Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 1

[Говорящий 1]
We're going to explain this book, Tanganyika Nyindo, in a very rough sense, because we have to go through the whole thing. So I'm going to go through it sort of in a Sumerian way. So we're going to start, if you don't mind.

TANGANYIKA NYINDO Generally speaking, we're going to go over the meaning of the name and then the great, incomparable, wonderful Je Tsongkapa taught many texts, up to 18 volumes of texts, 18 total volumes of texts. And among all those wonderful teachings, incredible teachings, if you took out the very essence of them, it would be this book. And that's why the name of the book is Essence.

Nying means essence.

[Говорящий 2]
TANGANYIKA NYINDO Page one, which is this.

[Говорящий 1]
The page looks like that. The very first line says, Namo Guru Manju Gokalya, which means I bow down to my Lama Manjushri. And he says, in general, this is similar to the translator's prostration at the beginning of the great books that were translated from Sanskrit.

And even though this book is composed by a Tibetan, and there was no need to translate it, Je Tsongkapa has gone ahead and used the custom, followed the custom of putting a translator's obeisance at the beginning. And that indicates that this book is very much in keeping with the original Sanskrit text, that Je Tsongkapa's viewpoints and Je Tsongkapa's writings are very much in keeping with the original books from India.

[Говорящий 2]
So, that's why the name of the book is Essence. Namo Guru Manju Gokalya, which means I bow down to my Lama Manjushri. And he says, in general, this is similar to the translator's prostration at the beginning of the great books that were translated from Sanskrit.

And even though this book is composed by a Tibetan, Je Tsongkapa's viewpoints and Je Tsongkapa's writings are very much in keeping with the original Sanskrit text, that Je Tsongkapa's viewpoints and Je Tsongkapa's writings are very much in keeping with the original Sanskrit text, that Je Tsongkapa's viewpoints and Je Tsongkapa's writings are very much in keeping with the original Sanskrit text,

[Говорящий 1]
Je Tsongkapa is bowing down. Namo is short for Namas, meaning to bow down. Guru means Lama and Manju Gokalya means to Manjushri.

And what he's saying here is that even though, I mean, generally speaking, Je Tsongkapa himself is an emanation of Manjushri. So, Je Tsongkapa is Manjushri in the form of a human being. But, you know, he emanated or he pretended to be going to Manjushri for teachings.

So his Lama is supposed to be Manjushri. So, just sort of by pretend, he bowed down to Manjushri. But, you know, in one level he took teachings directly from Manjushri.

At another level he is Manjushri. Then the following verses are all a lot of prostrations. Each verse is a prostration.

The first prostration is to Shakyamuni Buddha himself. The next prostration is to Manjushri himself. And then we go down to the holders of the lineage from Manjushri, which are called innovators.

So then the two great innovators, meaning the innovator of the Madhyamika, which is Sangha, Arya Nagarjuna. And then the innovator of the Mainomi school, which is the Sangha. And then the holders of the lineages of those two innovators.

Then he bowed down to the holders of the lineages of the two great innovators in this planet. And that's the meaning of the prostration that comes next. First eight lines are prostration to Shakyamuni Buddha.

Then the next verse is actually a prostration to both Manjushri and to Maitreya. And that's the next four lines. The next four lines are prostration to the two innovators, which are Nagarjuna and Asanga.

Then we're down to the fifth line of page two. And he's going fast, and that's OK. And those are prostrations to the holders of the systems of the two great innovators, the Lamas of the lineage of the two great innovators.

So now I'm going to go down in a Sumerian way, because we don't have time to actually go through the learning of each one. Then Geshe-la goes through a long list of non-Buddhist deities, great beings of the Hindu tradition. And the reason he's doing so is that at the end he says, even all of these beings pay homage to the speaker of this book, to the Buddha and to the Lamas of the lineage.

So it's just to show that it must be a very important book, if even the gods of the Hindu tradition are bowing down to the person who spoke its contents. The word dejung means... Oh, no, no, no.

Now we're back to page one, right under the box. Dejung means a source of happiness, and it's a name for Indra, Wangtung. The word didi, didi, didi, didi, didi, didi, didi, didi, didi, didi, didi, didi, didi, he can be called source of bliss, because he's getting bliss from his source of bliss, which is his confluence.

But from the other point of view, you could say his name is source of bliss, because he's the kind of being that the minute you lay eyes on him... You know there's people like that, that the minute you lay your eyes on them, you like them, you feel happy about them, they're attracted to you. So that's another reason why chakra is called source of bliss, because any time you lay your eyes on them, you get this feeling from them.

All these words are like expressions from ancient classical poetry or Sanskrit, and these are like nicknames that are given in classical poetry to these people. The next one is called, in Tibetan it's called gya jin. Do you know that Sanskrit?

Well, look it up. I look up the Sanskrit, I used to know it. It means hundred gifts.

And his name is Chinlachin. Chinlachin means riding on a cloud. And the point here is that he has a mighty elephant on which he rides.

That elephant is huge, that elephant is white, and so from that sense he's riding on the cloud, meaning he's riding on this huge elephant that's big and white. The next one is called sar kyi ngel. Sar kyi ngel means golden womb, and it refers to Brahma, which is a deity called Brahma, and he is said to have come out of a golden egg, so he's called the golden womb.

He was born out of a golden egg, so he's called golden womb. Two ways of explaining it. The next one refers to a deity called the Garbhangtuk, which is some kind of a fierce deity in this world.

These are all worldly deities. This calls him the lord of those with no body. And the meaning of that, he says, there are several ways to explain it, but generally there are three realms.

Desire realm, form realm, formless realm. In the form realm, people have extraordinary bodies, these big, strong, healthy bodies like Michael. He comes from America and has this big body, and so people in the form realm have these big, huge bodies, and then compared to them, you could say that people in the desire realm don't have any bodies at all.

So, lu me means no body, means he's the lord of those with no bodies, and Garbhangtuk is the deity that's sort of in charge of the desire realm, the worldly deity that kind of has control in the desire realm. So he's called the lord of those that by comparison don't have any bodies. And tom means belly.

And there are two explanations of this one as well. One is that when he was a boy, this deity, whose name is Khyamduke in Tibetan, I have to look it up in Sanskrit, like Khyaba, Khyaba Matu, Khyamduke, and when he was a boy he would wear a garland of flowers around his waist and he liked to walk around in this garland like a belt of flowers. And the other explanation is that he has his consort, or his wife, a being named Tangden, and she is, in Tibetan the word for wife is little one, and so it means comparatively she was quite shorter than him.

So one day she made a garland of flowers for him and she wanted to put it around his neck, but he's like eight feet tall, she's like four feet tall, so she went as far as she could and got it around his waist. Like she held it up and put it around his waist. So those are two explanations of why he's called belly, you know, like belting on the belly or something like that.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes, yes. Yes, yes. Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
These are, going back to the end of the second line where it says, si na drub pa nga rung chok drub pa In the world they are they are famed, their fame spreads with the roar of a conquering lion, because he's Danish, he's worldly Danish. Rungpa ging nam kyi kyang yi ku And their bodies are like, they are like having Napoleonic delusions, that's a delusion sometimes, they think they are big stuff. And so they are like dancing and they are like showing themselves to be great beings, taking poses of great beings.

