Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 10

[Говорящий 1]
So, you mean?

[Говорящий 2]
So, you mean, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. You didn't get it, did you?

[Говорящий 1]
No, no, no. Pagi carries the other. This one's from Mongolia.

He says, looks a lot like the one in India. He says, probably carried from India to Mongolia in that bag. Yeah.

We reached the third turn of the wheel, didn't we? Okay, finish the second one, on to the third one. So, in the other turnings of the wheel, we discussed the primary student, or the student for whom the turning of the wheel was particularly designed, which is called Sirjavadhucha.

And then, secondly, we mentioned the primary subject matter. So, we'll go ahead with the third turning of the wheel, and again, we'll identify the main student that the third turning of the wheel was designed for, and then we'll get into the primary subject matter. And then, don't forget that we'll have those four same characterizations, but flopped over, pancaked over, so that they're negative.

So, instead of having, has something better, it'll be nothing better than it. Instead of there is an opening, it'll be there's no opening. Instead of figurative, it'll be literal.

And instead of there's a point of contention, they'll say there is no point of contention. This particular section of the third turning of the wheel will be treated in the original text as quoted in this text on page 28, starting on line 2 and continuing up to line 9, where the line begins sung-so. It's the same jumping off point as in the second turning of the wheel, OK?

So, if you talk about starting point or subject matter from which we have to speak in the third turning of the wheel, it's the same five elements. First, we have the Buddha saying the nature of things is impossible, the birth of things is impossible, the stopping of them is impossible. They are from the beginning, from the very beginning, total people, and fifthly, they are transcendent, or they have a nature of having gone completely beyond grief.

So those will be the same five starting points or jumping off points or basis which forms those things which form the basis of our discussion.

[Говорящий 2]
OK, so we have the Buddha saying the nature of things is impossible, the birth of things is impossible, But what it means is if you do not hold on to that mind for too long, you will break your attachment to that mind. But it is the mind who drives you to hold on to it for too long. OK ok, the mind is the one channel which keeps us anointed and keeps us reminded These five elements, which doesn't have a nature of existing, doesn't have a nature of being born, doesn't have a nature of stopping, is from the beginning very peace and has gone beyond grief.

[Говорящий 1]
In the second turning of the wheel, all of these expressions are relating mainly to the fact that things don't exist by definition. So mainly what Buddha was talking about, things don't exist by definition. Then when you get into the third turning of the wheel, they are not meaning exactly the same thing.

They are involved with the three groupings. We've got the three groupings of things which are, let's say, constructs, things which are dependent on others, and things which are emptiness or totality. And now these same phrases that were used in the second turning of the wheel are being used in the third turning of the wheel with a slightly different flavor.

They can't be used in exactly the same way. So when we say that we're using the same five expressions in the third turning of the wheel, you have to be sensitive to the fact that we're using them in a slightly different way because otherwise they don't work, they don't fit, especially with regard to the three groups. So for example, the first one, you can say they don't exist by definition, but with only some of the groups.

And with regard to the second one, you can say its birth doesn't have existence by definition. But then what your meaning is with regard to changing things or to shenlong, to things which depend on others, you're not saying anymore that it means by definition meaning what it meant before. Now you're saying without its own causes and conditions.

So each one of these features or characterizations doesn't mean exactly the same thing when you get to the third turning of the wheel when it did in the second turning of the wheel, and it can't. So you yourself can understand, you can remember because we went over it the other day, that if we just take the single category of things which are dependent or things which are caused, you cannot speak of them in the third turning of the wheel with the expression they don't exist by definition, because according to this school, they do exist by definition in the way that they describe by definition.

So in the third turning of the wheel, when you describe caused things or dependent things as not having a nature, which is the first of the five characterizations, when you say that changing things don't have a nature, you cannot be referring to don't exist by definition in the general sense of the term. You have to explain don't have a nature as referring specifically to the fact that they don't have a nature of occurring or arising without their own causes and conditions. And you cannot use the wording don't exist by definition.

You have to say don't have a nature, which is the first of the five characterizations, And you have to say don't have a nature means don't have a nature of occurring independent of their causes and conditions. That's just one example. You remember from the other day, we went through this whole thing with regard to those.

And I don't have to go into great detail. That's just one example of how that expression, which is the first one, doesn't have a nature, right? It has to be adjusted when you get to the third turning of the wheel with regard to the second group, which is dependent things.

So you get, he says, I hope you're getting it, Dan. I hope you are understanding that the same wording is used in the third turning of the wheel as it is in the second turning of the wheel. The wording in the third turning of the wheel is the same, for example, for the first one, which is that things don't have any nature of their own.

Things don't have any nature. And when you get to the third turning of the wheel, second turning of the wheel, it's exactly the same thing. But then you realize, even if you just think about it yourself, you realize that when we move from the second turning of the wheel to the third turning of the wheel, you must adjust that, the meaning of those same words.

So even though it's the same phrasing, the same wording, you realize in your own mind, I hope, that you have to adjust the meaning of those words when you get to the third turning of the wheel, and when you start describing the other characteristics as well, the other four, that you have to adjust them according to what wheel you're in. Are you okay? It's okay?

Got it? Good. Thank you.

So you do appreciate that. Remember before, when we split those five into two groups, we treated doesn't have a nature by itself, and then we treated doesn't grow by itself, doesn't stop by itself, separately. And with regard to the middle turning of the wheel, we did it in a certain way.

And now you're sensitive to the fact that even if we make the same division of one and four when we get to the third turning of the wheel, we're going to have to interpret this one differently, and then there's going to be a corresponding reinterpretation of the other four. But they have to be treated differently in the final turning of the wheel than they were in the second turning of the wheel, even though we maybe still will retain that distinction of one and four. Okay.

Okay. Okay.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay. Okay.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
So if we were to go about and try to identify the particular disciple or student for whom the third turning of the wheel was specifically designed, right, then remember in the first turning of the wheel, we were talking about people who belong to the listener group, right? People who had entered the path of the listeners, which sort of implies Theravada, right? And then in the second turning of the wheel, this was designed for people who have entered the path of the greater way.

Now when you get to the third turning of the wheel, the students or disciples for whom this turning of the wheel was specifically spoken are students of all the paths, of all the yanas, students of all the ways, so meaning both Mahayana and listener, meaning Theravada. So the third turning of the wheel, the specific disciples are disciples of all the different ways.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Now different masters of the past and even nowadays have taken two different, Geshe-la likes to go like that, you know, two different ideas about what it means to, when the Buddha says, oh, the students for this are all, all yanas, right, all people of all the ways, you know, and some, some masters have said, and then Geshe-la was pointing like this, you know, you've got the Hinayana and the Mahayana, and some people have taken it to mean Hinayana and Mahayana, because he was sticking out four fingers, I said, are you talking about the four classical schools of India? He said, no, no, no, I didn't mean to do that, you know, it's just Hinayana and Mahayana. So when we say students of all the yanas, that the third turning of the wheel was designed for students of all the yanas, we were talking about both Hinayana and Mahayana students.

