Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 9

[Говорящий 2]
When I was doing my work in Japan, I did not have much experience, at that time, I did not have much experience. When I saw the lecture of his master Franz von Goebbels, I was very impressed. He was speaking about the importance of the body and heart, so many people were talking about this.

But I did not understand what he was saying.

[Говорящий 1]
So don't forget that now we're on to a new category, the fourth category, and I described it to you briefly in a very general way yesterday, and remember that we're talking about a conclusion or an outcome of a transaction or an exchange. So the conclusion here, or the outcome of the transaction, is that we've decided that the first two times that the Buddha taught, the first two turnings of the wheel, are to be taken as figurative, that he didn't mean what he said, he was, for the sake of the students, he was adjusting what he said. And then the third turning of the wheel, the third major period of his teachings, during that time he did mean what he said, because during that time he explained that he didn't mean what he said the first two turnings of the wheel.

And then Geshe-la goes on to say, hmm, that's the meaning of dzugdzin. Dzugdzin is the conclusion of transaction, sorry, the result of an exchange that has happened. The Bodhisattva has asked the Buddha a question, and the Buddha has answered the Bodhisattva, and in the exchange, as an outcome of the exchange, the Bodhisattva asking the Buddha a question, and the Buddha answering the Bodhisattva, we have come to this realization of what it means to what the first two turnings of the wheel were, and what the last turning of the wheel were.

And that meaning, dzun, has come out, dzugdzin, from the conversation. So in Tibetan, the word outcome of the transaction is dzugdzin. And the two sections that are going to come here, the first one is called setting forth the actual wording of the sutra, and then secondly will be Jetson Koppa's explanation of the wording of the sutra.

And in the wording of the sutra, we're going to have the Bodhisattva say, or the Buddha is going to clarify, yes, the first two turnings of the wheel were not spoken literally, they were spoken figuratively, and here's what I had in mind when I said that, here's what I had in mind when I said that, and then finally, here's why the third turning of the wheel is literal. So you're going to get now a very laid out, clearly, all the details of what we call the outcome, or the result of the transaction, are going to be laid out here. That which we've only described very briefly so far, so in brief, there's this brief realization of what the outcome of the transaction is, which is what I've just explained, but now you're going to get, he's going to go through each turning of the wheel and explain the details of what he meant, and why they are literal, and why they are figurative.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Yes. Yes. Yes.

The next section is, don't forget the original question of the bodhisattva. The bodhisattva came to Lord Buddha and said, you know, in the first section, or the first period, first section of teachings you gave, and then in certain sections of teachings you gave, you said that everything existed by definition, meaning, referring to the first turning of the wheel. And then later you said that nothing existed by definition.

And then remember the question, it was like, what did you mean when you said that, you know, what were you trying to accomplish, what was your true intention when you said those things? And now, in the reply, or as an outcome of the transaction, right, we're going to find out, Lord Buddha is going to go through, again, we're not so much talking about the different subjects of the turnings of the wheel, but rather whether or not, when he said that these categories exist by definition, or these categories don't exist by definition, that's the main question. It's not so much, what's the meaning of each of the categories you spoke about?

Remember in the first turning of the wheel, he spoke about many categories of existing things, starting from your physical body, all the way up to the 37 components of enlightenment. So it's not so much the question of what did he mean when he taught those, the question is, what did he mean when he said all of those things do exist by definition, and then when he got to the second turning of the wheel, he said nothing exists by definition. So remember what the original question was.

And now, as the third turning of the wheel, Lord Buddha is going to go back to the first two turnings of the wheel and say, you know, some of what I said existed by definition does exist by definition, during the first turning of the wheel. And some of what I said during the first turning of the wheel does exist by definition, doesn't exist by definition. So he'll go back to the first turning of the wheel, he'll go back to all those categories of subject matter in the first turning of the wheel, and he'll start to clarify, oh, those things that I said existed by definition do, and those things that I said existed by definition don't.

And that'll be part of the content of the third turning of the wheel. Then he'll turn to the second turning of the wheel, and he'll do the same thing. Oh, part of those things that I said don't exist by definition, don't exist by definition, and part of those things that I said don't exist by definition, do exist by definition.

So that'll be the content of the third turning of the wheel, and that'll be what we call the outcome or the result of the transaction or the exchange that's going on. So Geshe-la has a question for you, try to think about this question. If you look upon the three turnings of the wheel as we've talked about them so far, there should be parts of them which are extremely clear, extremely defined, extremely well-defined.

You can clearly just decide one thing or the other about them. Some of them are like that, and then some of them are not so well-defined yet. There's still some kind of debate about them, or still fuzzy, or still something going on about them.

So he says, if you take those three turnings of the wheel, can you guys think of a way of consolidating them, which consolidates them into things that were clearly well-defined, stated, cut and dried, and then things which are still kind of fuzzy and not decided yet and not determined yet, in the three turns of the wheel. Can you consolidate them into two maybe lesser groups that are clear-cut, and groups that aren't so clear-cut? Can you consolidate those three?

Is there a consolidation that you can do of those three into stuff that is cut and dried and obvious, and stuff that's not so cut and dried and not so obvious? I don't think that's the answer, but I'll say it. It's too bad that there's only one person in the room who can talk.

But don't forget his question is, into a group which is clear, and into a group which is not clear. You have made a distinction by subject matter, or the meaning of the words, but can you make the wording itself, can you divide it into two kinds? The Buddha's speech, can you divide it into two kinds?

He says you've made a nice distinction, a correct distinction, and it's very similar to the kind of distinction she brought up in the fact, again you're talking about the meaning of the content, and not so much about what the Buddha said, you see what I mean? The subject matter, and you divide it into subject matter and the ontological status of the subject matter, right? And in a way that's the same thing, you're getting into the meaning.