But then when they see the body, when they lay their eyes on the body of Lord Buddha, then at that very instant they become, their glory and dignity becomes like, nyi me me kye means like a firefly that you put out in the sunlight. So, Jigme Phuntsok Rinpoche says at night if you see a firefly flying around, you can pick up the light because it's dark, and you see this tiny spark of light flying around. But during the daytime if you put them out and set them next to the sun, then that's the amount of dignity they have when you try to compare them to Lord Buddha.

And he says, it's not so much that they lose their dignity or they lose their glory by comparison to Lord Buddha's body, but these beings have suddenly become aware of Lord Buddha's holy characteristics, his holy, fine spiritual qualities. So, they've just become aware of the state of Lord Buddha's omniscience and his mind. It's not so much they are comparing body to body, it's a metaphor for comparing their mind to his mind.

And his mind is omniscient, extraordinary, sees all things at one time. And compared to that sun, they are like a firefly's mind. And so, almost involuntarily, they are forced to put the top of their head, which in India is the holiest part of your body, this is the important part of your body, they are impelled involuntarily to throw their heads down and get down on the ground with their face down in the dirt, and put their head on Lord Buddha's feet.

And this indicates the glory of Lord Buddha's mind compared to them. And then he's called Tubong, which is in Shakyamuni. Paihla means among all the gods, he's the god of the gods.

So, Paihla means god of gods. So, among all the gods, he's like the god of the gods by comparison. But mainly talking about the quality of his omniscience.

[Говорящий 2]
So, Paihla, in India, it is said that if you don't practice your omniscience, you won't be able to practice your omniscience. So, if you don't practice your omniscience, you won't be able to practice your omniscience. So, if you don't practice your omniscience, you won't be able to practice your omniscience.

So, in India, if you don't practice your omniscience, you won't be able to So, in India, if you don't practice your omniscience, you won't be able to practice your omniscience. So, in India, if you don't practice your omniscience, you won't be able to practice your omniscience. So, in India, if you don't practice your omniscience, you won't be able to practice your omniscience.

[Говорящий 1]
Then when he says the last phrase there is I bow down to Lord Buddha. And Lord Buddha now, Geshe-la is saying that if you think about the quality of those high beings, they are representing, in a way, their religions. Each one of them represents one of the great Hindu religions.

So, as being represented those religions, they are like the king of all the writers and all the teachers that have ever lived of those religions, and by extension, all the writings that those great scholars and great religious teachers have written. So from that point of view, when they talk about the deities, they're really talking about the great proponents of these religions, which is talking about the writings of the great proponents of those religions. And if you compare those writings to the speech of Lord Buddha, to the writings of Lord Buddha, then the point here is that there's no comparison, that that also is like the sun compared to a firefly.

So when he bows down here, when Je Tsongkhapa bows down, he's really bowing down to the teachings of the Buddha, which teach you in an accurate way the things you should do, and teaches you in an accurate way what things you shouldn't do with your life. Really we're bowing down to that quality of Lord Buddha that he is able to teach you accurately what you should do with your life and what you shouldn't do with your life, and in that way, the real meaning of prostration here is prostrating to the greatest single quality of an enlightened being, which is that they teach us in a way we can relate to, we can learn. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, You may wonder why Je Tsongkhapa is concentrating on doing his obeisance or making his homage to this speech of the Buddha.

Generally speaking, you can't look at all the high qualities of an enlightened being and say, this quality is better than that quality, or I like this one better than that one, or something like that. They all have this quality of being limitless. But if you check, if you really check, then the state of the Buddha's body, the body itself, the fact that it is adorned with those various marks and things like that, that in itself is not a great benefit to us.

It's extraordinary, it's incredible, but in itself it doesn't do us much good. If you think about the Buddha's state of mind, that's something we can't even perceive. So in a way, that's not so much help to us either.

So if we look at it from our point of view, meaning, which of these high qualities of an enlightened being is most useful for us and most beneficial for us, you've got to choose his speech, the fact that he teaches us accurately, this is what you should do with your life, this is what you shouldn't do with your life, these are things you should try to accomplish, these are things you should try to avoid, and that accurate presentation of that is what mostly helps us.

So it makes sense here that Je Tsongkhapa is mainly bowing down to the quality of an enlightened being that they have, that they teach us their speech, holy speech of an enlightened being, and they spend their time mainly in teaching, trying to teach us things, and he's really bowing down, rather than to the body or to the mind state of a Buddha, he's really bowing down to the enlightened words of a Buddha. You could take an example of Michael, Los Angeles, okay, he's got, you know, American bodies to us look pretty big, and he's got this big body, healthy body, and then he's learned all this stuff, but that's not really what attracted you, is it?

It's that he opened his mouth and he said something about dharma, and then you understood what he said about dharma, and then you had something to practice, because he opened his mouth and said something to you. So really, it's not that you didn't come to him for the body, you didn't come to him for the mind so much, you came to him because he could relate to you and explain to you about dharma, and so that's the most useful quality of this relationship.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay, so that's the most useful quality of this relationship, and so that's why I'm saying that you have to come to him for the body, and you have to come to him for the mind, and you have to come to him for the mind, and you have to come to him for the mind, and you have to come to him for the mind.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay, so the next verse is explaining the, talking about Manjushri and Maitreya, and especially from the point of view of their high spiritual qualities. So it begins by saying knowledge and love, and it compares it to the depths of the ocean. So it says, you know, people like you and me, if we go out and try to stick our arm into the ocean and try to reach down and see how deep it is, it would be kind of hard to do.

And to try to get to the bottom of their knowledge, and try to get to the bottom of the measure of their love for us, and their compassion, and their knowledge, would be like us trying to stick our arm in the ocean, trying to touch the bottom. So that's what the first line is talking about. Bapakami, difficult to measure.

Chanchi chuppi lap ching ching ching yo means, he says, I've never been to the ocean personally, but I know probably you guys have, and as I hear, my understanding is that there are these big waves that keep going across the ocean, and then you can sit on the beach, and the waves keep coming in all day, all night, they never stop, they keep rolling in, you know, whether anybody's there or not, they just keep rolling in, rolling across the ocean. This one says, their bodhisattva activity, the action of their six perfections is like the constant waves of an ocean, and whenever a student is ready, whenever a disciple has enough virtue, then the wave is reaching into them and touching them from those two holy beings.

So in that sense, it's constant, it's ever available. These waves are always there, and as soon as the student or the disciple's mind is pure enough, then these waves are rushing over them of knowledge and compassion. What?

That's great. Then Manjushri is like, he said that the word in Tibetan is like a gold mine, and he said you could say like a treasure house, I guess you guys nowadays would say a local bank. And Manjushri's knowledge of the speech of the Buddha, so the Buddha spoke these holy words, and then Manjushri is like a bank account of this holy speech, and he's holding it, and he's a repository of it.

So he's bowing down to the Jambayang Manjushri and also to the, the word in Tibetan is gyaltsab means the, what do you call that? Regent. He's waiting in Buddha's heaven, he's holding that space for him to get back, and that's Maitreya.