Some people say that. So, some people have expressed the idea that they feel very uncomfortable with the idea of explaining that when it says here, people of all the different ways, that they are, meaning yana, right, that they are talking about students of both the Mahayana and the Hinayana, because they say, they're incurs the, the problem that then everything the Buddha spoke during the third turning of the wheel would have to become both Hinayana teachings and Mahayana teaching at the same time. So they don't feel comfortable with that, they don't feel comfortable with the idea of defining the students for whom the third turning of the wheel was designed, and when the Buddha says it was people of all ways, they have a problem with calling that all ways, meaning all Hinayana and all Mahayana ways, because then that teaching itself, normally you have to divide the Buddha's teachings into either Mahayana teaching, this was a Mahayana teaching, this was a Hinayana teaching. They don't feel comfortable with saying the third turning of the wheel was a mix, or it's a 50% Mahayana teaching, 50% Hinayana teaching. You know, normally there's a group of students, the Buddha either brings up Mahayana ideals or Hinayana ideals, but what are you going to call the teaching?

How are you going to, if you describe the students as being 50-50, then how are you going to call the teaching? Is that going to be a teaching that was 50% Mahayana ideals and 50% Hinayana ideals, and how are you going to, how are you going to do that? They don't feel comfortable with that way of explaining the wording, this was designed for all ways.

Students of all ways.

[Говорящий 2]
That's what I'm trying to get at, that's what I'm trying to get at, that's what I'm trying to get at, that's what I'm trying to get at, that's what I'm trying to get at. That's what I'm trying to get at, that's what I'm trying to get at, that's what I'm trying to get at, that's what I'm trying to get at, that's what I'm trying to get at. That's what I'm trying to get at, that's what I'm trying to get at, that's what I'm trying idea about this whole question.

[Говорящий 1]
You know, the ones who were uncomfortable with the way of explaining it, and they've come up with a very beautiful way of explaining it. They say that the students, the disciples, for whom the second and third turnings of the wheel were designed were all mind-only school. Okay?

And there were two sections of mind-only school students, okay? There were the better mind-only students and the slower mind-only students, okay? And among them, the better mind-only students went into the second turning of the wheel.

They go directly into the subject matter of the second turning of the wheel and they get it right away. These are the more intelligent or the faster or the quicker mind-only students. And they go into the second turning of the wheel and right away they understand its content.

You know, they don't need any further explanation. They get it according to a mind-only way, right? Right away, and they don't need any further clarification.

But then there are mind-only students who are a little bit slower. They can't go into the second turning of the wheel directly and grasp it right away. So they've got to go to the third turning of the wheel.

And by studying the contents of the third turning of the wheel, by understanding it, by thoroughly practicing and understanding all the contents of the third turning of the wheel, then they are able to go back and revisit the second turning of the wheel and then finally grasp its contents, only later, right? Because of their extensive study of the third turning of the wheel, these slower mind-only students are able to go back to the second turning of the wheel and understand its contents. And then, by implication, they are able to understand the contents of the first turning of the wheel.

Because they got the second turning of the wheel down so well that now they understand the contents of the first turning of the wheel. And these become people that we can characterize as people of all ways. Because now they are masters of all three turnings of the wheel through this process, okay?

So then we call them people who have entered all the ways. So then these other scholars explain the expression, people of all the ways, in this particular method. And it's kind of cute, he said.

And I like it.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes. That's it. The way we talk about xian yi is, the way we talk about xianwang is the way to go.

In the past, the way to go was different. The teacher would pick up the students with their blowing bangs. We used to use the baton to kick away the students.

In Chinese xianwan, the way to go is the way to go. In Chinese xianwang, the way to go is the way to go. In the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the We were like, oh so we will bring them to the forest and then we'll gather them up.

And then we're going to take them to the forest. We'll gather up the negros. Then we'll take them to the forest.

After that, we will start that time. Next. We're going to go to the top.

Why are we going to the top?

[Говорящий 1]
It's going to be dangerous.

[Говорящий 2]
It's dangerous when you are going down, You can get a backup for it from Jatankapa himself.

[Говорящий 1]
And what they're saying is that if you take Tashi, he says, for example, or you could take the five heaps of a person, the five parts of a person, then it is explained in the third turning of the wheel that the meaning of the second turning of the wheel, right, it's explained in the third turning of the wheel that the meaning of the second turning of the wheel is that if you have this person named Tashi, right, and he's an example of a dependent thing, and then you take the construct which applies to him, which construct are we talking about?

The fact that Tashi is what we call Tashi, okay? The fact that Tashi is what we give the name Tashi, right? So, the construct that relates to the guy Tashi is the idea that Tashi is the thing that you call Tashi, okay?

Does that exist by definition or not? Suppose that you had, somebody got an idea that it did, right? And suppose we take the idea, or the theoretical object called the fact that the fact that Tashi is the person to whom the word Tashi refers could exist by definition, right, which is a non-existent thing.

I'll say it again. The fact that the fact that the word Tashi refers to the person, sorry, the fact that Tashi is the thing to which the word Tashi is used, the fact that that fact could exist by definition is a non-existent construct. That's actually the gaccha.

That's the gaccha of what we call, that gaccha is defined as, that thing of which emptiness is empty is described as the self-nature of things, of objects as opposed to a person, right? So, that's the self-nature of a thing. So, when the second turning of the wheel, sorry, the third turning of the wheel explains the meaning of the second turning of the wheel in those terms, oh, the Buddha was talking about things that change, the Buddha was talking about the fact that those particular things are the object of what's given their names, right?

The fact that they are what are named them, the fact that that fact doesn't exist by definition, which if it did exist by definition would be the self-nature of things, and the fact that that doesn't exist is emptiness itself, okay? So, that's emptiness. That's how we explain how the second turning of the wheel really is talking about emptiness, okay?

So, somebody goes, gets the third turning of the wheel and understands the second turning of the wheel in that sense. This is what this whole quotation is saying here. Then they can go back to the first turning of the wheel and understand that when the Buddha said that things had self-nature or something like that, they can understand that he wasn't really speaking literally, that he was describing actually a similar process.

You take changing things, you look at their... at how you make a construct about them and the fact that those constructs, which were not exactly the construct I just stated, right? Which is that the thing is the object of the thing, of its name, right?

But you take more of what we call... it's a kāsākī dharmē, which is the lack of a self, of a person to that thing. And that...

if you understand the three attributes and if you understand how emptiness or totality is arrived at by refusing the self-nature of a person with regard to changing things, right? Or of a person in this case, the five feats, let's say. Then you've arrived at an emptiness or a young group, a totality in the first turning of the wheel.

So by understanding clearly how you arrive at an emptiness in the second turning of the wheel by using the third turning of the wheel and then taking that information and going back to the first turning of the wheel and understanding how you arrive at emptiness in the first turning of the wheel, the emptiness arrived at in the second turning of the wheel being the lack of a self-existence of things or objects, the emptiness in the first turning of the wheel being the lack of self-existence to people or persons. And then you go along to the third turning of the wheel and you understand all that stuff, right? Due to your understanding of the third turning of the wheel, you understand all that stuff.

Now we're on page 90, okay? Then by that time, a person who's gone through that process is the kind of person for whom the third turning of the wheel, which is called the turning of the wheel of fine distinctions. You've got to get used to that expression.

When we say the turning of the wheel of the Dharma in which the Buddha made fine distinctions, that's referring to his describing his words of things that have no nature into those three groups of the Mind-Only School, right? That's called the turning of the wheel in which the Buddha made fine distinctions. So, if you take a person who has to go to the turning of the wheel in which the Buddha made fine distinctions in order to understand the content of the second turning of the wheel, which helps him understand the content of the first turning of the wheel, then that kind of person is the person that we describe as having entered all the ways.