Can you just divide it, as speech of the Buddha, into two categories? What you've said is true, what you've said is true, and what you've said is true, but that's not the direction I want to go in. Yeah, I like that, yeah, yeah, I think that's it.

I like it, I like it, I like it, but anyway, just the fact that you've said it, it's like somebody spoke up, it's really good. In Tibetan they say, that's number one, ang gi dangpo tseg re, ang gi dangpo yin tseg re. In Tibetan they go right on, you know, and in English I say, he says there must be some corresponding thing in the West, I think.

Leave it. I think he's satisfied now, he says, in essence, you and you have kind of said the same thing. He said, what Winston said is, we can divide it into things that aren't too clear yet, and things which are clear.

You know, the third gene of the wheel is obviously, he's being very explicit, and in the first two he's not clear yet what he meant to say, or what he's saying, so you can divide it into the clear and the unclear. You were on the verge of reaching that same destination, you're about one step away from reaching that same destination. You know, all I wanted, I was just hoping somebody would say, well there's the clear and the unclear, and then I would go to the text and say, look, the text says there's, among the unclear one, there's two unclear ones, but you anticipated me already, so I have to give you another thing like that.

That's right, that's right, that's right, that's right, that's right, that's right, that's If we open up that Madhyamaka door, if we let you go to the middle way school, just a little bit, we're cracking the door open, and we're taking out of that room the concept called those sutras which the Buddha spoke, which we are to take literally, and those sutras which the Buddha spoke, which we are to take figuratively, which we have to interpret in order to find out their real meaning.

So he says, that distinction is made in Madhyamaka, the sutras which are to be taken literally and the sutras which were meant figuratively, and we have a corresponding distinction made in the mind-only school. The same language is used, the Buddha spoke certain sutras which are literal, the Buddha spoke certain sutras which are figurative. So there are the same expressions exist in the middle way school and in the mind-only school.

The middle way school says, some of the sutras are figurative, some of the sutras are literal. And then when you get into the mind-only school, they also use the same verbiage, right? And they say some of the sutras were literal and some of the sutras were figurative.

but what they mean when they say literal And figurative and what the Middle Way school says when they say literal figurative are not the same you have to realize if there's a there's a distinction or a difference between what minority school says when they say some sutras are figurative and some sutras are literal and the middle way school says when they say some sutras are figurative in some sutras are literal so we're going to go into that difference teaching what they mean when they say literal and figurative sutras. He wants Elizabeth to answer this question. Here's how the question comes.

He says we'll take that Madhyamaka door and leave it open a crack. We won't shut it all together. For the time being, let that door stay open.

The middle way school door, we'll leave it open just a bit. Now he says go back to the mind-only school. You've got this category called things that are supposed to be taken figuratively.

You've got this category of things, the sutras or speech of the Buddha, which is supposed to be taken figuratively. And there must be in the mind-only school a measure of what it is to be literal or not literal. So there must be a test or a litmus test that when you go to that speech of the Buddha or that particular thing that the Buddha said that you can judge it against this measure to decide whether or not this is figurative.

And then there must be a separate test that you can use that when you get to this and say this is the test or this is the litmus test against which we decide this thing that the Buddha spoke is literal or not and this is figurative or not. So there must be these two kinds of tests to decide or measures of what it is to be figurative or not figurative. What do you think those two tests are?

What do you think a test would be? You're the person who said that we could divide all the turnings of the wheel into those that are literal and those that are figurative. And if I recall, maybe you even said it twice.

So I'm choosing you to tell us what it is to be, what is the test that the mind-only school uses to decide whether something is literal or not or something is figurative or not. You're getting close to, the implication of your answer is that you're getting close to Winston's Buddha, right?

[Говорящий 2]
Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
And then he said, you can't help me. You don't know me. But I can teach you.

I can teach you.

[Говорящий 2]
I can teach you.

[Говорящий 1]
This is very subtle. But anyway, in the Mind Only school, the distinction between being figurative and literal is whether or not you can take those words on face value precisely. Okay.

And he says precisely. So, if you can take the actual wording of what the Buddha said and follow it exactly on face value, exactly literally, exactly according to what the words say, every single word, then that becomes what we call literal. And then figurative becomes those things which you cannot take on face value, which you cannot follow or you cannot understand the words in exactly as the words state.

So, when there's any discrepancy between what the words are saying and how you are meant to take them, then that is called figurative. And any time the words state exactly what the Buddha meant you to understand from the words, then that is literal. And in Tibetan, the distinction is called darje shimba and darje shimba mayimba, which means to take it according to the verbiage or the wording or to not take it in exactly according to the wording.

So, whether or not you can take it exactly according to the wording itself is the measure in the mind-only school of whether something is figurative or literal. If you think about it, the whole distinction between what's literal and figurative boils down into Tibetan, the wording rung or mirung, which means can or cannot, meaning can or cannot take it exactly according to the wording, can or cannot accept it as being exactly what the wording says. And so, Geshe-la says it really boils down, doesn't it, to the wording can or cannot.

Now, don't forget, we didn't quite shut the Madhyamaka door, the middle way door. We left it open, didn't we? So, even though it's not exactly pertinent to this particular section, right, we are not in the middle way section, we are in the mind-only section.

Even though it's not something that's going to be coming directly from this section, because there's a deep relationship between what the mind-only school defines as being figurative and literal, and there's such a deep connection between that and what the middle way school says is literal and figurative, I'm going to insert here the explanation of the middle way school, the different one, of what it is to be literal and figurative. So, here we go off to the middle way school's idea of what it is that helps you to draw the line, what it is that makes something figurative, and what it is that means something is now literal, according to the middle way school.

Now, get it, okay, this is very important, this is a very crucial point. In middle way school, any speech of the Buddha in which Lord Buddha talked directly about emptiness, we won't say spoke directly, we'll say clearly, okay? Any speech of the Buddha in which Lord Buddha clearly referred to emptiness, that is literal speech of the Buddha, and any speech of the Buddha in which the Buddha did not clearly refer to emptiness is figurative speech of the Buddha, and that's the distinction in the middle way school.