Maitreya and Manjushri are both being referred to as the ocean, the two oceans.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Yes. Yes.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Yes. Next, Je Tsongkapa is bowing down to the two, what we call the two innovators, in Tibetan that's called, those who started the system of the wooden horse, meaning like a car maker, the first car maker, they're called the innovators. And Buddha taught the Dharma, he taught Hinayana Dharma, he taught Mahayana Dharma, and right after he passed away, right after he passed from this world, then the Hinayana Dharma, Theravada Dharma, started to spread in the world very well.

And as you know, it spread to countries like all throughout Southeast Asia, and so the lower way spread throughout the world very well. And then the higher way, the Mahayana way, went into sort of a decline for a while, right after the Buddha passed away, and it didn't spread so much. So really the function of the two great innovators was not so much innovation, but restoration.

And their task was to restore the two great Mahayana schools, which is the Mainomi school and the Middle Way school. So the function of Arya Nagarjuna and of Asanga, the Master Asanga, were more to restore something that had been there before, and then had sort of started to disappear in this world. And they were not just restoring, they were not just restorers, they were actually predicted by Lord Buddha.

Lord Buddha during his time on this planet said, my teachings on Mahayana will go into sort of a decline, and then these two great beings will come. Nagarjuna came 700 years after, and then we think that about 150 years later, Asanga. So they restored, they were not just restorers, but Lord Buddha actually predicted that they would be coming into the world and would undertake this duty of bringing the Mahayana Dharma back to its original level.

[Говорящий 2]
And so he's bowing down to these two innovators and restorers who were actually predicted by Lord Buddha.

[Говорящий 1]
So now he's bowing down to Asanga, and Nagarjuna is bowing down to Asanga, and Nagarjuna is after the restoration of the Mahayana, after the two great innovators had brought it back up to its original level, now he's bowing down to those who maintained it, who maintained the lineage down to us. And he's pointing out not everybody, but just the main ones. They could be called, dzamling-losel means like students of the world, like we are normal students, we are normal people, and they are like people who open our eyes, their job is to open our eyes.

So they're called those who open the eyes of clear minds of the world. And then he starts mentioning some of the Lama's names, Prakrathaya's Ayodhya, Taiyang, Ashwagosha, who is also called Pao, I don't know if Saskatchewan Pao, No, that's the next one. Next one is Buddhapalita, next one is Baba Rebecca, and then Chandrakirti.

I have to look up Pao for you. I think it's Ashwagosha.

[Говорящий 2]
That's the next one. That's it.

[Говорящий 1]
Then he's also bowing down to more Lama's of the mind-only tradition, the mind-only lineage. So he's continuing with the mind-only lineage Lama's. He goes into Master Vasubandhu, and then Loten, is it Sthira, Sthira, we'll have to name him, Sthiravati, and then Dignaga, and then Dharmakirti.

And he's bowing down, and his Dharmingen means like jewels in this planet, jewels in this world. The next is what we call a pledge to compose the word. This is like a standard in a Buddhist book where the author says, OK, now I promise I'll write this book.

And once they promise, they never give up. So he's going to start writing the book. And he says, there were beings in Tibet...

He's referring in an oblique way to certain great scholars who preceded him in the Tibetan tradition. So now we're out of India. We're talking about after the great translation period was finished.

And we're talking about the great Tibetan wise scholars who came after the translations were completed. And when it says here, you have heard many great teachers. Here he's referring to Bhutan Rinchen Drup, who was one of the great...

Two generations before Je Tsongkapa, he was one of the great teachers in Tibet. And then he refers to Rikben Lamduyang. He's referring to great Sakyas, teachers like Chakravarti Sengye and Rikben Drup.

Rikben Drup, who's also a great Sakya scholar. Nyawamon Motenkang, even though all of you, former Tibetans up to 1400, right? You really worked hard to understand the meaning of the scriptures.

But... Even though you have many great qualities, there are certain points which you didn't understand. Which you didn't get.

And I, due to the kindness of my Lama, who is Manjushri, did see them very clearly. So as a result, out of love, and not out of any kind of feelings of competitiveness or jealousy or anything like that. Out of love for them and for also the beings, his students, and people to come after him.

Dakye She means, I promise to write this book. I will explain those points that even the great early Tibetans, even though they were very learned, and even though they made great efforts, they didn't perceive totally. But I, due to the kindness of Manjushri, my teacher, did perceive.

And I'm going to write a book about that.

[Говорящий 2]
Promise to compose the work.

[Говорящий 1]
The next lines are what we call exhorting the students to listen. Encouraging the disciples to listen carefully. Now the next two lines are that.

It's a standard part of a Buddhist book that we are asking the students. Now this is very important to listen to. And you should listen with great respect and try to learn this thing well.

Encouraging the students to listen carefully and to follow the book carefully, and recognizing that if you are intelligent, if you are a person with perspicacity, then you should take this teaching to heart, think about it carefully, listen to it carefully. And Dan says, it doesn't only apply to monks sitting in a monastery. This advice is also directed toward those Americans and later generations who study this book.

You who have intelligence, come, listen to this book, take its contents carefully, and enjoy it.

[Говорящий 2]
Thank you. intimidate someone, they look at you and go like that, and stammer you will be bowing and crying.

[Говорящий 1]
That is why Maw is describing the potential student for this book and you know he's going into the wording of that. If you're not sure where we are, it's the seven lines from the bottom, okay? Dembe Denyi means, uh, thusness of the teaching and it's referring to emptiness itself.

Uh, so Dembe Denyi means the thusness that we're on page two, seven lines from the bottom, uh, Dembe Denyi. Dhobhe Namthakini means those of you who hope to be people who could perceive emptiness, okay, those of you who hope to be people who could understand the meaning of emptiness, examine it, and then Mawadame, those of you who hope to become unmatched, uh, professors, meaning teachers of this way, okay, uh, then, uh, Dönna means those of you who hope to be that way, those of you who hope to understand emptiness, those of you who hope to later pass it on to other people. Kurpe Nyen means listen with a pure heart and respect the teaching.

[Говорящий 2]
Hmm. Shesongsos.

[Говорящий 1]
Uh, all the lines from where, uh, from the sixth line from the bottom of page two all the way up to the eighth line from the top of page four is a general presentation of what we're going to be talking about. Uh, it comes, it refers to a sutra which, uh, we don't have anymore. Uh, some people say it was translated into Tibetan.

Some say it was never translated into Tibetan. But either way, we don't have it, we don't see it around nowadays. And it's called Yuko Kyongi Shubha.

Uh, the sutra requested by Yuko Kyongi, I believe it's Upadeyamna. Sure, but, uh, we'll have to check. But, uh, somebody named Yuko Kyongi has requested the sutra.

Um, all the text that comes then after that for about two pages, uh, is describing, uh, the general outline, uh, it's a general outline of, of what we're going to be talking about. In general, there are four great schools of ancient Indian thought. Uh, the highest of them is Madhyamika.

The highest group among the Madhyamika is the Prasangika. And in this, uh, line from the sutra, uh, we're describing in general terms how the Madhyamika and Prasangika explain things.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes. Mm.