Okay? And then that's the person that the Buddha is talking about here when he says people have entered all the ways. And that's where those scholars who think that that doesn't just refer to people who have entered all the jhanas, right?

But rather people who have entered all three methods, or all three ways in this sense, that's where they get their scriptural reference. And I just brought that up because... May I skip back to page 89?

Because I have this fear that we're not going to get there. We are moseying along on feet, and we don't even have an old Indian bicycle to ride on. And, you know, we're just kind of walking along slowly, and, you know, much less a car.

So I don't think we might get to that point. So I just thought it would be worth it to jump back there and say this is where they're proving that idea, that second idea that people had about the meaning of having entered all the ways as being the description of people for whom the third turning of the wheel was designed. So oftentimes the third turning of the wheel is called the turning of the wheel in which the Buddha made fine distinctions, in which he made excellent distinctions.

And what does that mean in terms of what we've been talking about? You have those three groups of things, vehicle constructs, dependent things, and totality, meaning emptiness. And out of those three, one of them doesn't exist by definition, and two of them do exist by definition.

So that's a distinction that they're talking about when they say making fine distinctions. It's not an end to the three. It's taking the three as the basis and making a distinction between them and saying these two do exist by definition, and this one doesn't exist by definition.

And it's making that distinction that's referred to when they say that the third turning of the wheel is the turning of the wheel in which the Buddha made fine distinctions. So, again, we take those four characterizations, right, and we pancake them over, we flip-flop them over. So remember the first one was does have something better than it, does have something higher than it.

In this case, higher than it refers to something higher than it which is literal in its meaning and not figurative in its meaning. But when we get to the third turning of the wheel, since this is the literal one in this school, right, there's nothing above it, right? There's nothing you can characterize as this is a literal teaching which is above, due to its literalness, is above the other ones, right?

So the first and the second turning of the wheels are below in a sense because they're not literal. And then the third one is, being literal, is higher. But when you get to the third turning of the wheel, you have to say lana macipa, which means there is nothing higher because there's nothing higher which is literal because the other two aren't literal.

[Говорящий 2]
So the third turning of the wheel, when you get to the third turning of the wheel, you have to say lana macipa, because there's nothing higher which is literal. And when you get to the fourth turning of the wheel, you have to say lana macipa, which means there is nothing higher because there's nothing higher which is literal. And when you get to the fourth turning of the wheel, you have to say lana macipa, which means there is nothing higher because there's nothing higher which is literal.

And when you get to the fifth turning of the wheel, you have to say nare, nare. nare, nare. nasam, nasam, nasam.

nare.

[Говорящий 1]
nare. nasam, nasam. And then the third turn of the wheel is described as being, leaves no opening, right?

You don't leave any opening for someone else to give you any trouble, or to give you any argument. The first two turnings of the wheel, So, if you take them literally, right? If you take the first one as literal, if you take the second one as literal, then, in a sense, you are opening yourself up for criticism.

Someone can attack you, someone can point out a problem with your viewpoint, and you're leaving yourself open. But if you go and take the third turn of the wheel as something literal, you are not leaving yourself open. So it's said there that you are not leaving yourself open.

Katmachipa means you are not leaving an opening. You're not leaving yourself an opening, are you? No one can attack you and say, oh, your viewpoint is stupid.

If you take the third turn of the wheel literally, oh, your viewpoint is stupid, you're wrong, you made a mistake, you have a philosophical problem here. Can you? Oh, but wait a minute, you can.

You know, people from the Madhyamika school, middle-aged school, can come up to you and say, hey, no, you're wrong, you know, hey, there's a problem there. You think those two groups exist by definition, right? Changing things and ultimately, you know, emptiness, right?

And you think that other one doesn't exist by definition. So you do have a problem. So somebody can attack you, and you are having an opening.

So should they have called this not having an opening? Yes, they can call it not having an opening. Because remember, we're stuck in the mind-only school.

And no smart person of the mind-only school could come and attack you. So when we say you don't have an opening, we're not saying you don't have an opening for anybody in the universe to complain about you or criticize you for talking to you. We're talking about there's no opening for a smart guy in the mind-only school to come and attack you because in the mind-only school's terms, you're clean.

You know, the wording here was no opening for a smart person or a master to attack you. And if you take this literally, you've got a little bit of a problem because then those Madhyamika guys become non-masters, not very smart. So there's a little bit of a problem here.

The wording's a little tricky here. So Geshe-la says, you know, all that stuff I just told you, you can go back to the text. You can find it right here, page 31, six lines to the bottom.

It says, do re nga ma nyid kyi drajye shinpay dun la. And what it says there exactly, directly, is that if you're a person who takes the first two turnings of the wheel literally, then someone could come and would leave an opening for someone to come and attack you and complain about what you said. But the third turning of the wheel is not like that.

If you took it literally, you would not leave an opening for any master, any smart person, which is the word khyapa in the next to last line of page 31. No one who really knows what they're talking about could come and attack you. So that's where I got that thing from when I said smart person, or someone who knows what they're talking about.

And again, remember that we're talking here, simsangpa shir shak means we're restricting ourselves to the mind-only school. And from the mind-only school, maybe the people from the middle way school can be characterized as not knowing what they're talking about.

[Говорящий 2]
That's right.

[Говорящий 1]
Why is it that a mind-only school person thinks they can go up to a middle way person's school and say, you're not the kind of person who really knows what they're talking about, right? It's because they look at the middle way school people and say, you middle way school people, how do you relate to the second turning of the wheel? And the middle way people say, oh yeah, everything the Buddha said there was literal.

We are to take everything the Buddha said during the second turning of the wheel as being literal. And then the mind-only school says, you didn't get it. You really didn't get it.

In the second turning of the wheel, the Buddha was describing three groups of things, or three attributes. Those are constructs, dependent things, and totality, what we call emptiness. And then the Buddha went about, what his real intent was, was to say that the constructs don't exist by definition, but his real intent was to say that the other two groups do exist by definition.

So, you know, you guys didn't really get the whole point, what the Buddha really had in mind. And so, from our point of view, you really don't know what you're talking about. You are not masters.

You are not smart guys. You are in that category, from our point of view, of people who don't really know what they're talking about. The third characterization, which is going to flip over from, that was figurative to that was literal, right?

So, in the first two turnings of the wheel, we said that they were figurative, and we said that in the mind-only school, figurative means that we are not to take it on face value. We are not to take the words as meaning what the words say. We are meant to interpret the words.

But then we get to the third turning of the wheel, we are to take it on face value, so the characterization changes from figurative to literal. So, in the third turning of the wheel, whatever the Buddha said is what he really meant, and we are to take those on face value. We are to accept the words as the Buddha spoke them.

And that's why we can characterize, make the third characterization about the third turning of the wheel, and say it was literal, that the Buddha meant it literally, in this school.

[Говорящий 2]
So, in the third turning of the wheel, there was a student, and he was a Malay student. He was a Malay student, and he saw that there was a Buddha statue, and he saw whether Buddha was alive or not. And what did the Buddha chance in this case?