So, the implication here, from the middle way point of view, is that there could be things which are in the mind-only school said to be literal, which, when you get to the middle way school, don't make it as literal, right? And you can already think of some, so he says, for example, Lord Buddha made a famous statement that anything which is produced by causes is changing, and eventually will die, okay? So, that's duchyatantra mitapa, okay?

All produced things are changing and impermanent, so the Lord Buddha said that. Now, according to the mind-only school's idea of the distinction between literal and figurative, this would be literal, because the Buddha meant what he said, he said, it is to be taken exactly as Lord Buddha phrased it, okay? So, for them, that would count as literal, something literal, the speech of the Buddha which is literal.

But then, would it qualify as literal according to the middle way school's explanation of literal? No, because it doesn't clearly speak about emptiness itself, okay? Therefore, there are parts, there are sections of what the mind-only school believes is literal that cannot be taken literally once you get to the middle way school, because they don't qualify as speech of the Buddha in which he clearly spoke about emptiness.

Now, please, shut the door again. So, now we go back to the original, we go back to Je Tsongkapa's text, we're on page 26, we're on the last line, where it says shukla nepa, and here, Je Tsongkapa says, he has, by implication, or he has, implicitly, not explicitly, right, he has, by implication, come to an understanding that the first two turnings of the wheel are figurative, and that the final turning of the wheel is literal. Now, who is he?

He is the Bodhisattva. Okay? So, as an outcome of the transaction, of the exchange, he, meaning the Bodhisattva Dendamyanda has come to a realization that the first two turns, an outcome or a result of the exchange, where he realizes that the first two turns of the wheel were figurative, and the last In Tibetan, the word for implicitly, meaning not explicitly, it's never been stated yet that the Bodhisattva, it has dawned on the Bodhisattva, it's never directly stated yet in the sutra, oh, I get it, the first two turns of the wheel were figurative, and the last turn of the wheel was literal.

You know, nowhere in the text, in the sutra yet, has the Bodhisattva come and said, oh, I get it, in that sense, right? All he said was, I get it, right? So he didn't come and say, he didn't come and say outright that, oh, I get it that the first two turns of the wheel were spoken figuratively, and the last one was spoken literally.

But, by implication, implicitly, and in Tibetan, the word for implicitly is shuki, which means by the power of, and then Geshe-la says, you know, by the power of means topki, which means by the force of, and that's the kind of thing where one thing happens, and then another thing we know has happened. So, you've got the electrical generating station back there, it's generating power, and then on the basis of that, this fan is turning around over your head now, and that's by the power of the electrical generating station, then the fan is going. So, you can assume, he's implicitly saying, you can assume that the fan is going, the electrical generating station must be going now also.

And he's using a pun, he's saying the power of the station is running the fan, so by power, by implication, the Bodhisattva has understood these things, and it's by implication we can understand that he has understood, the Bodhisattva, that the first two turns of the wheel are figurative, and that the last turn of the wheel is literal, even though that hasn't been explicitly stated yet. The word shukriya, shukriya, shukriya, shukriya, shukriya, shukriya, shukriya, shukriya, shukriya, the word shukki and shuklato, shukki-tok and shuklato in Tibetan, to realize by the power of something, and to realize through the power of something, has a slightly different implication here, okay? So, when I said to realize by the power, he says, turn off your tape recorder, he's going to make some banging and stuff.

Did he leave, did he leave?

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay, in Tibetan, the station is between shukla and shukki, so shukki is the one we had before, which meant by the force of something, and then shukla being through the force of something, so here we have by the force of something, meaning, if you think about it, there's the electrical generating station, creates some kind of energy, and then it takes time for the electricity, although not much time, to travel here and get into the fan, and the fan starts moving.

So that would be one kind of implication where the mind perceives one thing, and then that triggers a subsequent understanding in the mind, and that's called shukki, by the power of something. But then there's another expression in Tibetan, and another way of understanding the word shuk, which is shuklato, which means almost by the way, or in English it sometimes means incidental, but it sometimes means, how do you say, concomitant to something. So that means like, when you're understanding that sound is not something which is permanent, okay, suppose you come to an understanding that sound is not something which is permanent, then there is a part of your mind which at the same moment, simultaneously, concomitantly, is understanding that sound is impermanent.

See, I mean, when there's a state of mind that has realized that sound is not an unchanging thing, then concomitant to that is, or in a very, almost instantaneous, not quite instantaneous, then you are almost by implication, understanding that sound is changing. And those are almost concomitant, those are almost tapping simultaneously. So Geshe-la draws a distinction between two versions of the phrase shuk, shukki meaning by the power of that, this occurs later, and shukla meaning by your understanding that, you have this understanding concomitantly, by definition almost.

At the same time, you're going to have this other understanding automatically. And those are the two stances of by implication. Then if you think about the implication, right, what he understood by implication, what he understood by implication was that the first turning of the wheel was something figurative, the second turning of the wheel was something figurative, and the third turning of the wheel was something literal.

But what's happening here is that Duryodhana by implication is thinking or conceiving in terms of three turnings of the wheel. And now we can start to talk about the three stages of the turnings of the wheel, or the three steps of the turning of the wheel. And then we start to get into time, or historical time, right, that one occurred before the other, and then the next occurred before the other, and then, you know, that they happen in sequence.

So now we can start to introduce the idea of the sequence, the historical sequence of the three turnings of the wheel.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

And so when we get down to there, now the bodhisattva Dindanyanda Bhakt is going to express his understanding of how it is that the first turning of the wheel is something figurative and not literal. So the next section of sutra is dedicated to that bodhisattva expressing in the sutra how he understands it, or how it is that the first turning of the wheel is something figurative and not literal. And that section begins with the third line on page 27, and continues down to the seventh line from the bottom, ending in the words nesakyur bala.