[Говорящий 1]
Uh, the next four, uh, lines from the, which are the actual quotation from the sutra, uh, start out by saying, which means the way of emptiness, the way of peace, and the way of something that never started. Okay? And, uh, he says, how do we explain that?

In general, they're all referring to emptiness itself. So, uh, even though emptinesses are all the same, every emptiness is equal to every other emptiness, the thing which is empty has a difference. So there are differences between the objects which are empty.

So even though the three emptinesses are the same, uh, the emptinesses are giving three different names because of the difference of the object which is empty. When you say object, you're also referring to the mind which perceives the emptiness, because the subject, object implies subject. So, really, you're talking about the subject which perceives emptiness, and then dividing it into three kinds by the object which is empty.

Even though all emptinesses are the same, the thing which is empty is different. And so there are three kinds of emptiness stated here. Emptiness, peace, and that which never started.

Uh, and that's referring to three different kinds of emptiness. Really, this is called the... In scripture, this is technically called the three doors of liberation.

And these are three different aspects, or three different flavors of emptiness, which are really all the same, but they're different because of the object which is empty. And these are, uh... The first door of liberation is emptiness itself.

The second one is the fact that nothing has any characteristic of its own. And the last one is called the fact that there is no wish. And then those are called the three doors of liberation.

And the last one is the fact that nothing has any wish. Now, what that means is a long story. But those are three emptinesses that are being described here in the opening lines.

And then he says, mi shepay ni... Because people don't understand these three kinds of emptiness, dror kem gyur pa, people are wandering around in the samsara forest aimlessly. They don't know.

They can't help. They're just hopelessly wandering around in this forest. And...

And he's about to... He's about to outline the ways in which you could come to see emptiness and stop wandering around. And if you care about people, and if you want to help them get out of suffering, then you would be undertaking this book as a means to see emptiness directly so that you yourself could be of real help to other people.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Generally, you could talk about emptiness. Let's talk about emptiness. Let's talk about these three from the point of view of an actual object.

He says, let's take a water vase. No, let's take a pen. He says, the pen, the fact that it doesn't exist truly, is the first door to freedom.

So when we talk about the door to freedom, which is called emptiness itself, which is the first of the three doors to freedom, the emptiness itself of the pen, the fact that the pen does not exist truly, is the first of the three doors of freedom. The door of freedom that's called, things don't have any characteristics of their own, refers to the fact, it's a little bit tricky, okay, that the cause of the pen doesn't come from its own side, that the cause of the pen, the things that produce the pen, don't have any existence from their own side or true existence. So that's the second of the two doors to liberation, which is called, things don't have any characteristics of their own.

Then the very difficult one, the door to freedom, which is called, no wishes, that no wishes exist, refers to the fact that the things which the pen produces, such as writing or letters like that, the results of the pen existing, they also have no existence, no true existence, no existence from their own side. So that's what it means. The third door to liberation, which means that things don't have any characteristics of their own, which is that there's no wish, refers to the fact that the things which the pen produces, the results which the pen produces, also have no existence, true existence from their own side.

So those are the three doors to liberation. We refer to the pen, the cause of the pen, and the result of the pen. Apart from a difference in the object which we're describing, it's emptiness, right?

There's a difference of three objects, cause, pen, and result of pen. We're describing a difference of three emptinesses on the basis of the three different things that are empty. But the three emptinesses are totally the same.

Emptiness is always totally the same. Just that the object which is empty is changing in each of the three doors to liberation. He's going really quick.

You can also get into this from another point of view. So far we've been talking about the cause of the pen, the pen itself, and the result of the pen. But you can also look at the pen itself and say the nature of the pen, the pen as a cause, and the pen as a result.

So you can also describe the three doors of emptiness that way, that you're looking at the pen itself and talking about the pen as a cause, the pen as a nature, or an object, and the pen as a result. So even in one moment you can talk about, without reference to three different times, even in one moment or one pen, you can describe it as displaying the three doors of emptiness, those three kinds of emptiness.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
And then, Jetsun Kapa is going on. He's using this sutra quotation as the basis for his whole explanation. So he gave you four lines.

He says, look, it's authoritative. The Buddha himself spoke about it. And now he's going to go ahead and rip it apart and examine it and analyze it and give you the explanation.

So actually, even though there are three doors to liberation, they are all referring to emptiness, and all emptinesses are the same. But in order for us to understand it more clearly, Jetsun Kapa is going to go on now and explain more about it. The next line says, the very nature of things is extremely difficult to perceive.

And the word dok in Tibetan, if you spell it a different way, means to be hungry. Your stomach is... you are feeling hungry.

So he says, you know, people like you and me must forget perceiving emptiness. You know, for us, the only thing that we could ever perceive, dok, is the emptiness in that we feel hungry, dok. So that's about the level of our ability to perceive things.

He's making a joke.

[Говорящий 2]
He's making a joke.

[Говорящий 1]
The Buddha has seen that the reason that we suffer, and the reason that we haven't been liberated from samsara and suffering, is that we haven't perceived emptiness yet. but we haven't perceived emptiness, what it means to be empty yet. That's the last section.

[Говорящий 2]
Hmm. Yes, yes. Yes.

So this, I don't know if you've seen it or not, but I've seen it.

[Говорящий 1]
Yes, yes, yes. Then, because of our failure, he's going through that cause and effect relationship. Because of our failure to understand emptiness, we collect karma and we get feelings that, because we misunderstand our own self-nature, because we don't know who I am because of our failure to understand emptiness, then we are going out to protect a me and to take care of a me and to ignore other people at the expense of other people to take care of me and collecting bad karma, all because we don't understand the nature of ourselves and who we are, because we haven't understood the emptiness of ourselves. So based on a lack of understanding about our own emptiness, we misunderstand who I am.

And then based on that, we undertake activities to protect that person and we ignore other people. And then based on that, we collect bad karma, and based on that, we have suffering. So that's a complex thing.

The Buddha has seen that this is the case of why we suffer is that we haven't seen emptiness. Generally speaking, it would be very useful if we could understand the emptiness of other objects and the objects around us, the objects in our environment, but really the one that causes us to collect bad karma, the misunderstanding or the lack of understanding about emptiness that is responsible for us suffering and collecting our most bad karma, is misunderstanding the emptiness of ourselves. So that's the most important one to concentrate on, is to try to understand the emptiness of ourselves, because it's the lack of understanding of the emptiness of ourselves that inspires us to collect bad karma, to protect ourselves in a way which depends on that understanding of emptiness.

That's why on page 3, line 2, Jetsun Khapa begins to say, That's why it's important for those of you who are intelligent, who's using the same word that you should make great efforts to try to grasp what it means for something to be empty.

[Говорящий 2]
That's important.

[Говорящий 1]
And really to understand and perceive emptiness directly depends directly on the person in upon understanding what parts of what the Buddha ever taught are to be taken literally and what parts of what the Buddha taught are to be taken figuratively. When did he say what he meant and when did he didn't say what he meant because he needed to help somebody in the audience. So it's very important for us, if we're going to understand emptiness or perceive it, we have to be able to distinguish, make the distinction between this the Buddha taught, meaning what he said, and this the Buddha taught, not meaning what he said, and this is a very intriguing point.