[Говорящий 1]
Well, he saw that there was a young man, The last characterization that we flip-flop over, right, is that that thing which was an object of contention in the first and second turning of the wheels, now when we get to the third turning of the wheel, we say the third turning of the wheel cannot act as a basis for contention. There will be no contention about the third turning of the wheel. It is something which is not a basis for contention.

So it doesn't act as a base for contention. What do they mean when they say that? When he got to the first turning of the wheel, the Lord Buddha made a blanket statement.

He said, all of these things exist by definition. But in reality, what he meant was, some of them do and some of them don't. So you have to go in there, there's contention about it.

Different people have to go in and make different contending statements about, oh, he meant that one was existing by definition. He meant that one wasn't existing by definition. The same holds true of the second turning of the wheel.

He made a blanket statement in the second turning of the wheel that nothing exists by definition. But what he really meant was that some things do and some things don't. And again, there can be contention about it.

So different people with different points of view can come in and say, this one he meant should be taken by definition, this one doesn't exist by definition, this one does exist by definition, and those things are an object of contention. But when you get to the third turning of the wheel, he was totally clear, totally definitive, he totally divided things. He said, these things do exist by definition.

None of these things exist by definition. He was very clear to make these absolute distinctions between all the things he was talking about. These things now, I say, exist by definition.

These things now, I say, don't exist by definition. And because he was clear, and because he definitively made these distinctions between them, there's no object of contention anymore. There's nothing to argue about anymore.

And that's why the fourth characterization is applied to the third turning of the wheel, which is that there's no longer any basis or object of contention.

[Говорящий 2]
If you're happy, you don't need to be angry or anything. If you're happy, you don't need to be angry or anything. If you're not happy, there's no need to be angry, if you're happy, there are no need to be angry.

But now, the second turning of the wheel, is described as if there is a valley of higher beings, which goes into the heart of the person When I was young, I used to go to my father's house and ask him to teach me how to read and write.

[Говорящий 1]
Now you have Jetson Kapa's take on that Chinese commentary. The Chinese commentator, WEN XI. Remember we said that he would be giving his version of what the four characterizations meant and that some of them would be similar to our version, Jetson Kapa's version, and some of them wouldn't be similar to Jetson Kapa's version.

Here, on page 29, at the top in the first line, we go off on WEN Xi's version. the Chinese commentaries version remember Chinese commentary to what to the sutra in which the Buddha explained the meaning of the sutras right so this has occurred before Jetsun Kappa right and and so he's making his his idea first he says Lana Lana cheapa means there is a better meaning there was a more extraordinary teaching so he explains it in those general terms so that's pretty close to us when we say there is something better meaning there is a sutra teaching which is literal which is better so I mean there is above these first two a third one which is higher in the sense of being literal so when when six says when master Wentzik says there is a higher one in the sense of a more extraordinary one or a more special one then he's okay there okay but then he goes on to the second one which is there is an opening or if there is an occasion right and he takes it more in the sense of an occasion for teaching and and in the sense of an occasion an opening or an opportunity for a more special teaching okay so then again he's characterizing the third when he when he uses it with regard to the third turn of the wheel he's calling that a more extraordinary teaching and that's what he means by there's an opening or an opportunity meaning there's a higher opportunity there's a more special teaching now Geshe-la says Jetsil Kapil's problem with this way of describing it and you can appreciate it is that there's no real difference between the first one the second one now right so in the first one he's saying by virtue of there being a more special teaching there's a there's a something higher because there's a special teaching higher no he gets the second one he says there's an opening because there's another occasion on which he's going to give a more special teaching he hasn't really aside from a distinction in the wording you know it's just slightly different words the meaning is exactly the same so you're not getting any why would Lord Buddha say two different characteristics characterizations if there weren't any big difference or no flavor a big flavor difference between those two so that's why Jetsil Kapil doesn't feel comfortable with the way in which the Chinese commentary treats that the meaning of those four characterizations the first two

[Говорящий 2]
and then he goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

[Говорящий 1]
And then the Chinaman, Master Wensik, goes on to explain the third characterization, which was figurative, figurative. And then later when we flip-flop it, it's literal, right? And he says, oh, the meaning of being figurative here is two requirements, okay?

First one, that it does not teach emptiness. Secondly, that it does teach something which exists, okay? Doesn't teach emptiness and does teach something which exists, okay?

Now if you think about it, that's pretty close to what later on the Middle Way school is going to say figurative means. Doesn't teach emptiness but does teach something which exists. That gets close to how the Middle Way school explains what it is to be figurative.

And then if you take literal to mean does teach emptiness, right? That gets pretty close to the way that the Middle Way people are going to describe it. But he says, Je Tsongkapa's problem with Wensik's interpretation here is that he seems to be forgetting we're in the Mind-Only school, okay?

The Mind-Only school describes figurative as being something which is not literal. A case where you cannot take it on the face value of the word. You cannot follow the literal meaning of the word.

You cannot take it word by word as the wording states. So Je Tsongkapa says, I don't think that's a correct way of explaining how the Mind-Only school explains what it means to be figurative. In the way that figurative is used here among the four characterizations which are spoken by the Mind-Only school, from the Mind-Only school point of view, okay?

He keeps saying, let's just skip this because you guys don't have time. And I keep saying, do it well, we'll come back, okay? He keeps saying, let's just skip this because you guys don't have time.

[Говорящий 2]
So I keep saying, let's just skip this because you guys don't have time. He keeps saying, let's just skip this because you guys don't have time.

[Говорящий 1]
So he's keeping this. If he's taking the occasion. So he's keeping this.

If he's taking the occasion. If he's characterizing it as having some debate about it. In a very very tiny little phrase.

He says, that sounds good to me. I like that kind of wording.

[Говорящий 2]
He says that sounds good to me. I like that kind of wording. I am an Indian.

My family is from the Kalluwaks, from the Kalluwaks and my wife is from the Sipa. My wife is from the Kalluwaks, she is from the Kalluwaks, she is from the Minnawak. She is from the Minnawaks.

She is a very dear lady. She is from the Kalluwaks. He said, if you don't want to be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk,

[Говорящий 1]
you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you can't be a monk, you rendered into Tibetan, Je Tsongkhapa would say, I like that. I like that.

Because it's like, you can say about emptiness that it has an aspect of not being apparent. And also, you can talk about it being described clearly or not being described clearly. And then you would get into apparentness or non-apparentness.

So the idea of about emptiness itself being not apparent and also being able to describe it in terms that are apparent or not so that it becomes apparent, if you talk about emptiness in terms of having an aspect which is not apparent, then they kind of like this phrase. And Je Tsongkhapa says, I kind of like this phrasing from the Chinese commentary. Lo Seng Chunzin is forcing me to treat all the small issues also.

I'm not sure that all the fine details are something that is going to really help you much. But let's go ahead and go.

[Говорящий 2]
I don't know if you can hear me, but I'm going to say a few words in Tlingit. In Tlingit, there is a saying, that if you don't know how to speak Tlingit, you can't speak Tlingit. If you have known how to speak Tlingit, you can't speak Tlingit.

If you know how to speak Tlingit, you can't speak Tlingit. If you have known how to speak Tlingit, you can't speak Tlingit. If you are a true seer, you can't speak Tlingit.