And in that section, that bodhisattva is going to express his understanding of why the first turning of the wheel is something which is spoken figuratively. Nesak, nesak, nesak, nare.

[Говорящий 2]
Nesak, nesak. Nesak, nesak.

[Говорящий 1]
Now, in the actual sutra, the bodhisattva expresses his idea of why the contents of the first turning of the wheel are figurative by describing four separate characteristics. There are four separate characteristics which help him, or four characterizations of the of the speech of the Buddha in which he's stating that they are figurative. These are found on line 10, sorry, line 9 from the top, and these four begin there.

Lanamachipa, usually it's Lanamachipa, here it's Lanachipa. Lanamachipa means unsurpassable, right? This one means surpassable, okay?

This is kind of a weird phrase, that which does have something better, okay? Lanachipa means it is surpassable, there is something better. Kapchipa literally means there does exist a time.

Now what that means we'll get to later. Third one is, Tramwaya Drona means it is something to be taken figuratively, something figurative. And then Tso'pa Shi means this is something that we can argue about, this is something that we still have to fight about, and that means it's Tso'pa Shi.

Tso'pa Shi means something which is not decided yet, which we still have to discuss, point of discussion, how's that? Point of discussion, point of further discussion, okay? And those are the four characterizations by the Bodhisattva Vindhyananda Bhakta about the first turning of the wheel, in which he's indicating that it was figurative.

So we're going to go through, Geshe-la says, you know, we've gone through the meaning of that already, you know, actually you and I have already gone through the meaning of these words already by their intention, and now we'll go back and see if we can straighten them out by what are they saying, what is the literal meaning of these words. Now there are, when you take these four expressions, which are sort of unusual, right, and don't forget they are the actual word of the Buddha, right, they are part of the sutra in which the Buddha explains what he meant in the sutra. So we are talking about the word of an enlightened being, right, and then we have people trying to explain what these four expressions mean, and there have been two great schools of explanation.

One is what you're going to get from Jetsun Kappa in this text right here, and then there's another one which we've been calling the Chinaman's commentary, or the Chinese commentary, and this is a great master named Wensik, or Dzogsa, in Tibetan he says, I think it's Dzogsa in Tibetan and Wensik in Chinese, but anyway, this other master has a way of explaining those four, which is slightly different. Now Geshe-la says, don't forget, when we go through the four, on some of the four Jetsun Kappa and this other master will be saying the same thing, but on some of the others of the four they will not be saying the same thing. So we say that there are two traditions of explaining them, even though on some points of the four they do agree.

Now, don't forget that we didn't get yet to the point where Jetsun Kappa is explaining the wording of the sutra, right? First he said, I will set forth the wording of the sutra, and then I'll explain the wording of the sutra. So we're not quite ready to get to the second part yet, so my suggestion is you guys leave a big empty page here after these four, and then we're going to come back to that later and fill in the meaning of the four.

So leave an empty spot in your notes under the names of the four, and we're going to come back later and fill it in when Jetsun Kappa reaches the point where he starts to explain what the four means. Now, if we follow the actual order of this particular book, right, and the actual order of the sutra, rather than jumping to the explanation of the four, now that Dundam Yantra Path, the Bodhisattva, has expressed why he thinks the first turning of the wheel is figurative, now he moves on to express why he feels the second turning of the wheel was something spoken figuratively. And what does he use as his justification for saying that the second turning of the wheel was spoken figuratively?

The same four characterizations. He says the same thing. Surpassable, there is a point, or there is a time.

I believe that one means there is a point at which you have to take it figuratively. You see what I mean? There is a point, and then it is figurative, and then there is a point of discussion here.

Those four characterizations, the Bodhisattva uses again in the sutra. At this point, if again, Geshe-la says, if we follow the actual order of this text so far, we don't skip around, we are now in the Bodhisattva's own explanation of why he feels the second turning of the wheel is figurative. And he's using those same four phrases to describe the second turning of the wheel.

You don't have to leave a million pages of empty notebook there. Just sign it a little bit. We'll come back to that later.

You don't have to leave like 30 pages empty. Now when we get to the Bodhisattva's characterization of the turning of the wheel, you can take all four of those and flip them, pancake them over. Just make them opposite.

So, lana-chipa, which means surpassable, becomes lana-machipa, which means unsurpassable, can't be outdone. And then kap-chipa, which I believe means there is a chance to debate about it, becomes kap-machipa, which means there is no chance to debate about it, the meaning of it. And then tohe-dun, which means figurative, changes into ngepe-dun, which means literal.

And then tso-pe-shi, which means still a point of discussion, becomes tso-pe-shi-ma-yin-pa, which means no longer a point of discussion. So when he gets to the third turning of the wheel, his characterization of the first two turnings of the wheel, with those four phrases, you just take those four phrases and you just flop them over, make them negative, and now they describe the third turning of the wheel, which is literal. We have to take that sutra quotation and split it up into the separate countries there, okay?

We got the first turning of the wheel, second turning of the wheel, third turning of the wheel. We have to draw our borders, our international borders now between the different turnings of the wheel, with regard to the bodhisattva's statement, right? So if you go back to page 27, you go up seven lines from the bottom, and there's a phrase there that says, ne-si-gyur-pa-lak.

With the words ne-si-gyur-pa-lak, the first turning, the characterization or the description of the first turning of the wheel has been completed. So all the sutra statement up to there refers to the first turning of the wheel. Go to page 28, end of the first line where it says gyur-pa-lak-gi, that is the end of the second turning of the wheel.

