Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 12

[Говорящий 2]
Questioner 1 – ________________________________________________________________ Questioner 2 – ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Говорящий 1]
that's probably why jessicapa didn't find it satisfactory or something like that the name of uh the union yamda bambas the book uh is reported in this text to be means to forget, jang means to purify, and je jang means notes I took so I wouldn't forget.

And this is a genre of Tibetan literature. It's a name that the Tibetans give to a certain kind of thing, like what you guys are doing now. So it can be translated as, notes I took in order not to forget what the teacher said.

And that's the Sanskrit name of this book which is probably found in the Tenggur, which is written by an Indian originally in Sanskrit and it's probably found in the Tenggur. The quotation from the Indian pundit starts out by saying, you know, he's referring specifically to the second turn of the wheel now, okay? So he's concentrating, he's focusing first on the second turn of the wheel and he says the following, because the content of the second turn of the wheel is separate from the content of the first turn of the wheel, therefore the second turn of the wheel is not to be taken literally, okay?

And therefore he's only approached a third of the four characterizations. So whether or not what he says is true or what he's talking about we don't know yet, but he did say, because the content differs in the second turn of the wheel from the first turn of the wheel, we have to take that the second turn of the wheel is not something that was spoken literally. And that's how he's explaining the third characterization.

And then he does go on to describe lana-cipa, meaning does have something higher than it, it does have something better than it, in the sense that there is a higher tepa, there is a higher yana or way, than this. Now what's he talking about, we'll have to see. So he's talking about the third characterization, the third characterization of the third characterization And then he goes on to say that, because it, and now I asked him if he's referring to the second turn of the wheel still, or just the first turn of the wheel, or which turn of the wheel is he talking about, he says, well, you can say both, in a sense, because the characterization has been applied to both, right, originally. So he says, because it can be a basis of contention, a bone of contention, between different groups among the hinayana, so within groups of the hinayana, they can be arguing about the meaning of these two turnings of the wheel, then they become a basis of contention, and that's what basis of contention means. Okay...

Then we can say there is an opening, right? And in the text it says there is an opening in the sense that because of the oneness of the Way, okay? And what does it mean when he says usefulness of the Way?

In the First and Second Teritory of the wheel, wheel, and especially in the second turn of the wheel, Lord Buddha is indicating, we call it tat-duk-teh-pa-chik, means, tat-duk-teh-pa-chik is an idea in the present Pāramitā literature which is, you know, ultimately all of the jhānas are one jhāna. You see, the sooner or later you're going to have to graduate up to the next one. You know, all the tracks, you know, you can either look at them as three separate tracks, for example, or you can see them as, you know, sooner or later you're going to have to go up through all the tracks and get to the end of the third track.

So really, everything from the beginning of the first track to the end of the third track is one track. So, you know, even if you take it as hīnayana and māyāna, ultimately if you're going to get to Buddha, which is a māyāna thing, you're going to have to go through all those tracks. Or, you know, anyone who starts on anywhere on any of those tracks is ultimately going to end up doing one track.

It's all going to become one track. So in the, especially in the second turn of the wheel, the Buddha is indicating that it's all one track. You know, all the jhānas are one jhāna.

Because sooner or later you're going to have to go through all of them and get to the same Buddhahood. And then, but there are other occasions where we describe them in the third turning of the wheel, they are emphasizing that there are three different tracks. And that, you know, it's not ultimately one track.

They say, ultimately speaking, there are three different tracks, you know. They have a different take on it, okay? So there's a gap or there's an opening where people can start to say this, that, oh, it's not all, it's not true that everything is one track.

You know, it's not true that there's only one jhāna or one way. Ultimately, since the third turning of the wheel explains that there are three, ultimately there are three different tracks. Even in an ultimate sense, there are three different tracks.

Ultimate here, by the way, means, with reference to the ultimate goal, meaning complete Buddhahood, that there are three separate tracks, three different ways, okay? So Geshe-la says, I'm not sure if that's exactly what he means here, but it seems to be that that's what they mean here. When they say, ultimately, when they say the problem of, the characterization of there being an opening refers to there being an opening to have a problem with the idea of a single jhāna, that seems to be what they're referring to here.

And then we do get the wording here. Remember they said there would be some debate, there could be some debate, and remember Je Tsongkapa said, I like that particular phrasing. You know, when you talk about there's an opening and the Chinese commentary says, I'm sorry, the Indian commentary says, uses the wording, there could be a debate, you know, there could be a debate.

I noticed that it just came here, okay? Go with that I mean, there could be a debate, okay? Then Geshe-la is saying, now I'm going to give you my own take on it, okay?

I'm not and good scholars in the monastery are careful to tell you when it's their own take on it, okay? He wants you to know that this is his way of thinking about it. You know, I've considered this question a lot.

I've been trying to figure out why is it that Je Tsongkapa says, I don't quite find the, you know, it doesn't appear to me that the Indian's explanation is satisfactory. Well, when you get to the first characterization, which was, it does have something higher, right? And the first and second turnings of the wheel, which are what it was that was said in reference to, right?