[Говорящий 1]
There is another small point, I just want to throw out all the small points to you. Jetson Krapa on page 30 in the sixth line, at the end, where he says, Deñusumbha. First of all, to call, he's referring to the Chinese master, Uen Tzu.

And when he calls him Deñusumbha, it's a compliment. Deñusumbha means the three pitakas, two pitaka, right? The three baskets of scripture.

And he's referring to him as a total master of the basket of sutra, the basket of Abhidharma, and the basket of Vinaya. So, he's giving him those three, he's giving him a very complimentary term, he's saying, oh, that master of the three baskets, right? And then he says Uen Tzu.

And then he says, you know, when he got to those four characterizations, with regard to the first two turnings of the wheel, I think he did a really good job, because he, well, I mean, he did, he did at least talk about the four, you know, he did talk about what it meant to be, what was the first one? Something higher than it, and then there is an opening, and then it is a figurative thing, and there was a last one. Oh, and there's no subject, no object of dispute, right?

And he did, when he, he did describe those in pretty clear terms, or he doesn't agree with the interpretation, right? But at least he did treat those four with regard to the first turn of the wheel, and he did treat those four with regard to the second turn of the wheel. But you know what?

When he got to the third turn of the wheel, he did not treat the flip-flops, okay? He did not go to the pancake ones, you know, the ones where each one of the four was reversed, and treat them very clearly, and, and that's another problem that Sankappa has with his, with his explanation. Then there's an Indian master named, in Tibetan the word is Yandadamba, I have to check, you know, I don't know, I don't know what the, it's called Samyak something, but he also wrote a commentary on, on this commentary in which the Buddha explained the meaning of his other, I'm sorry, sutra in which the Buddha explained the meaning of his other sutras.

He also wrote a commentary. But when he got to this part, and when he got to this part about the third turn of the wheel, and those four characteristics, he did attempt an explanation. Sankappa doesn't like it.

He says he doesn't think he was, like, thinking very clearly, or working very hard on it, or he didn't make very great distinctions about it, he didn't really make a very good job of it, so I'm not going to bother to write about it here. But we've already been through it, we explained it in detail already, take each one of the four, reverse it, and you get Sankappa's system. He too here says, what's my system?

I already told you what my system is, we already went over that, you can leave it at that.

[Говорящий 2]
I'm going to give you all those small ones, because you asked Now remember that Geshe-la had promised to tell you what the subject matter of the third turn of the wheel is, but he didn't get there yet, so this is where he gets there.

[Говорящий 1]
And he says, by the way, the subject matter of the third turn of the wheel is exactly the same as the subject matter of the second turn of the wheel. So that's all you have to say about it, you know. And Geshe-la says, don't forget, he's going back to the sutra, he's ripping it apart, he's going through it piece by piece, now he's reached the point where he has to tell you the subject matter of the third turn of the wheel is exactly the same as in the second turn of the wheel.

I already talked to you about that. Then Geshe-la gets on to the part in the sutra where the Buddha says, you know, for whom was the third turn of the wheel designed, or specifically spoken? And then it says, remember it says, for those who have entered all the way.

And then Je Tsongkhapa says, nama-nyi-nyi, meaning the former two, meaning the first two turns of the wheel, were directed towards specifically disciples of, he says, tepa-che-chung, so-so-wa, meaning individually, for students of, first of all, the lower way, second of all, the higher way, right? And then Je Tsongkhapa himself says, and di-nyi, di-nyi meaning this one as opposed to those, right? So from the point of view of the third turn of the wheel, di-nyi, this one means the third one, right?

If you're sitting in the third one, it becomes the closer one, and you can refer to it as this one, and then those other two. So the other two refers to the first two turns of the wheel, this one refers to the third turn of the wheel, and then Je Tsongkhapa says, this one was spoken with regard to both. Both, those of the higher way and those of the lower way, and that's Je Tsongkhapa's briefer way of describing it.

So remember we had that hassle about what does it mean that dosa has entered all the ways, right? We had that wording, dosa has entered all the ways, before. And then we had those two ideas, you know, one guy went off and said, oh, it refers to people of Mahayana Hinayana.

The other guy went off and had this complicated explanation, beautiful complicated explanation of how it referred to minority people and like that. Well, those guys who like this version of it, they point to this part of the text when they're trying to defend their version, because here it seems to say, this one, meaning the third turn of the wheel, relates to both, relates to both. So they like to pull out this page and show it to people to support their ideas.

And those guys who went off on the other tangent like to go back to page 80, whatever it was, and say, no, no, no, here's where he agrees to our system, and that's the one that we like. And then Geshe-la says, who knows? I don't know.

Those smart people in the past probably know what it is. Who do I know? I don't know anything.

This reminds me of what we just talked about, that there was a hassle yesterday that we didn't quite resolve. I said that we were going to resolve it today. There was a point where there were two different ideas going on, and I promised you we'd attempt to resolve it.

Of course, who knows if we can resolve it? Resolving is hard, but it seems to me I remember we had an issue from yesterday that we promised we were going to talk about and resolve, and I said I would resolve this with you, and now we're going to kind of run into the time again to resolve that, but we will resolve it. So remind me, we'll get back to that one, or we'll try to cover that one.

There was this thing where there were two different systems about something, and I was going to help you resolve it and clean it up, and we didn't do it, and we were going to do it today, and I kind of forgot to do it, and now we're getting short of time, but we'll see. We'll see about doing that. I think I asked you guys to make a mark.

What was it about? He knows what it is. You don't have to remind me.

Don't worry about it. Don't mash potatoes. If we get time, we'll let this problem arise again.

[Говорящий 2]
If we don't get time, we'll let it lie like a sleeping dog.

[Говорящий 1]
Again, Geshe-la is going back to that word on the fifth line from the bottom on page 30 where he says, now this one, okay, in Tibetan we call it a proximity, a word of proximity, meaning this thing is close to us. You say, this one means something close. You say, those, or those old ones, you're talking about something far away.

So this is a proximity expression, an expression of proximity. Why? Where are we in the sutra?

Do you remember? The bodhisattva has just got through asking these questions of the Buddha, and then, you know, what did you mean when you talked about the first century and blah, blah, blah? And then the Buddha has, Lord Buddha has come back and he's given all these answers and all these answers.

So if you think about it, in the book, or sutrically, we are located after the Buddha's extensive answer, after Lord Buddha's answer. So if you take it by proximity, the first two turns of the wheel are way back there. And then that question and those replies, responses, are right here, coming up against us.

So by proximity, you can refer to the third turn of the wheel. From our point of view now, that's being dini, meaning now this one, meaning the closer one, now no problem to refer to this third turning of the wheel as now this one.

[Говорящий 2]
Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Mm hmm.

Mm hmm. Mm hmm.

[Говорящий 1]
Mm hmm.

[Говорящий 2]
Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Mm hmm.

Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Mm hmm.

Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Mm hmm.

Mm hmm. Mm hmm.

[Говорящий 1]
Ah, so how do we define? You know, we've been throwing these terms around very easily. First turning of the wheel, second turning of the wheel, third turning of the wheel.

How do we define those turnings of the wheel? What is it that is the turning of the wheel? Who decided this is first, second, third turning of the wheel?

Okay? And then Geshe-la points out that on page 31 in the first line, we have that sutra in which the Buddha explained the meaning of his sutras, what he had in mind when he spoke the other sutras, being referred to as, you know, in English we usually translate it as a commentary on my true thought or something like that, a commentary on what I really intended to say, right? Here, Jatakapa is referring to that book with the name, Commentary on the True Thought of the Turnings of the Wheel, okay?