From a very much more profound point of view, the meaning of the word figurative and the meaning of the word literal. Figurative meaning with the sense of not being what it seems to be is referring to deceptive reality, deceptive reality around us. And the word literal meaning is what it seems to be.

If the words and the intention match each other, then that's in a sense on a deeper level is also referring to ultimate reality. So just the words literal and figurative, figurative and literal are referring to the two great realities that exist around us, deceptive reality and ultimate reality. And when we get into a debate in the debate ground, this is the point that we're trying to work out so that we can see emptiness.

In an actual debate you get a problem on this point because if you debate this page, which we do in the monastery, basically you're telling somebody, you have to be able to discern or distinguish the difference between figurative and literal meaning, deceptive reality and ultimate reality in order to see emptiness. So in a sense what you're saying is, you have to perceive emptiness in order to perceive emptiness. If you get into the debate about this in the debate ground, you're going to get stuck here.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes, that's right.

[Говорящий 1]
The way to get out of this in the debate on the debate ground is to start clarifying which literal and which figurative you're talking about. So, one, you can say, from the point of view of the books which express the difference between figurative and literal, which is now referring to expressions being literal and figurative, you have to understand that distinction between which expressions or which books are literal and which expressions or books are figurative, you have to understand that distinction before you can get to the further distinction of the distinction between realities being what they seem to be and realities not being what they seem to be. So, you can answer it that way if you get in a debate with somebody. I'm talking, you have to distinguish literal and figurative on the level of expression in order to get to literal and figurative on the level of realities that they're talking about.

[Говорящий 2]
So, you have to distinguish between the two, you have to distinguish between the two, you have to distinguish between the two, you have to distinguish between the two, you have to On a deeper level, you can distinguish between the two reality types, right?

[Говорящий 1]
You see, we just said that you had to distinguish between figurative and literal in the sense of expressions or books being figurative and literal in order to get to figurative and literal on the sense of reality. Which reality is what it seems, which reality is not what it seems. But, on On a deeper level, you can discuss the second one in terms of two levels in itself, meaning we're trying to get to a Pramana, a Samma, which can perceive emptiness.

That's the goal. We're trying to distinguish between deceptive reality and literal reality on an ultimate sense in a perceptual level of Samma, meaning correct or valid perception, correct perception. We're trying to get to that level.

But if you state that that is the goal, then what are you going to talk about as the method to get to that goal? Are you saying you have to understand the distinction between literal and figurative and not perceive it with Pramana, not perceive it with the correct perception, in order to get to a point where you can make the distinction with the correct perception? He says, yeah, that's what we're saying.

So what do you call the state of mind in which you analyze or examine the difference between literal and figurative in order to get to a realization with the correct perception of the distinction between literal and figurative? That's what we call learning. You go to class, you think about it, you try to figure out the difference between deceptive reality and ultimate reality, and at that point you do not have a Pramana or a correct perception about it.

You are not able to perceive it even on a rational basis. You cannot give the correct reasons why that should be the case, that this is literal and that is figurative reality. So at the beginning, at the stage that we're at, we're at a place where we are trying to figure this out with some kind of guessing or approximation.

We are saying, I think it's probably like that, because I think that's probably like that, and this is not a Pramana, this is not an accurate perception, but it's a guess or an approximation that we do when we first start learning about the subject of emptiness. So in that case, you can say that one must reach an approximate understanding of emptiness in order to get to the true realization of emptiness, whether that realization is rational, based on logic, deductive, or whether it's direct. So in this case, even on a perceptual level, you've got to do one before you do the other, so when you're in a debate ground, you can answer it that way too.

Now, on the subject of deciding what did the Buddha say that he meant to be taken figuratively, and when the Buddha meant something to be taken literally, if to make that distinction, which is the name of this book, making the distinction between what is figurative and what is literal, is it safe to take what he said is his distinction as a distinction? So if the Buddha came and said, oh, here's the distinction, here's how you make the distinction between what's figurative and literal, are we to take that or if it's literal? Because that's not the way the Buddha works.

The Buddha has different disciples, his disciples have different levels of understanding. He has to present even the decision of what to take as literal and figurative as something which is designed for individual students. So he may even be describing how to distinguish between literal and figurative in a way which is figurative.

So you can't even take that on its, what do you call it, on its appearance. You can't even take that as being literal when he explained the difference between what's literal and figurative. So we cannot depend on scripture alone to make the distinction between what is figurative and what is literal.

Because if we did that, we would get into the habit of taking everything the Buddha said is literal, and then we'd be in deep trouble because then our minds would be really blowing up.

[Говорящий 2]
There's a very good example of this, which is a very good example of this, which is a very good example of this, which is a very good example of this, which is a very good

[Говорящий 1]
example of this, which is a very good example of this, which is a very good example of this, which is a very good example of this, which is a very good example of this, which is a which is a very good example of this, which is a very good example of this, which is a very good example of this, which is a very good example of this. So that's a very interesting conundrum that comes up if you look at, for example, the Perfection of Wisdom sutras themselves, which are divided into the briefer, the medium-length, and the more extensive one. So when he taught it to the Prasangika people who are miraculous Prasangika, the highest level of ability, intellectual ability, so he's explaining to them, and he's trying them straight out.

This is the Meaning of Emptiness. This is what emptiness means. Nothing has an indivisible existence, and he goes like very heavy on them, and they get it.

And so for them, these one set of books is literal. But the same set of books can be figurative to somebody else. So when he meets the mind-only school of people, and they don't have the intellectual or dharma ability of the Prasangika, they complain to Lord Buddha and say, you know, did you mean it when you made all these radical statements, you know, and were you talking literally when you said it?

He says, oh no, don't worry, I was just being figurative, you know, I was just trying to explain it in sort of a figurative way. So he said the same thing, you know, he explained it even as being literal and figurative to two different people, totally different. So you can't go just taking the word of the Buddha about what's literal and what's figurative to decide what's literal and figurative, because that could have been literal and figurative.

[Говорящий 2]
This philosophical hassle will come back to haunt us later in this book, we'll have to

[Говорящий 1]
Now Geshe-la is going to go on to explain that another indication that the Buddha spoke something which he meant to be taken literally, and he spoke other things that he meant to be taken figuratively, is reflected in the very fact that these two great innovators had to come along and start explaining, this is what he meant, this is not what he meant. So if he hadn't meant something figuratively, and he hadn't meant something literally, it would have been a big waste of time for all these commentators to write all these commentaries and all the hundreds of years to try to take the Buddha's words like the rice in India and pick out the rocks for you, it wouldn't have been necessary. So the fact that they did write these books, and the fact that they did go into these long explanations about the Buddha did mean that, the Buddha didn't mean that, he was trying to tell this to that group, but it's not true what he told to the other group, because the other group just had to hear it that way.