It was about the first and second turnings of the wheel that they said there is something higher. And then the Indian commentary says, the commentator says, yeah, there is something higher means there's a higher way, there's a higher tegpa, right? There's a higher jnana.

Well, since we've already covered the hinayana and the mayana, then what's he talking about, right? If the first two turnings of the wheel are talking about hinayana and mayana, then he says there's a higher jnana, there's a higher way. Then what is he talking about?

And Je Tsongkapa says, I've been thinking about it. He's probably talking about tantra, okay? You mean the tantric way, right?

He's got to be bringing in tantric way. And even though, he says, in the mind-only school, mind-only school, people do practice tantra, right? And it's possible that you could refer to tantra, but if you think about it, we have a kind of an unstated rule, right?

In studying and in learning scripture, we don't mix them, right? We are now in the context of an open teaching. We are not in the context of a secret teaching.

The mind-only school's idea of these three attributes and everything else is an open teaching. It's not a secret teaching. During an open teaching, you don't throw in secret teaching.

You don't start talking about secret teachings right in the middle of an open teaching. It's against Buddhist protocol to do that. So, I think that's what Je Tsongkapa meant when he said he did not find the Indian commentator's explanation satisfactory, because the Indian commentator has started to bring in the secret teachings, when by protocol, we don't do that.

Then, in my own opinion again, when I think about what's the problem with the Indian commentator's explanation of the idea of there is a basis for contention, right? Because he explained it as a basis of contention on the idea of whether or not it all boils down to one jnana. You see what I mean?

Whether or not, ultimately speaking, with regard to the ultimate goal, it all boils down to one jnana, which Geshe-la clarifies here, and perhaps I made a mistake earlier, is mainly stated in the second turning of the wheel, right? I think I said first and second turning of the wheel. So, he said mainly presented in the second turning of the wheel, the concept that it all boils down to one jnana in the end, okay?

I guess you'd better say in the end than ultimately, right? In the end, it all boils down to one way. And then, in the third turning of the wheel, I'm saying in the end, it boils down to three separate ways, okay?

He says, I admit, and Geshe-la is saying, you know, we could agree to that statement, you know? It is true that in the second turning of the wheel, they did eventually mention something about, you know, in the end, it all boils down to one way, right? And it does mention, you know, it is a part of the third turning of the wheel that they do talk about, in the end, it boils down to three ways.

But, what are we talking about here, you know, in this whole book? What's the main emphasis of the whole original sutra in which the Buddha explains the meaning of the sutra, right? It's to discuss questions like, are these particular objects something that exists by definition or are they not something which exists by definition, right?

And if it does exist by definition, what does that mean to exist by definition? See, what objects do exist by definition and don't exist by definition? And if something did exist by definition or didn't exist by definition, what would that mean?

And the whole question here, when we say basis of contention or something to argue about, that's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about a potential fight breaking out about people, about ultimately how many jhanas there are, how many jhanas there aren't, you know? That's not the point.

That's not where we're having our argument about. That's not at all what we're having an argument about. The big argument here, the big contention here is whether or not things exist by definition and whether certain things exist by definition or not.

So, in Geshe-la's own thinking, this is why Geshe-la perhaps said, I don't find that explanation to be satisfactory. About number four, right? About characterization number four.

So, later on, if somebody comes up to you and says, what did Je Tsongkapa say about that Indian commentary's idea about those four attributions and characterizations? And you're going to say, well, you know, he said he didn't find them satisfactory. And then somebody's going to say, well, how didn't he find them satisfactory?

What problem did he have with them? And then I want you to, you know, remember back this day, you say, well, at least I heard two of them from Geshe-la. He explained his own idea about why Je Tsongkapa may not have found the Indian commentator's idea about those four satisfactory.

And I just want you to make sure that you have something to talk about when people come up to you in America and say, you know, why didn't Je Tsongkapa find those four satisfactory? Or at least you got two of them in my own thinking. And if the people you're talking to say, that doesn't make much sense to me, or I don't get the point there, or I don't see much problem there, you can blame it on Geshe-la.

You can say, I don't know, well, that was his idea, and that's the way he was thinking about it. You know, that's not the way I was thinking about it, you know.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Then there's that simple sentence that follows there where Je Tsongkapa says, now our own system is exactly what I explained before, which means, you know, the meaning of those four characterizations does have something better than it. What was the next one? There is an opening for argument, right?

There is an opening for dispute. There is an opening, that's all it says really. And then it's a figurative, and then there's a basis for contention or something like that.

He says, my position is that it's just a pancake of those, you know. He says, remember my position is what I explained before, and you guys already wrote that down. Somewhere in your notes there, you've got Je Tsongkapa's explanation, and Je Tsongkapa just says, my position is what I explained before.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
And also, you know, so that kind of wraps up here something that I think I kind of might have left out the other day. You know, I wanted to make it complete. My aim is to make this teaching comprehensive, and so I went back to that point just now and wanted to fill in a bit of a gap that we had.