So Kolo Gongdo as a unit means commentary on the true thought of my three turnings of the wheel, you see what I mean? Of the turnings of the wheel. Now he says there's a big debate about how different people explain, how do we decide what is first turning of the wheel, second turning of the wheel, third turning of the wheel, what does it mean when we talk about a turning of the wheel?

And some people have gone on, they don't use the expression first turning of the wheel, second turning of the wheel, third turning of the wheel. They talk about first turning of the wheel which relates to the first outcome of the exchange, second turning of the wheel as it relates to the second outcome of the exchange, third turning of the wheel as it relates to the third outcome of the exchange. Remember that outcome of the exchange referred to after the Bodhisattva asked the Buddha the question, and then after the Buddha answered the question there was an outcome.

What was the outcome? We were able to decide, what was the profit from the transaction in a sense. We were able to determine or decide that the first two turnings of the wheel were figurative and that the third turning of the wheel was literal.

So, then there's some masters of the past, some great, great Buddhist scholars, that said, first turning of the wheel, first outcome. Second turning of the wheel, second outcome. Third turning of the wheel, third outcome.

And they've characterized them like that. Geshe-la hasn't gone in yet to what the three outcomes are, okay? He hasn't divided them like that.

Then he said, oh, oh, there's something I forgot to tell you guys. Some people say that it's the Dode Gongrel itself, it's that sutra in which the Buddha explained the intent of his other sutras, which is the third turning of the wheel. So, you can say that this sutra in itself is the third turning of the wheel.

But, I forgot to tell you guys the other day, this sutra has ten different sections, ten different chapters, okay? And there's only one chapter, called the chapter which was given at the request of the bodhisattva named Jendamyangdhapa, okay? So, when we talk about the third turning of the wheel, or everything we've described so far, is really coming out of one chapter of that sutra in which he explained the meaning of his sutras, which is called the chapter that was spoken at the request, or because of a question given by the bodhisattva Jendamyangdhapa.

So, Geshe-la wants to say that we made that distinction. Now, we have different scholars coming along and having different ideas about what it is that defines three different turnings of the wheel. And here we go on how different people do it.

And he brushed on one, comparing them to the three outcomes. So, we've come to a point where some masters of the past have said the content of the third turning of the wheel is exclusively that chapter which was taught by Jendamyangdhapa. I mean, which was taught at the request, or because of the question of Jendamyangdhapa.

But then you have other scholars coming along and saying, other masters coming along and saying, no, it's not just that one section. It's any other teaching of the Buddha, which has a similar content as that one section. So, you can take not only that section as the third turning of the wheel, but any other teaching of the Buddha, which is similar, or which concurs, or concordant with that one section.

Then you can expand the definition of the third, or the description of the third turning of the wheel to say, all those other books too. And then they point to Jendamyangdhapa here saying, line 3, page 31. Other similar works, or other similar teachings can be described as the third turning of the wheel.

So, there's a debate about it. There's two positions expressed here. Hey, I don't know.

Whatever. How does Je Tsongkapa feel about it? How does Je Tsongkapa want to decide the question?

Je Tsongkapa says, look, whatever. If a book divides things into these three groups, constructs, things which are dependent, and then totality, meaning emptiness. Suppose any book takes that, and then goes into those three categories, and says that these two exist by definition, and this one doesn't exist by definition.

Well, then any book that does that, any teaching that does that, that's enough. Then we can say that's the third turning of the wheel. And that's all I need, personally, says Je Tsongkapa, for something to be the third turning of the wheel.

Let's speak of the Buddha, right? So, again, Geshe-la says, go back to one group saying the third turning of the wheel is only that section which was requested by the Buddha, and other people say, well, is there also anything similar to that? I don't know.

I don't really know which one we're going to go with.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Here you have to know that I've been translating as the third turning of the wheel half the time. The real expression in Tibetan is the last turning of the wheel. So, it's called korotama.

So, either it's called korotsumba or korotama. Third turning of the wheel, sometimes it's called last turning of the wheel. Now, when you hear the wording last turning of the wheel, you might very naturally be tempted to think that it means the last one historically that the Buddha taught, right?

Last turning of the wheel must be the last one he taught. And Je Tsongkapa says, don't make that mistake, okay? Just because we call it the last turning of the wheel doesn't mean that if something is the teaching of the Buddha that he taught last, that that now automatically qualifies as the last turning of the wheel.

Last turning of the wheel, according to Je Tsongkapa's viewpoint, is any book, any teaching in which Lord Buddha spoke about those three groups and then said, oh, these exist by definition and these don't exist by definition. And any book in which he did that is the final turning of the wheel. And don't think that final, in this case, refers to some historical finality where historically it was the final or last teaching that he gave.

It's not true that everything that belongs to the final period of the Buddha's teachings is to be considered in the final turning of the wheel.

[Говорящий 2]
Page 31, we've been through it.

[Говорящий 1]
We skipped to it before and we've gone through that and we've been through the content of page 31. Now on the last line of page 31, we get to section number 2, it's called section number 2, in which we are going to talk about the names that are given to the three turnings of the wheel. So the three turnings of the wheel each get separate names, or they're given separate names.

First of all, Je Tsongkapa goes into three names that were given to the three turnings of the wheel by the Chinese master. So the Chinese master has given, in his commentary, you find the three turnings of the wheel named three different things. First one is called the first turning of the wheel, comma, the turning of the wheel in which he taught the four Arya truths.

And then the second turning of the wheel, comma, the one in which he said nothing has any nature or any characteristics of its own. And then the third turning of the wheel, which the Chinese master refers to as ascertaining the ultimate. Ascertaining the ultimate, as the third turning of the wheel.

And these are the names which the Chinese master gives to the three turnings of the wheel. So it appears that the Chinese master has been giving the name to the first turning of the wheel from its subject matter. The subject matter of the first turning of the wheel is the four Arya truths.

And so the first turning of the wheel gets to be called the four Arya truths. The turning of the wheel in which the Buddha taught the four Arya truths. And the reason why the second turning of the wheel is called the turning of the wheel in which nothing has any characteristics or nature of its own, in Tibetan, that's a short way of saying there's nothing that exists by definition.

So, rather than talking about subject matter, the name of the second turning of the wheel is taken from the fact that the Buddha during the second turning of the wheel said nothing has any definition of its own. Nothing exists by definition. So it's called the turning of the wheel in which there's no definition.

Meaning, existing by definition. And of course, as we said the other day, not meaning the words we use to define something or something like that. But not existing by definition.

So that's how the second turning of the wheel gets its name. The name in the Chinese commentary of the third turning of the wheel is the third turning of the wheel karma in which we ascertain the ultimate. And the word ultimate here is a code word for emptiness itself.

And so, because the content, or because the third turning of the wheel is concentrating on the idea of emptiness, we're talking about the idea of emptiness, then it has been given the name, in the Chinese commentary at least, of the third turning of the wheel karma, the turning of the wheel in which we ascertain emptiness.

[Говорящий 2]
...

[Говорящий 1]
So, Jetsun Kapa says, you know, I understand why the Chinese commentary gave the third turning of the wheel the name, you know, ascertain the ultimate, or something like that. You know, it's not crazy. It has its own sense.