That marks the border of the end of the second turning of the wheel in his description, in the bodhisattva's description. Then you skip down to, let's see, eight lines from the bottom on page 28, you get the end of the sutra quotation which is ne-si-gyur-pa-malak-sos, and that's where the third turning of the wheel is. So just as we have to draw international borders between India, America, Tibet, things like that, here we have drawn our international borders between the first, second, third turning of the wheels in this quotation, because we kind of have to clearly stake out those three turnings of the wheel in this general description by the bodhisattva, otherwise we might get confused.

So he says we have to stake out, that's the first turning, that's the second turning, that's the third turning, in this sutra quotation.

[Говорящий 2]
That's the third turning of the shikla, that's the third turning of the shikla.

[Говорящий 1]
Now we get Jetsun Kapa's take on the sutra quotation. It begins on page 28, the seventh line from the bottom, and here begins Jetsun Kapa's explanation of the wording of that sutra. His explanation will come in two parts.

First is called a brief, just a bit, explanation of what the meaning of the sutra is, and then secondly he'll say just a bit on how we draw the distinction between what is literal and what is figurative. So that's going to be the two sections of Jetsun Kapa's take on the meaning of the sutra. In the sutra, the bodhisattva has already gone about talking about how he believes that the first turning of the wheel and the second turning of the wheel are figurative, and how he thinks that the third turning of the wheel is literal.

He's already gone through that. And now Jetsun Kapa, in two sections, is going to explain the sutra, and then explain just a bit about the distinction between literal and figurative. And in his explanation of the sutra, the bodhisattva goes through each of those three turnings of the wheel, and explains how he feels it is.

And then Jetsun Kapa is going to go back and rip apart each word of the sutra. So Jetsun Kapa is going to go through and say, this is the meaning of this word, this is the meaning of these phrases, this is what he meant when he said that. So first he's going to do that, and that's what he's on to next.

So he goes back to the actual wording of the sutra, and he's going to try to explain to you the meaning of different sections of the wording of the sutra. put it on, right? So, before Lord Buddha came down from his paradise and exhibited the the twelve activities of an enlightened being, there were on this planet many people who had already achieved high spiritual states because of their former lives.

So, there were, for example, chungsongs or siddhis, in the sense where a siddhi refers to an arhat, meaning someone who had achieved nirvana through the power of the practice in their former life, even before Lord Buddha came to this planet, appeared on this planet. Just flip it. And those chungsongs, those arhats, were sitting around, you know, especially what we call rangya, which are the self-made ones, which doesn't mean self-made but means in this life they didn't have a direct teacher, and they were sitting around and they heard this voice come from the sky that says, you know, Lord Buddha is announcing, you know, Lord Buddha is about to come on the planet, you know, Lord Buddha is about to show on the planet.

And then some of them are sort of attracted to the idea, some of them maybe not so attracted to the idea, I didn't quite get it straight, but they are like going to do some kind of miracles as a precursor to the Buddha appearing on this planet.

[Говорящий 2]
So, they have this thing called power over the element in your body.

[Говорящий 1]
This is a high meditative state where you can actually manipulate the different elements in your own body and your own being. So, they took the elements of their body and they cremated themselves on the spot, this body, the dirty body, and they just changed it into fire, cremated themselves on the spot, and then they were able to fly up in the air and display all these miracles, and they were displaying miracles, and then finally they dropped down to the earth. So, that's what speech of the city means, dropping down of the city means.

That's why this forest place is called a place where the city spoke, a place where the city fell. That's my take on how to translate that phrase. So, that's what it means, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down of the city, dropping down, dropping down, down Now we leave it to the Yeshes to clarify the chapter later as to what has been explained I wanted to clarify that state, because I don't feel comfortable leaving it like that, that I don't quite understand that they didn't like that the Buddha was coming and they had to show some miracles or something like that, and I don't feel comfortable leaving it like that. So I'm sorry to spend the time, but I don't feel comfortable leaving it like that. So he says, you know, we better get into why people show miracles at all, you know, why people show miracles at all.

So he says there's two ways to show miracles. You know, there are some students that will get into Dharma because they understand that the Dharma is a sweet thing and a true thing and a beneficial thing. And those kind of students, you don't have to do any miracles or show them weird things or like that.

They will get into the Dharma on the basis of the value of the Dharma, because they understand that the Dharma is an important thing, whether or not you're handsome or look good or do miracles or anything else. But there are other kinds of students who need something special, you know, which is unrelated to Dharma, but it attracts them into Dharma. So for those kinds of students, there's this method of, you know, go fly in the air.

You know, if you're a teacher that has that ability, then if you read this student's mind and you say, this student isn't going to believe me unless I show some kind of amazing thing, and then if I do show some kind of amazing thing, even though it's for the wrong reasons, they will get into the Dharma and then I can teach them. And they can go ahead and show miracles, you know. So that's one kind of reason why somebody might choose to go up in the air and fly around in the air, and that would benefit the student.

Then there's a second kind of reason to show miracles, and he says, this is explained in the Abhisambhara Amkara, in Geshe-la says, I believe it's the fourth chapter, could be the second chapter, no, I think the fourth chapter, where they discuss different emanations that the Buddha takes for the benefit of other people. And we discussed them on Australia and California, we were talking about that, that the Buddha, in that chapter it explains that the Buddha may undertake different forms, or emanate in totally different forms, so that through that emanation, knowing that the minute they see that emanation, that particular student will get a certain important spiritual concept, will dawn on them, just by seeing that emanation.

So it's possible that a teacher could emanate as someone who could fly, fly around in the sky, and then the student is just sitting there watching them, and then suddenly the whole idea of impermanence becomes clear to them. There's no direct connection between flying in the sky and impermanence, but they've read the student mind, they know that if the student at such an hour watches such a guy flying around in the sky, it'll trigger in them an idea that they're very close to, like they'll have some thought that takes them on, like maybe they see a bird and they think, oh birds are impermanent, birds are just flying around, and then they, wow, now I get it, impermanence.