If it weren't necessary to make this distinction, then there wouldn't be this great tradition of Buddhist teaching ever since the Buddha explaining the distinctions. What I just said is reflected in this book on page 3 on the seventh and eighth lines, where Je Tsongkapa says, if this were not the case, then it would have been a useless effort for people like the great innovators to undertake writing all these commentaries about what the Buddha really meant and what the Buddha didn't really mean. And even in the Buddha's own speech, he gave many different explanations of how to decide what was figurative and what was literal.

So even on that point, he was being figurative and literal. And then Je Tsongkapa goes on to say, look, even in the normal world, when you meet somebody and they start talking to you, you have to decide what they say is literal and what they say is figurative, when they're saying what they mean to say, and when they're not saying what they mean. And even in the normal world, with normal people that you bump into and you start having a conversation with, you have to decide what to say.

You have to be making this distinction all the time. Oh, he's not being literal at that moment, he's making a pun or a joke or something. This person is being, now he's being literal, now he's not being literal.

If you have to make that distinction just having a normal conversation with somebody you bump into on the street, then of course you have to make that distinction with an enlightened being who can read the minds of all the listeners for all of time and say, I better say this this way to this person right now because they need it this way right now, and I better change it when I talk to this other person because they need it a different way right now.

So even with normal people you have to make this distinction, then of course you have to make this distinction with an omniscient being who is adjusting every word he says, understanding the implications out for all of time. You better make the distinction or if you take everything as literal, everything he said is exactly the way he said it, you're going to have a big problem in your mind. Even with a person that you meet on the street, if you take everything they say as literal, your mind is going to blow up.

Everything I've just said is reflected in the next four lines that start with dimi about halfway down the page at the end of that line and go down with the tenth line to about the thirteenth line. Everything I just said is reflected in the Tibetan there in those next four lines. He's referring to one of these Tibetan sayings that is called the idiot looking at the water and the dumb head looking at the water.

Somebody spills some water on the table, different little rivulets of water start going off in different directions and if your mind was like, your mind would turn like that. Like if you believed that everything that someone said literally, if you took everything they said literally in a conversation, then it would be like, your mind would be... It's like scrambled eggs or something like that, and your mind would be like a scrambled egg.

It's like in those drug posters and stuff, that your mind would be like a scrambled egg and you couldn't figure out anything. If you took everything that someone said as literal, even in a normal conversation, you'd end up with scrambled eggs.

[Говорящий 2]
You'd end up with scrambled eggs.

[Говорящий 1]
So in practical terms, how are we supposed to figure out this distinction between what's figurative and what's literal? In very practical terms, how are we supposed to go about what we have to do in order to see emptiness? So he says we have to depend on somebody who's authoritative.

We have to go back to the innovators. The innovator who started the Madhyamika, and the innovator who started the Mind-Only School, or who restored it, right? And you have to go back to them, and you have to go see, what did they say?

What did they say is the Mind-Only system for seeing emptiness? What did they say is the Madhyamika system for seeing emptiness? We have to go back to them.

He's going back to this water thing. Don't just take what everybody says as authoritative. Don't just wander around and believe whatever you read.

Go back to the authoritative original sources, which is the two great innovators who restored the Mind-Only and the Madhyamika systems, and try to learn how to see emptiness according to each of those two different methods of seeing emptiness. What I just said is reflected in the rest of page 3, and the beginning of page 4, where it says we have to go back to the people who were predicted by the Buddha, and the Buddha himself said, these people will be able to distinguish what I said. They'll be able to tell you, this is literal, this is figurative, this is what this means, this is what that means.

We have to go back to the people that the Buddha predicted would be able to do that, which is the two great innovators. That's what the rest of this page is saying. now Je Tsongkhapa is winding things up, he's wrapping things up, he's saying, look, after all this conversation, what does it all boil down to?

TAT TUB PA SRED means, what does it all boil down to? You must learn to make the distinction between what the Buddha taught, you must be able to examine it, you must be able to analyze it with rational thinking, you must be able to reason, you must be able to figure out rationally with good reasons, this is what he meant, this is not what he meant. Ultimately, it all boils down to your own ability to think reasonably, with reason, and perceive with valid perception what's true, based on your own reasoning, and not based on just what different people came and told you, and you heard different things from different people, take what everybody says as literal, try to get all this input from different people who don't know anything, and come up with some mishmash, which ultimately, if you compare it to what you know to be reasonable or logical, doesn't work.

If you examine it with logic, you see that there's a discrepancy between what that teaching says and what you, in your heart, know is reasonable or logical, or what could logically be true, and if you reach that point where what you know in your heart could be logical and reasonable, and then what you're going around and trying to say you believe in don't match each other, other people will start to pick up on that, they'll sense that what you're saying is no longer defendable, or defensible, or logical, and they'll pick up on that, and then they'll say, oh, we can't believe this person, this person is not a reliable person to learn from, and then you'll become a person, what we call, not a person who is infallible, not a person who cannot, there's a thing called a person who cannot tell a lie, or a person who cannot speak anything, which is a person who can only speak the truth, you won't be like that, you'll be this other kind of person that people are like, maybe I can trust what you're saying, maybe I can't trust what you're saying, so what you say must match what you know to be logical, what you've figured out logically, and that is what it all boils down to, not what people say, but what you have determined with immaculate deduction of your own mind what's true and what's false.

[Говорящий 2]
... ... ...

[Говорящий 1]
So the text here in line 4 is talking about that thing which is in actuality empty, that thing which in actuality has no nature of its own, and he says you can go around, we Buddhists are not the kind that have to go around depending on what the words say, you know, we are not a belief system, or we are not Buddhists by just picking up on words and looking at words and saying whatever the word says that we believe, You can't do that. Even if it's what Lord Buddha said, you can't go saying, Lord Buddha said it, so I believe it.

And then you can't go around to other people and insisting that they accept what you believe because Lord Buddha said it, Lord Buddha said it. That's what the words say. You can't go around like that.

You can't, as Buddhists, be going around like that. Ultimately, everything you believe must be defensible, defendable, in your own mind, by your own logic, because you figured it out to be true. So if we're talking about a vase, no, let's talk about the pen.

If we're talking about the emptiness of a pen, then we can't be going around and saying, oh, it's empty because Lord Buddha said so, because Lord Buddha said so, because the words say so. We have to be able to demonstrate to normal people how this pen is empty and what the emptiness of this pen means. And then once they perceive the emptiness of the pen, just through normal conversational means, then they will have become Buddhists and they have accepted our belief because it's logical to them, not because somebody said so, and they don't even know they're Buddhists at that point.

But their belief at that moment is the perfect Buddhist belief because it's based not on what somebody said, but because it makes sense and they figured it out and it's logical to them. So now, having said that you shouldn't depend on words and that you should depend on what makes sense, what's logical, what makes sense in your own heart, that you know and not depend on words, then to prove that this is a correct viewpoint to have about Buddhism and Buddhist learning, Je Tsongkapa goes on to say, because these guys need it, right? So he's going on to say, you don't believe what I said about depending on the meaning and figuring it out yourself and believing what's logical and what makes sense to you rather than just believing whatever the book says?

Well, the Buddha said you better do that and the book says that. He's taking scriptural authority to prove that idea. So now he pulls out a very famous quotation, which begins from the end of the fifth line on page four where it says, and the Buddha himself is saying, look, I'm going to teach you how to be Buddhist.