You could call the third turning of the wheel like that. But, if you really look at the sutra and look at the ways in which the Buddha characterized the third turning of the wheel, perhaps it's better that we refer to it as turning of the wheel in which fine distinctions were made. The turning of the wheel in which fine distinctions were made.

What are the fine distinctions? We talked about it before. Two of the groups of the three exist by definition.

One of the groups doesn't exist by definition. You're making the distinction between existing, the groups that exist by definition and the groups that don't exist by definition. And that, therefore, Jetsun Kapa, I feel more comfortable with naming the third turning of the wheel, the turning of the wheel in which the Buddha made fine distinctions.

This man says, I think it's better that we leave off here. We're about, page 32. We're going to stop page 32, line 4, halfway through the line.

Why? Because it would be, we're about to enter a very huge section in which there are no places to stop.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay?

[Говорящий 1]
So, rather than getting into it and not being able to get into it properly, we'll stop there and then tomorrow we'll start again. We'll start right there. You know, you could look at the three turns of the wheel in a historical light, as far as the sequence of times, and you could say, you know, you could go about saying, you know, it is possible to say the first turn of the wheel occurred from this point up to this point in the Buddha's life.

When Lord Buddha was this many years old up to the time when Lord Buddha was this many years old, that constitutes the first turn of the wheel, and then there's the second turn of the wheel, and the third turn of the wheel. So, you know, people do talk about the first period, the second period, and the third period, and you can't talk in those terms. You can say, oh, from this point in his life to this point in his life, this point in his life to this point in his life, this point in his life to this point in his life.

But that's not the main point when we talk about periods of the Buddha's teachings. What we're referring to there is huge convocations. They use the word in Tibetan, three convocations, meaning there were, like, you could divide out three major events in which a very, very huge amount of disciples came and witnessed a major teaching event, you know.

So, really, when we talk about the Buddha's teachings in terms of three turnings of the wheel, or three historical periods during the Buddha's life, we're talking about, and then Geshe-la says, you could say India, you could say Southern Continent, Southern Continent, India, Jambudvipa, right? The Southern Continent, the world that we're supposed to be in, right? When the Buddha came to this world and gave major teaching events, and then the years surrounding those events, right, the periods surrounding those events, those can be divided historically into three periods, first turning, second turning, third turning, first period, second period, third period.

So it's not so much a question of from this year to that year, or this year to that year. It's really the period in which this huge gathering and this huge Dharma teaching event happened, and then this gathering, and then this gathering. And those are one way, when the book talks about the first, second, and third convocations or gatherings, or when the book talks about the first, second, or third periods, what the book is talking about is really particular major teaching events during the Buddha's lifetime.

So you can look at the three turns of the wheel also from the sort of historical point of view. He said the stroke of the tape dropped his train of thought also.

[Говорящий 2]
He said the stroke of the tape dropped his train of thought also.

[Говорящий 1]
Generally speaking, when you talk about the three turns of the wheel and three great convocations, right, and the three great gatherings of Dharma event, right, in this book and in similar books, we don't really get a clarification, well, in this book especially, we don't get a clarification of locale, except for in the first one. In the first one, they're talking about Varanasi, and in that particular place out in the countryside where that teaching was given. The locale for the second turn of the wheel is clear.

We all know it. It's Vulture's Peak in Rajagiri, right? So that's pretty clear, and that's pretty well-known, and that's clearly stated where that convocation took place.

The third one is said to have taken place in a town called Yangbaten. I don't remember the census for it. Do you?

No. I'll look it up. But anyway, we're trying to identify that.

In trying to identify that... By the way, we know where Vulture's Peak is. It's off in Deer someplace in India, right?

But in identifying the locale of the third turn of the wheel, a town called Yangbaten, Geshe-la thinks it's up towards Nepal, in the region somewhere around the Nepalese-Indian border, that there was a town, there was a city called... Shastavani, I think it is. Yeah, anyway, I'll look it up.

Shastavani. And that's where the third turn of the wheel took place. Okay.

I can't really pinpoint the locale for you.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
I hope I got it right. Okay. When you think about the first turn of the wheel and the third turn of the wheel, the disciples for whom the wording was intended and the disciples for whom the content was intended are the same.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay, we'll go back again because it was confusing. I didn't know if he was saying first and third were the same or something like that. The logic behind the first and the logic behind the third is the same in the following sense.

The persons for whom the wording was intended and the persons for whom the content was intended are the same thing. So, the persons he meant to hear the teachings and the persons he meant to get the teachings are the same. In the first turn of the wheel, that's the case.

And it's the same case. Not the same, right? But it's the same case in the third turn of the wheel.

The wording, the expressions of the third, the wording that he used in the third turn of the wheel, the students for whom that wording was intended and the students for whom the intent of the third turn of the wheel, the meaning of the third turn of the wheel was intended are the same group of students. So, in the first turn of the wheel, it's the case and in the third turn of the wheel, that's the case.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Yes.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes. Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Yes.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
I realized the mistake of my initial words, you know, that I was using Tibetan that kind of was indicating that the students for the first turn of the wheel are the same as the third turn of the wheel. I mean, that's how he started out saying, you know. And then I got confused.

He said, no, no, no wonder why you got confused. We just got through saying that the students for whom the third turn of the wheel was designed are students who have entered all the ways. And then students for whom the first turn of the wheel was designed are students who have entered the listener, in the other way.

And now I come up and say, oh, they're all the same, you know. Everything was meant for the same people. Yeah, I understand why you got a doubt about it.

Of course, what I meant to say was the students for whom the wording of the first turn of the wheel was designed and the students for whom the content or the meaning of the first turn of the wheel was designed are the same group of people. And that same fact is true of the third turn of the wheel. Nothing.

[Говорящий 2]
It does.

[Говорящий 1]
Now, that one in the middle, right? That one in the middle, that one line between. Now, there's a different case.

There's a different case. You got one set of people for whom the wording was intended and you have a totally different set of people for whom the meaning was intended. Oh, that's nice, nice, nice.

That's nice, nice, nice. Okay, and now the middle one, that dude in the center. Okay, he says.

Now, who did he mean that one for? And how do we describe the students for whom that was designed for? Shut that money-maker door.

Don't leak out there, okay? Now, in the mind-only school system, the people for whom the wording was intended, okay? The wording was designed for people in the higher part of the middle way school, the consequence part of the middle way school.

For them, the Buddha was using that kind of language, those kinds of wording, those kinds of expressions. The way in which he expressed the second turn of the wheel, the words that he used, were designed for the sake of the higher group, the consequence group of the Madhyamika middle way school. But the intent, the content, the meaning of his words, what the meanings were meant to express, the ideas that he meant to express, ah, those were designed for us, for the mind-only school people, okay?

Don't leak off into that door, he says. Those were designed for us, for the mind-only school. And that's what they think.

So, now you have to sort of make a fine distinction, don't we? Don't you think we have to make a distinction here? Don't forget, we are mind-only guys, right?

Everybody here is a mind-only person, okay? Right now. Don't forget, when they come to the second turn of the wheel, and they are discussing the question of for whom was the second turning of the wheel turned?