So sometimes knowing that the student's mind is on the verge of some great spiritual understanding, they will emanate that thing in order to push them over into that understanding, even though that doesn't have anything to do with teaching directly in words. So then I said, yeah, but I still don't get whether those arhats, before Lord Buddha came down, somehow didn't like that he was coming, or were trying to outdo him in his miracles, or what's going on there? He says, I'm about to explain that, I'm going on to that.

[Говорящий 2]
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

[Говорящий 1]
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha For example, Mausan Chunzin goes to America and teaches there because there's just a big vacuum there, and he could just stay here and hang around here and study here and stuff like that, but there's such a huge vacuum over there that it's better if he goes over there than hangs out here, and they're trying to send a message to Lord Buddha and do the same thing. Like that. Now, you guys being from the West may think that flying in the sky is not such a big deal because you have these guys that get up on the side of mountains and jump off with hang gliders, and they go hanging, gliding around, and to you it may not seem such a big deal, but I just want to point out that these kinds of arhats, which we call self-made arhats, it's not like they don't have hang gliders, okay?

This is just the result of their inner spiritual attainment, that without hang gliding equipment, they are able to fly in the sky. So there's a bit of a distinction to make here, and you might think it's not such a big deal, but without the hang glider equipment, that's a big deal. We squandered a lot of time on that point, didn't we?

But let's go on. In this quotation now, in the sutra, it's said that the Buddha is turning the first turn of the wheel. The reason for him turning the first turn of the wheel is to benefit students who have entered the way of the tegpa, which means jhana, like in Mahayana or Hinayana.

For the benefit of those who have entered the way of the listeners. And listeners has a lot of connotations in Buddhist philosophy. Geshe-la says, great teachers of the past have taken this wording in two different ways.

So when you say that the Buddha turned the first turn of the wheel for the benefit of those who have entered the way of the listeners, then you have to interpret that in two different ways. There are two different ways that this can be interpreted. In one way, it's taken to mean the lower of the three tracks.

We talk about three tracks. Track of the listeners, track of the quote self-made Buddhas, which are neither self-made nor Buddhas, and then the third track, which is Mahayana track. So in one way of interpreting this, it says that the first turning of the wheel was spoken for those who had entered the first or the lowest of the three tracks, and they had entered the path.

Now we're emphasizing path or track. They had entered the lowest of the three different tracks. That's one way of explaining what it means when we say that Lord Buddha taught the first turning of the wheel to help those of the listener way, yama.

Then the other way of explaining is that if you think about ancient India, there were four great philosophical schools. Those are like the Abhidharma schools, the logic and perceptual theory schools, which are called sutras. By the way, the first one are called Vaibhashika, then the sutras, then the third school is mind only, and the fourth school is middle way.

Two of those schools, the top two are Mahayana schools, the lower two are Hinayana schools. Some great scholars have said that when they say that the Buddha taught the first turning of the wheel to help those of the listener way, he was referring to people who had philosophically entered the viewpoints of the lower two schools. So that would mean the Vaibhashika schools, the Abhidharma schools, and the sutra schools.

So what he's saying is that you can interpret it either one of those two ways. Either as someone who's on to a listener track among the three tracks as a path, or someone who philosophically has undertaken or who now believes the viewpoints or is holding the viewpoints of the lower two of the four schools of ancient India. And Geshe-la says, I don't know which one is right.

It could be either one. He says he doesn't have a special preference for either one. He says, I don't know which one is right.

It could be either one. He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right.

It could be either one. He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right.

He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right.

[Говорящий 2]
He says, I don't know which one is right.

[Говорящий 1]
He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right.

He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right.

He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don He says, I don't know which one is right.

[Говорящий 2]
He says, I don't know which one is right.

[Говорящий 1]
He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right.

He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right.

He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right.

He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right.

He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don't know which one is right.

He says, I don't know which one is right. He says, I don Mea... Reporter hand over to Geshe Michael Yes.

Geshe Michael wants to make a special point that what he's about to talk about is not relevant directly to what we're talking about right now and it's going to take a little time and hope you don't mind but he thinks it will be a benefit to you later on. So, you know, I'm going to throw in something that's not directly relevant to what we're talking about now but I thought like it'd be good to talk about it now, so excuse the interruption. He says, actually, you can take those three tracks, right?

The listener track, self-made Buddha track, and the Mahayana track. And he says, really, it's that the lower two tie together and the upper one is here. So this is a Mahayana track.

The top one is a Mahayana track. And these two other ones are what we call in Tibetan, the lower way, or Hinayana. And he says, you know, I've become aware of the fact that there are people in Burma, Thailand, other countries which are followers of this, that don't appreciate being called lower track, lower way, which is Hinayana.

And there's another word he's heard, which is Theravada, which he thinks maybe that would be a nice word to use, since it might offend them if we talk about, you know, translate to Tibetan directly, which is lower way. So let's talk about his Theravada. So these two lower tracks are Theravada.

And then this, this track here is Mahayana. But if you take it in terms of the four philosophical systems of ancient India, then you've got Abhidharma, the logic and perceptual theory, Sutras, right, school. And then you've got Mainoni school, and then you've got Middle Way school.

Out of those, it's these two lower ones, which we could characterize as Theravada. Those are what we call Theravada. So out of the three tracks, the lower two are Theravada.

Out of the four schools, the lower two of the four are Theravada. So the lower two are Theravada, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the lower two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the lower two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the lower two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the upper two are Maitreya, and the lower two are Maitreya.

So, in general, among all the teachings of the Buddha, we can divide them into Mahayana and Theravada, right? We can divide them into… And again, he says, in Tibetan, the word comes higher way and lower way, you know what I mean?

So, actually, it's, yeah, you can say Mahayana and lower way, right? The great way and the lower way, right? So, they all divide into that.