I'm going to teach you how to come to a belief system properly. He says, don't do it just because you like me. Don't do it just because I said so.

Don't do it because this book was spoken by the Buddha. I don't want you to believe what I say just because I said it. I want you to believe in something because you have examined it and because it makes sense to you logically.

And then you should believe what I say. It's, for example, like gold. And he says, well, you being Americans, probably a lot of gold over there.

You know all this stuff. Gold you have to examine in three different ways. In ancient times, somebody brought to you a rock and said, this is gold.

You should buy it from me for a lot of money. So you have to take it and check means you have to refine it. You burn it.

You melt it. You smelter it. You see what's in there.

One way to do that is to take it in a cup and melt it down and see if it's all pure gold or not. Another one is tar. Again, we mentioned tar.

Tar means there's a special stone. It's called touchstone, I think. If you take a gold and you draw it across that stone, you rub it on the stone and then it leaves a certain track.

A real gold leaves a certain track and fake stones don't leave this track. It's kind of lying on the other stone. Or you could che.

Che means you actually take the gold bar and you cut it in half to see if there's any brown grass or some other metal down deep inside. Those are three methods of determining whether what I taught you is true or not. In the same way, you have to use the three kinds of reasoning.

It's called chepa-sunkha-dhapa. It means what I said is true or pure only after, to you, only after you've used three different tests to determine whether it's true or not. In the last wrap-up here is, I don't want you not examining what I say and just believing in everything I say.

Why? Oh, Lord Buddha said it. It's a sutra.

We have to believe it. He says, that's not the approach I want Buddhists to take. I want Buddhists to study it, use these three tests on everything I say.

If it makes sense, accept it. If it doesn't make sense, junk it. Don't believe it.

I want you to use these three tests on everything I say.

[Говорящий 2]
It's all in here. In the chepa-sunkha we can examine it, in the chepa-sunkha we can examine the signs of the test. There's a test of the three levels of awareness.

When you know that you don't see something special, there's chepa-sunkha, chepa-sunkha-dhapa, there's chepa-sunkho, and then there's chepa-sunkho-jyoti. All you need is to see the three levels of awareness, to see whether it's true or not. It's not just about the four levels.

[Говорящий 1]
Now I want to go into the meaning of the three tests, what are the three tests that you should use on Buddhist scripture itself. So you've got some kind of Buddhist text here, some Buddhist scripture here, and you want to use three tests to decide whether it's true or not. The first test is what we call your direct experience, direct perceptual experience, meaning things you've heard yourself, things you can see yourself, things you've tasted yourself, things you've thought yourself.

These three tests of your own direct experience, does what this scripture says in any way contradict what I myself, through my own direct experience, know to be true? That's the first test. You check it against what you have seen, what you have perceived with your own direct experience.

And if there's no problem, if there's no contradiction, if it's in keeping with what you yourself have directly experienced, then it passes the first of the three tests. Then there's a second level of reality, if you think about it, the first level we were talking about were things that you could see directly, taste directly, think directly, but there's another level of reality which we could call slightly difficult or slightly hidden. And for that kind of reality you have to use a different test, you have to go on to a different level of checking, which means logic or deduction.

So things you cannot see directly with your eyes, but things you have to deduce, you have to figure out with logic or deduction. An example would be if we see out here in the field at a distance some column of smoke, then even though we can't see the fire directly, through deduction, because the fire itself and not the smoke by the way, because the smoke is something you see directly, but the fire itself, whether or not there's a fire is something you have to deduce, you have to figure out. So if you see smoke, then the fire itself is something we call something rather slightly hidden or slightly difficult to perceive.

So you would have to use logic to decide whether or not there was fire there. With reference to the second of the three tests, you have to decide that whether or not what the Buddha said in any way contradicts what you know logically to be correct. You see what I mean?

So even though you may not be able to figure out something directly or see it directly, does what this scripture says in any way contradict anything I myself, even though I can't perceive it directly, know with deduction to be the case? And if it doesn't contradict something that you know to be true through deduction, then it has passed the second test. There it is.

[Говорящий 2]
So the third test is to find out whether or not there was a fire, and if there was a fire, then you have to find out whether or not there was a fire, and if there was a fire.

[Говорящий 1]
Now I'm under the third examination. By the way, he also mentioned in the second one that an example of a slightly difficult or extremes object would be subtle impermanence, impermanence itself, right? That's what we call a subtle, rather, you have to figure it out with deduction.

You cannot see subtle impermanence, the constant change of an object with your direct perceptions. You have to figure it out logically that something's getting older by the microsecond. That's something you can only perceive with deduction.

So now he says, what about the third case? This would be something like the fact that this would be very difficult to perceive objects, these extremely hidden objects, such as the workings of karma. Why is it the case that if you are generous with people, you're gonna get back a lot of money, you'll become financially successful?

Why is it the case that if you are patient with people, then physically you'll be an attractive person? No. Why are those the case?

How do we prove that those are true? These we have to perceive with what we call belief based on reason, okay? Meaning we come to believe in what a person says based on some kind of reasoning about this person.

Meaning that we meet a person and they claim to be able to see these things that are way beyond us. We meet a person who says, look, you give away money, you're gonna get rich. You be patient with other people, your physical appearance will be beautiful.

How do we establish that that's true? It's not something that we can see at our present level of understanding. We have to go try to establish that this person is the kind of person who cannot lie, that this person is a person who will never ever claim something which is not absolutely true.

So first we go about trying to prove that anything that this particular person ever claimed must be true. We try to establish that this person is the kind of person based on other things that they've said that this person doesn't seem to be a person who can lie to me. This person seems to be a person who always tells the truth.

Once you've established them as a person who always tells the truth, then you can have what we call reasonable belief or a belief based on understanding that this person, what this person says is true. So in the case of karma, that a good action leads to a desirable result. A bad action leads to suffering for us.

These kinds of things that are beyond us, we can believe because we believe in the person who said them because we've deducted or we've established that this person cannot and will not lie to us. So on that basis, we check things with the third check. So the third check is, is there anything about this which is very deep, which has been contradicted by a person that I personally know will not tell me a lie?

So even though I can't understand that level of stuff, does it contradict anything that was said by a person that I know can't lie to me and therefore I am perceiving its truth through reasonable belief based on that this person cannot lie to me. So the third test is, does what this thing says contradict the words of a person that we personally know cannot lie? So what the Buddha is saying in these lines about the gold and the three tests of the gold, which is burning, cutting, and filing, he's saying, look, it's the same thing Same with the three kinds of valid perception and three kinds of accurate perception that we can talk about.

The first is valid perception based on your own direct experience of things. Does it pass that first test, which is mainly your sense powers? Does it pass the test of what you can directly perceive is true with your own senses?

Does it pass the test of the second kind of valid perception or accurate perception, which is deduction? Does it make sense? Does it make logical sense?