Who was the disciple that the Buddha had in mind? To whom was it particularly designed or directed, the second turning of the wheel? You know, you can say that the people for whom the learning was directed, you know, the people for whom the verbiage or the words, or the expressions of the second turning of the wheel were directed, are the higher group, the consequence group of the middle way school.

But, don't you have to say then that even though they were the disciples for whom the wording was designed, they are not disciples for whom the second turning of the wheel was designed. Don't you have to say that, if you are a mind-only school person? Yeah, that's true, because you can say that the upper part of the Madhyamaka school of people, they can be characterized as being people for whom the wording was specifically directed or designed.

But you can't characterize them, therefore, as people for whom the second turning of the wheel was designed, because, you know, we can look at the second turning of the wheel as like a big ball, right? And us mind-only guys, you know, we are on the inside. We are right in the pith of the matter, you know.

We understand everything about the real meaning of it, because we are inside circle, you know. We are right there in the center, and we got the pith of it. But those Madhyamika guys, they are looking for it from the outside, you know.

They are just seeing the outer covering of the thing. They are just seeing the verbiage or the expressions or the words. That's all that they are getting out of it.

They ain't getting the pith. So we can't describe them as the disciples for whom the second or the middle turning of the wheel was designed, just that the wording was directed towards them, but the mood was designed for us, the mind-only people. I'm just giving you an example.

I don't want you to think, start saying that Geshe Thubten Rinpoche said that the middle turning of the wheel is like an orange, and it's got a peel on the outside, and some people are messing out the peel, other people are in there in the middle eating the fruit. I don't want you to think, I don't want you to quote me like that. I'm not saying the second turning of the wheel is some kind of weird, like a big fruit with a skin on the outside and something on the inside.

Please don't report me that way. Just kidding. which meant, do you remember, that they also apply to things that don't change.

And there must be a way that you can use these three groups and some permutation of the three groups or some process by which you use the three groups to characterize unchanging things. We had said last time that we would come back and revisit that point, and we did not yet revisit that point, so here we go on that point. We said that there would be a little hassle about it, and now we'll go into that point.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay, so I've got a question for you guys.

[Говорящий 1]
Remember that when he talked about the three groups before, we had established them with reference to one of the five heaps, really. You know, it's something like a changing thing. You could say like the physical matter or something like that.

We did it with regard to a physical object, right? And then we went through that, and then the text said, well, you can apply this to the four kinds of sustenance, you can apply this to the different categories of things, you can apply this to the twelve divisions of dependent information, you can apply this to the eighteen categories, and blah, blah, blah. It went on on different things.

Now, assume you guys have had some instruction in what we call the twelve doors of sense, which means like twelve objects and then twelve Consciousnesses, sorry, six and six, right? Six objects and six Consciousnesses which arise from those objects. So, now I want to ask you a question.

This is, by the way, the first chapter of Avatara. We've never done it very clearly. Okay, sorry.

It comes in the Heart Sutra also. But if you take those twelve doors of sense, they're called, and if you look at them, can you guys tell me, among the six Consciousnesses and their six objects, are they all exclusively changing things, or are there any unchanging things in them? I don't need some.

You can just give me one.

[Говорящий 2]
I think what he's saying, although I'm not very clear on it...

[Говорящий 1]
You said there was one unchanging thing, or you could come up with one unchanging thing that was the object of the ayatana, right, of the doric sense of the mind, right? And how would you relate that to the shenrong that we were talking about the other day? Remember we had a shenrong the other day, we had a changing thing the other day?

How would you relate that thing that you came up with to the shenrong that we were talking about the other day, to the changing thing, or to the dependent thing that we were talking about the other day? The shenrong that we were talking about the other day, the shenrong that we were talking about the other day? When we said that you can establish the category called dependent things with regard to the five heaps, using the five heaps as a basis, right, you can establish what shenrong is, right?

Remember they all have their shenrong, they all have their kundal, they all have their nyonggu, right? So, how was it that with regard to the five heaps, we established their own group of dependent things, do you remember? Before we were establishing that all three categories, or all three attributes, can be said to apply to every changing object, and we used the five heaps as an example, and we came about, we were able to establish that all three attributes, or all three groups, apply to any particular changing object.

Now, how are you going to relate that now? Yesterday I went through this similar process twice, two times. He's not asking you, can you look back and find it in your notes.

His question is not boiling down to, did you write it down or not, because he happens to notice you wrote it down. What I want to know is whether it was written in here or not. He wants to know, how can you establish the attribute called dependent things, with regard to unchanging things, or with regard to the, it's not really Dharma-dhatu, it's the door of sense called object of the mind.

That whole group of stuff which is called object of the mind. As opposed to the object of the physical senses. So you've got ten, right?

Five and five. Five objects of the physical senses, five consciousnesses which are triggered by them. This is why doors, why they're called door of sense.

And then you've got the mind itself, or thoughts, which are triggered by their own, the objects of thoughts. So inside of those objects of thoughts is an unchanging thing. Now how do you establish the existence of Chen Wang, the third group, with regard to an unchanging thing?

[Говорящий 2]
I don't know. Keep going.

[Говорящий 1]
Come on, let's go. Just don't be shy, go ahead.

[Говорящий 2]
Whatever you want, just blast it out. Okay. Yeah, okay.

[Говорящий 1]
He says it slipped out of my mouth and don't translate it for him. I said, don't worry, I don't even get it anyway. Do you remember the other day when we were discussing how to identify what it is to be a concept, right?

We got into the identification of concepts. When we were talking about the identification of concepts, we brought up how the group of changing things or depending things relates to the identification of concepts. Later on, when we got to changing things themselves, and we were trying to identify what it is to be a member of that group, again we used the group of changing things or depending things to describe or to characterize that group.

How was it that we did that? In each case, we did it twice so far. We've done it twice.

So, how does that have to do with Shambhala? You said, when the mind takes as an object of the mind an unchanging thing or a changing thing, then you said when it takes as an object of the mind a changing thing, then it comes up with a mental picture with an unchanging thing. Where are you going to go from there?

He wants to know how you are going to go from there. Depending things relates to talking of stories in the three groups with unchanging things. He says, it looks to me like you've probably found it in your notebook or something.

You threw your pen down in your notebook at a certain spot and it makes you believe that you've found what you're looking for. Didn't we explain chenwang, or dependent things, in terms of three different features? The arena in which constructs do their thing, in which they act.

That thing which is the object of the labeling process, whichever one it is. And then that thing which exhibits the characteristics of a produced thing, right, meaning it depends on its causes and conditions. Didn't we characterize dependent things in that way?

Didn't we characterize caused things in that way? Dag-gan-nam yun, kye-pa-tsen-jin. So write it down.

I'm sorry. My name is Dag-gan-nam. My name is Jamie.

I'm from Los Angeles. My name is James. My name is Dag-gan-nam.

It's weird how people can't understand it when we're about to say something, and they don't understand what we said already, as if it was something we said already. Everybody got that? You know, where we were last time, and then from yesterday, right?

From the other day, when we talked about, it's the arena in which constructs work, it's the thing which catches the labels, and then thirdly, it exhibits the qualities of a produced thing, right? Everybody got that? You know, where we were last time, and then from yesterday, right?

From the other day, when we talked about, it's the arena in which constructs work, it's the thing which catches the labels, and then thirdly, it exhibits the qualities of a produced thing, right? Everybody got that? You found it?