Now, he says, I've done a lot of reading about it. I'm the kind of person who likes to read a lot. And I'm the kind of person who likes to figure it out, you know?

And especially, I like to go back to those Amdo books, because I like those Amdo books so much. And... ...

So, I like to go back to those Amdo books, especially because they're so clear. And I've been reading a lot about it my whole life. I've been checking into my whole life.

How do you make the real distinction between teachings being Mahayana teachings or Theravada teachings? And I know that it's not exactly the subject matter right here. But it seems to me to be a very important question, so I want to talk about it now.

How do you draw the distinction between this is a teaching of the Buddha which belongs to Mahayana, this is a teaching of the Buddha which belongs to Theravada? And he says, really, haven't we presented two different methods of dividing it, haven't we? One is by the three tracks, you know?

Are you a person on the Mahayana track, or are you a person on one of the Theravada tracks? And it's according to the person that we characterize the Dharma taught to them as being Mahayana or Hinayana. Okay?

So, if the disciples are what we call Mahayana, then we can call that teaching... If the teaching was designed for Mahayana disciples, then we can call that a Mahayana teaching. If the teaching was designed or spoken for Hinayana disciples or Theravada disciples, then we can characterize that teaching as Theravadan or Hinayana teachings.

So, are we going to make that distinction based on whether those students belong to the lower two of the three tracks? Or are we going to make that distinction based on... Meaning, are they on a Hinayana path or not, right?

Or are we going to make that distinction based on whether they belong to the lower two philosophical schools in their way of thinking, right? Whether their way of thinking or their way of believing or their own tenants are those of the lower two philosophical schools or of the higher two philosophical schools. We have two choices here, right?

We can either say, if the teaching was spoken for them, it becomes a Hinayana teaching. Or we can say, if the teaching was spoken for them, it becomes a Hinayana teaching. And after much study and after much examination of Amdo textbooks and other people's monastic textbooks, and even though it's not too clear in the writings that we generally are dealing with here in Sereme Monastery, but if you go out and you read further and you keep reading other textbooks, it seems clear to me that this is the one you have to use, okay?

Any teaching which was directed or designed for students which belong to the lower two of the four great philosophical schools of India, which by the way, my own comment, are not to be confused with the four schools of Tibet, okay? I've had students who got confused with those. But the four schools of ancient India, those that were spoken for the Abhidharma schools or for the Sutra schools, those become Theravada teachings.

If it was taught for the benefit of people whose philosophical thinking matches that of anybody in the lower two philosophical schools, that becomes a Theravada teaching. And anything taught for those in the two higher schools becomes a Mahayana teaching. And that's how we draw the distinction in my mind.

And I hope you don't mind the, what do you call it, the tangent we've gone off on, because I thought it was important for you, generally in your lives and later in your study, to know that that's how we draw the distinction. So I presented you two different routes and you can go on any route you want to, but that's my take on it and now we'll go ahead with what it means. However you choose to think about it, the first thing that we always talk for people who had entered the listener path.

A little louder again. Page 27, line 5. We're going to get into the content of the first turn of the wheel.

He says, we've got to go back to the Sutra. And here we go. And it mentions Pabdha Dampasye, meaning the four Arya truths.

The four truths of a realized being. Don't forget we have to go back and, don't forget where we are, we're in Varanasi. We're back at the listener path in Varanasi.

So the first point here is that, here in this world, which in Tibetan means, I mean in cosmology of Buddhism means here on this continent, right? The southern continent. So Geshe-la says, forget the whole world, you know, we'll just scrap the whole world, which is the four continents and all that.

He says, let's just go to the southern continent that we're on, this world that we're in. Here in this world, no one, be it man or God, has ever come to this particular planet and spoken clearly what it is, what those things are that we are supposed to follow and what those things are which we are supposed to not follow or that we are supposed to give up. And that is the subject matter of the four Arya truths.

So in this world, only the amazing, incredible, extraordinary Lord Buddha is the one who came and in those four divisions clearly outlined for us what it was we should be doing and what it was we shouldn't be doing and what we should be giving up. So in this particular planet, says the sutra, this is the Buddha. The Buddha did that.

Let us return to our empty space on our notebooks up above and here we go. We're going to talk about surpassable, etc. Yes, yes.

The first of the expressions is la na cipa. La is the same la as in lama, meaning higher one. Lama, the literal meaning of lama means higher one.

And so la means above in Tibetan, like kong in Tibetan means above. So la na cipa. Cipa means to be or to exist or to be positioned above.

So la na cipa means that which does have something above it, that which does have something better than it. And the point here is that there's the first teaching of the wheel is such that there is something else better than it. There is something else which is above it.

And that's the third teaching of the wheel. So Nengeswara says, don't think it's something physical. First teaching of the wheel is down here.

Third teaching of the wheel is up there. Third teaching of the wheel is sitting on top of the first teaching of the wheel. Not like that.

Philosophically speaking, the third teaching of the wheel is philosophically higher than the first teaching of the wheel. And that's why, and I think he slipped in there, second teaching of the wheel. But mainly, first teaching of the wheel, actually it's going to be characterized in the second teaching of the wheel also, right?

So there is the third teaching of the wheel, which is philosophically stands above the first and second teachings of the wheel. And that's the meaning of la na cipa, which means does have something higher. Surpassable, we said in English.

Translation Now we have a good translation for the second one which was does have a time, and now from the way that he has explained it, I think there is an opening. Okay? I think it's better translated as something with an opening.

And opening here means, Geshe-la says, kap, which means occasion in Tibetan, can be explained as an opening for an opponent to come and strike you. You see what I mean? So he says, if from the mind-only point of view, you're the kind of person who takes the first turning of the wheel to be literal, if you say that the Buddha did mean what he said in the first turning of the wheel, you are leaving yourself open.

You are leaving an opening for another person, for a debater to come and philosophically strike at you, and say, you're wrong on this point, this point, this point. So kapchipa means there is an opening. You're leaving yourself open.