When you examine these words of the Buddha, do they pass the test of being logical? Do they make sense to you? And then finally, does this particular piece of scripture pass the test of being in keeping or in accord with something that has been spoken by a high being whom you personally know that you've deduced or you've figured out, you've established that this being cannot lie or will not lie to you, has no reason to and has no reasonable ever experience of them lying, that you can perceive the truth of an object based on belief, which is founded on the fact that the person who told you that cannot lie. So any particular piece of thing that I say, any particular teaching that I give, says Lord Buddha in these lines, don't believe it just because I said it.

I don't want you to believe it just because I said it. Believe it when it passes those three tests of those three kinds of valid perception. Everything above it has been sort of a detailed explanation.

I'm just trying to give you the main sense of it with my explanation here. Why does Je Tsongkapa throw in this piece here, you know, why does he add this piece here about this quotation about the gold? He says, Je Tsongkapa is thinking that some people might bump into this, they see Je Tsongkapa ripping apart what the Buddha said, examining what the Buddha said, questioning what the Buddha said, and they're going to start saying Je Tsongkapa is a weirdo, you know, Je Tsongkapa is somebody who doesn't believe the Buddha, you know, the Buddha said it, you don't have to rip it up and look into it and question it and stuff like that, and here's Je Tsongkapa being so presumptuous, this weirdo, as to, you know, this is really strange, this guy claims to be a great scholar, and Je Tsongkapa is sitting there and questioning, examining, ripping apart what the Buddha said, this guy seems really strange. So Je Tsongkapa, knowing that some people might come along thinking that, is sticking in this paragraph to say, look, even Lord Buddha said, look, don't believe everything I said, you have to rip apart what I said, you have to examine what I said, only believe what makes sense to you. I didn't say it, Lord Buddha said it.

[Говорящий 2]
I didn't say it, Lord Buddha said it.

[Говорящий 1]
So we finished the general description, Je Tsongkapa has introduced you to all the concepts here, first he's established the need to distinguish between what the Buddha said and when he meant what he said, and when did the Buddha say, not mean what he said. So he's established that's an important goal to have. Then he's gone into this long explanation of why, how you can establish it, and the need to establish it, if you want to see emptiness directly, you're going to have to make the distinction, you're going to have to be able to decide between the two distinctions.

And he's also established that you're going to have to go back to the people who really opened the door of Madhyamika and mind only. The people who started the Middle Way, the people who got it going in this world, the mind only system and the Middle Way system. You're going to have to go back to them and examine their words, check their words, study them, and see if you want to learn to see emptiness, you have to make these distinctions.

If you want to learn to make these distinctions, you've got to go back to the original sources of mind only and the original sources of Madhyamika. And you have to see how do they explain how to make the distinctions, and what distinctions do they make between, how do they explain emptiness really, so that you can see emptiness. So everything up to now has been Gentokappa has been making a general presentation explaining the need for learning to distinguish between the figurative and the literal, and then the sources that we have to go back to to see the distinction between the figurative and the literal, and the need for us to use our own wisdom to do so, and not just to take somebody else's words as being what we should do. Now where should he go? Now he has to branch off into two separate branches, right?

He has to go explain how the Madhyamika explains what's literal and figurative and emptiness, and then he has to branch off and explain how the mind only will do it also. So now we've reached the great branch into two great branches. So now he's going to go into finding the scriptural sources for deciding what the Buddha, what is the meaning of figurative, what is literal, and what is figurative.

What is what it seems to be, and what is what is not what it seems to be. And to make those distinctions, we're going to go back to scriptural sources. So the mind only school goes back to a scriptural source called the true intent of the sutras, which is the commentary on the true intent of the sutras, which is by the Buddha himself.

It's a sutra also. So it's called a commentary. It's not a commentary.

It's the Buddha himself in a book called Commentary on the True Intent of What I Said. In there, he explains how the mind only school explains what is literal and what is figurative. So for that, we need an authoritative source for the mind only presentation.

We're going to go to the Buddha's own explanation of what he had in mind when he taught the sutras. So that's going to be the source for the mind only presentation. Then we're going to go to a Lodum Sipin, which is the sutra taught with limitless wisdom, never ending wisdom.

[Говорящий 2]
The sutra of limitless wisdom.

[Говорящий 1]
And probably referring, he says, I think to Manjushri, taught by Manjushri perhaps. So the sutra of never ending wisdom, Van says, probably means that Manjushri is asking the Buddha questions and then being never ending wisdom, Manjushri is asking questions of the Buddha. And from there, we will draw the Madhyamaka Prasangika explanation of what it means to be literal and what it means to be figurative in it.

So now, for now, we're going to leave the Madhyamaka presentation. We're going to get to that later. We're going to isolate the mind only presentation.

And in the mind only presentation, we're going to talk about what did the book actually say? What book was that? Commentary on the true and temporary mind.

of the sutras. And then Lord Buddha saying, this is what I meant when I said that. And we're going to take the explanation according to the Mainoni school of what it means to be figurative and what it means to be literal from that book.

So we're going to treat that first in two steps. First step being, here's what the sutra said. Here's what Lord Buddha said was the meaning of his own sutras.

And then here's a big explanation about what he meant when he said that. So when Lord Buddha himself said, here's what I meant when I spoke those sutras, Je Tsongkha Prabhupada is going to give you the Mainoni school's explanation of what he meant when he said that. And that's the...

We're going to get the book and the explanation of the book, two big divisions in the explanation of the Mainoni explanation of what's literal and what's figurative. I think I'd like to stop there. Michael is carrying two suitcases.

He has to carry... On one hand he has to carry to try and figure out what I'm saying. On the other hand he has to figure out how to say it to you.

Whereas you and me just have to carry one suitcase each because all I have to do is say what I'm saying. And all you have to do is understand what he's saying. So you only got one suitcase.

I only got one suitcase. Poor Losantigna has two suitcases to carry.

[Говорящий 2]
It's okay.

[Говорящий 1]
So that's the way. I said, look, we are really interested in this subject. We spent a lot of money and time to get here.

We know how to sit in a class for a long time. Don't just try to make it a short class on our behalf. Please go on as long as you can.

He had TB before so he has to be careful himself. But I said, please go on as long as you can. So he said, okay, from 9 o'clock, 10.30 or whatever, we'll go. And then from 3 o'clock to whatever, we'll go. And we'll do it that way. If that's okay with you.

I'm an old-fashioned Tibetan. I'm not like you modern Americans. You guys, everything, all the stuff in your stores has a price tag on it and you just pay whatever the price tag says.

But that's old-fashioned Tibetans. We get into buying something we like. We start to buy things we don't like.

We start negotiating and arguing with the guy and start trying to talk him down in price. He just spent 15 minutes. He said, no, it's got a little scratch on it.

You should pay a little bit less. You should give me less. We start fighting.

We know how to haggle. So I'm not going to just buy this scripture here. We're going to haggle over this scripture.

So if I get to a word that I want to haggle over, I'm going to haggle. And we'll go on a little bit like that. One important thing.

When a scripture teacher finishes in the monastery, to preserve their health, to be out of respect for their health, and to leave quickly. When they look like they're done, they need to just quickly and cleanly leave, out of respect for their health and their time. Because they need time to recover.

They need some peace after that. It's exhausting for them. So when he says, that's it, we get up smoothly and cruise on.