
If
you
now
become
enlightened,
you
attain
enlightenment
in
a
special
realm.
As
a
Bodhisattva,
before
Buddhahood,
you
already
have
emanations.
So
let’s
say,
Shea,
you
are
the
emanation
of
a
Bodhisattva
who
is
actually
residing
somewhere
else.
And
then
when
this
Bodhisattva
resides
in
the
Pure
Realm
and
becomes
fully
enlightened,
the
Bodhisattva
becomes
the
Sambhogakaya,
and
you,
as
the
emanation,
will
become
enlightened
and
you
will
then
be
an
emanation
body.
SHEA:
So
the
inner
lama
is
the
Dharmakaya.
40
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation
GESHE
WANGMO:
The
Dharmakaya
is
not
a
person.
But
here
it
says,
whoever
is
an
inner
lama
is
necessarily
a
person.
So
an
inner
lama
–
somehow,
inner
and
outer
here
in
this
context,
seems
to
be
referring
to
something
I
possess.
Something
I
ossess.
So
my
inner
tutor
is
my
compassion
or
Bodhicitta
if
I
had
those.
Those
would
be
my
inner
special
tutor.
So
my
inner
lama
is
probably
also
something
inner
but
it
has
to
be
a
person,
so
what
would
that
be?
STUDENT:
Sambhogakaya.
GESHE
WANGMO:
A
bodhisattva
does
not
possess
the
Sambhogakaya
yet.
A
bodhisattva
doesn’t
possess
any
kaya.
STUDENT:
But
somehow
one
is
communicating
mentally
somehow.
GESHE
WANGMO:
But
here,
outer
means
someone
other
than
myself.
STUDENT:
It’s
got
to
be
a
mind.
GESHE
WANGMO:
Here
in
this
context:
it
seems
to
be
saying
–
because
Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa
doesn’t
give
any
other
hint.
So
an
inner
special
tutor
refers
to
inner
qualities.
Something
I
possess.
Let’s
say
I
was
a
bodhisattva,
then
my
inner
qualities
of
Bodhicitta
and
so
forth
would
be
my
inner
special
tutor.
My
outer
special
tutor
would
be
someone
other
than
myself,
who
teaches
me.
So
if
that
is
inner
and
outer,
from
that
perspective,
let’s
take
the
tutor.
[I’m
sorry,
I’m
going
overtime
but
I
really
want
to
finish
this
today].
So
let’s
take
inner
and
outer
lama.
Since
it
is
not
implied
that
inner
and
outer
mean
anything
different,
then
outer
definitely
means
someone
other
than
myself.
So
does
that
mean
inner
means
something
that
is
part
of
me.
Because
if
nothing
else
is
implied,
I
could
assume
that.
I’m
not
100%
sure.
So
if
it
is
something
within
me,
what
could
that
inner
lama
be?
VEN.
NORDRON:
Your
own
future
enlightenment
somehow
communicating
with
you.
Or
else,
I
think
she’s
suggesting,
some
form
of
a
Buddha
communicating
with
you
directly,
mentally.
GESHE
WANGMO:
That’s
what
she
is
suggesting,
but
that
would
still
be
an
outer;
right?
Because
it
is
someone
other
than
yourself.
Because
it
.
.
.
I’m
just
saying
what
Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa
is
saying.
Here,
he
is
saying,
the
way
he
defines
an
outer
tutor
–
we’re
trying
to
understand
what
he
is
saying.
Your
own
opinion,
in
the
end
that’s
your
choice.
But
trying
to
understand
Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa
here
is
the
first
step.
From
there,
the
next
step
is
forming
our
own
opinion.
So
here,
the
outer
lama
is
someone
other
than
oneself.
The
outer
tutor.
ADELE:
Why
don’t
you
say
the
inner
lama
is
Buddha
Nature.
GESHE
WANGMO:
It’s
not
a
person.
ADELE:
It
doesn’t
have
to
be
a
person.
GESHE
WANGMO:
“[B]ecause
whoever
is
an
inner
lama
is
necessarily
a
person.”
2014
Class
16
-‐
May
12
Class
Notes
Draft
–
Ornament
For
Clear
Realizations
–
Mahayana
Path
of
41
Preparation
Anyway
this
is
the
debate.
Just
trying
to
understand
what
Panchen
Sonam
Drakpa
is
saying
here,
he’s
saying
the
inner
lama
is
a
person.
So
who
could
that
be?
Maybe
the
person,
himself
or
herself.
Nordron-‐la
suggested
one’s
future
Buddha.
Okay.
Something
to
do
with
oneself.
We’ve
spoken
before
of
Resultant
Refuge
that
is
one’s
own,
future
enlightened
state.
So
something
inner,
but
I
don’t
know.
Shea
suggested
that
it
is
the
Sambhogakaya
somehow
communicating
in
an
inner
way.
I
don’t
know
because
on
the
Path
of
Preparation,
you
cannot
communicate
with
a
Sambhogakaya
yet.
We
are
talking
about
a
special
quality
that
someone
on
the
Path
of
Preparation
has.
Rigzin:
Having
attained
Bodhicitta,
the
person
may
be
their
own
lama
because
they
have
these
qualities.
GESHE
WANGMO:
I
don’t
know.
I
like
all
the
suggestions,
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
got
all
the
suggestions
to
see
if
they
contradict
what
is
in
here,
the
inner
lama
being
necessarily
a
person.
So
you
can
read
the
rest
on
your
own.22
So
we
have
completed
the
difficult
subject
of
the
Mahayana
Path
of
Preparation,
and
Buddha
Nature
starts
on
Wednesday.
22
Also,
whoever
is
an
outer
lama
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
is
not
necessarily
an
outer
special
tutor
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
because
whoever
is
an
outer
lama
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
is
not
necessarily
his
empowering
condition,
whereas
whoever
is
an
outer
special
tutor
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
is
necessarily
his
empowering
condition.
If
the
opponent
were
to
object
to
the
statement
that
whoever
is
an
outer
lama
of
a
Bodhisattva
on
the
path
of
preparation
is
not
necessarily
his
empowering
condition,
we
would
respond:
it
follows
that
whoever
is
an
outer
lama
of
a
practitioner
is
necessarily
his
cause.
If
the
opponent
were
to
accept
we
would
reply:
regarding
the
subject,
Buddha
Shakyamuni,
it
follows
that
he
is
the
cause
of
his
father
King
Suddhodana,
because
he
is
his
father
King
Suddhodana's
outer
lama.
This
completes
the
presentation
of
the
Mahayana
path
of
preparation.
[HANDOUT
P.
66]