So far we have two characterizations. There is something higher and there is an opening. Here the word occasion means, or chance, means you are leaving yourself open so they are in a position to get a chance or an opportunity to point out your philosophical mistakes or errors or faults.

And that's what it means. Opportunity to point out faults. Figurative, we finished that already.

Figurative means you can't take it literally. You can't take it to be what the wording says. We finished that.

So kapchipa. Now I think the fourth one we'd best translate is point of contention. How about that?

Point of contention, meaning the first turning of the wheel, if you go ahead and just go ahead and say, oh yeah, yeah, Buddha said that everything from your physical body up to the 37 elements of enlightenment, all of those don't exist by definition. None of them exist by definition. Sorry, exist by definition, right?

In the first turning of the wheel he goes and says, they all exist by definition. So from the mind-only school point of view, right? If you don't go through all those different elements from the physical body up to the seven groupings, right?

Up to the 37 elements of enlightenment. If you don't go through and start making distinctions, oh, this one does exist by definition. This one doesn't exist by definition.

This one does, this one doesn't. If you're some person who goes through carpet and says, oh, everything, the Buddha said that everything here exists by definition. Everything exists by definition.

If you are like a blanket, sorry, blanket, okay? If you make some kind of blanket statement like that, then you are creating, or that becomes a point of contention, right? If you had gone through and divided them out and said, this does exist by definition, this doesn't exist, right?

Mind-only school, right? If you went through and divided them out, it would no longer be a point of contention. But since you didn't go through and divide them out, then different people can come with different ideas.

I think this one's like that. I think this one exists by definition. Somebody else says, no, I think this one does.

No, I don't think that one does. I think this one does. And then you get all these different points of contention.

You get all this argument coming because of your blanket statement that the Buddha meant everything he said when he said that all this stuff existed by definition. Then you've got a point of contention, okay? two schools.

It's the Abhidharma and the Sutra schools. Who's the fighter? Who's the one contender?

Number three, right? This is the mind-only school. So the mind-only school is going to have to be saying the first turn of the wheel is a point of contention.

To have contention, you have to have two contending parties, right? So one contending party is going to be the third school, which is the mind-only school. But who are they contending with and who is it that would ever come and say the Buddha was speaking literally when he said that everything existed by definition?

So it's a question of who in the lower two schools is saying that everything exists by definition. And in the Sarajay textbooks, they say the people who are saying that everything exists by definition are these lower two schools. They are the Abhidharma school and the Sutra school, and they do believe that every existing object exists by definition, okay?

But then there's the Saramaya textbooks. They come along and say, you know, these lower two schools don't really believe that everything exists by definition. They only believe that unchanging things exist by definition, okay?

And that changing things don't exist by definition. Don't forget, don't confuse what that mind-only school says, those three groups, and which of the three groups exist by definition. If we just restrict ourselves to the lower two schools, the Saramaya textbook says there are people in here, they accept that unchanging things exist by definition, and that changing things don't exist by definition.

But still, they are the people that the mind-only school is contending with when you call the first turn of the wheel a point of contention. Now Geshe-la says, I'm a Saramaya monk. Oh, by the way, he also says that the Amdo textbooks seem to side towards the Saramaya side, okay?

So the textbook's not an Amdo, the book's not an Amdo. Now he says, now, you know, by affiliation, I'm a Saramaya monk, and when they hit the Saramaya gong, I have to go, because I belong to Saramaya. But I have to admit that the Sarada explanation right here makes a little more sense, because really, if you think about it, we are supposed to be contending with someone who takes the first turn of the wheel, literally.

And in the first turn of the wheel, the Buddha has said all these things, whether they be changing or unchanging, do exist by definition. So you're going to have to describe the opponent, the contendor, as being someone who accepts that everything exists by definition, because they have to be someone who agrees, who holds the position that the Buddha was being literal when he said that all those things existed by definition. So I think on this point, despite my affiliation, I kind of have to say that maybe they're right on this point, or I kind of tend towards their interpretation at this point.

[Говорящий 2]
I just want to clarify something. The lower two schools totally play a big role. That's not what I mean.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, I have to check that. Yeah, you're right, I made a mistake. So clarify that.

The lower two schools, in the Sarah May textbook presentation, believe that unchanging things don't exist by definition, and that changing things do exist by definition. Okay, so I got that wrong. If I made a big advertisement about me taking up the Sarah Jay position at this point, then when they rang the gong for assembly and for lunch, you know, they might kick me out, so I'm not making a big advertisement about it.

They might tell me, don't come to lunch. I appreciate it if you don't go advertising among the Sarah May monks that Geshe Chulten Rinchen has said, I kind of side with the Sarah Jay position on this, because then after tomorrow I might get a hard time. Just kidding.

We don't have to go into big detail on this. I mean, you could just say that there are two contenders here. On one side we have the mind-only school, and on the other side we must have people in the lower two schools, right?

It must be people from the Vaibhashika and from the Sutra school. And whether or not you accept that people in the lower two schools make a distinction between some things existing by definition and other things not existing by definition, it's not really the point. The point is that we have a bone of contention, we have something, a point of contention, and that there are going to be two contenders here.

On one side we have the mind-only school, and then on the other side we have the two Hinayana school. Now we go back, you can go back to your second turn of the wheel. I thought you could leave just a little piece there.

The second turn of the wheel is a little easier, it won't take up much space. Now we go on to the second turn of the wheel. The expression, remember it's going to be the same four expressions used to describe the second turn of the wheel.

The first one is exactly the same, does have something better than it, does have something above it. And again it's exactly the same as in the first turn of the wheel. The third turn of the wheel is something higher than the second turn of the wheel.

So the second turn of the wheel as well can be characterized as something which has something better than it. And the second characterization is also pretty much the same.