Now it occurs to me that we have another gap here that I might have kind of, that would make the thing not be comprehensive, and I'd like you to concentrate on that one now. It's page 31. It's the fourth line, and I'm going to fill in a little bit of a gap you might have from the other day on page 31, line 4.

This is where, in the final turning of the wheel, when they get to those four characterizations, they just say, the pancake, you know, the flip-flop of the other four that were spoken with regard to the first two turnings of the wheel. And that's what this lady here did the other day, if you guys remember. She said she didn't have to write anything, because she just wrote down everything is just the opposite of before.

And this is the part where Jatakapa says that. Well, in regard to the third turning of the wheel, we just flip-flop, we just do the opposite of those other four characterizations. Generally speaking, Jatakapa's idea of the whole thing is just to reverse those four, and that's correct.

His general intent is to reverse those four. But I have some kind of a sense or a feeling that I might have left something out. I think we didn't quite go over the wording at this point.

I'm not quite sure, but I think we'll go over the wording at this point and make sure that we nail it down. So, I'm going to go back to the wording here and just explain in very finely what that means. He says he's not quite sure if he confused it the other day.

Maybe he might have screwed it up a bit when we got to this point. But everything, starting from about the fourth line of page 31 down to about the eighth or ninth line, eighth line and ninth line, you've got the Chinese master Wensing explaining the difference between, explaining what it means to not be those four. You see what I mean?

When you say the four apply to the first and second turn of the wheel, and then you say that when we get to the third turn of the wheel, we are reversing them, he does go into some explanation of it. So, there is some explanation of it. But in particular, when he gets to the expression, there is an opening, right?

There is an opening. Then he gives two explanations. He explains it in two different flavors.

The Chinese master explains the third characterization with two different flavors of explanation. One of them we find pretty cool. One of them seems to have a bit of a problem with it.

Okay. Now, remember that we said with regard to the second characterization, which is that there will be an opening, right? And we described it as opening for dispute, right?

If you accept literally the contents of the first two turns of the wheel. Now we go on to Wensing's explanation of that particular characterization. And there are two explanations.

One of them, finds satisfactory, one he doesn't find satisfactory, okay? One seems to make sense, the other he doesn't like so much, okay? The first one pretty much accords to what we say when we say the opposite of there is an opening.

So, the opposite of there is an opening in the first interpretation by the Chinese master would be, there is an opening for destruction, it's called, or blowing away, okay? It's the past tense of the word for destroy. And what that means is there would be an opening for someone to come and wipe you out if you took the first two turns of the wheel literally.

You would leave yourself open for some successful debate or argument against you which wiped out your beliefs. So, we'd say there would be an opening for wiping something out, okay? And then the third turn of the wheel is characterized with the opposite, right?

Which means there will never be an opening for someone to come reasonably and wipe us out if we take it to be literal, okay? So, that's the first meaning of, and Geshe-la says that one's pretty good. But the second one has a problem.

The second, when the Chinese master explains that there will be an opening in his second interpretation, he's saying there will be an opening for something perfect later, okay? There will be an opening for something perfect later, okay? And then Geshe-la is exploring what does that mean.

So, if you talk about the first two turns of the wheel, the implication is if you explain there will be an opening or there will be an occasion, and if you say there will be an occasion for something to come later which is perfect, right? Then that's a little bit strange but not so bad. There will be an opening relative to the first and second turns of the wheel for there to come a turning of the wheel later which is perfect, right?

And that's a way of saying, you know, it's not quite perfect. And now there's a little problem with describing the Buddhist speech as not quite perfect, but I don't think that's the main point Geshe-la is making. The point is this.

I believe the point is this, that when you talk about the third turn of the wheel, you couldn't say that there's not an opening for something perfect to come later, right? Because that's what you'd be saying. The opposite of saying there'll be an opening later for something perfect to come, if you say the opposite about the third turning of the wheel, which means the one that comes later on, a perfect one to come later on, won't happen, right?

There was no opening for that. You can't say that because there is no fourth turning of the wheel or anything like that, you know? So he thinks that Jetsun Kapha's problem with that one is that you can't go around and say of the third turning of the wheel that the one later on will be perfect or imperfect, because there is no later on.

There's only three turnings of the wheel. So I believe that's what Geshe-la is saying, that we don't feel comfortable with saying about his explanation of there will be an opening, saying there will be an opening later for something perfect to come, because there is no later to come after the third turning of the wheel. So that's why Jetsun Kapha doesn't feel comfortable by describing the second characterization in that second flavor.

Listen. And that's why he has a problem. That's the thing that Jetsun Kapha has a problem with, that characterization like that.

And then we can leave that point and go on to page 32, okay? Maybe that's where we left off the other day, okay? Uh, fourth line.

[Говорящий 2]
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

Uh-huh. Mm-hmm. Uh-huh.

[Говорящий 1]
Now we're going down to page 32, line 4. And we are distinguishing between two different things. What is it about which we can say, this is figurative or this is literal?

And we call it the foundation or the basis for making the distinction between what is figurative and what is literal. And then we can go on to the second question of how is it or what is it that makes it literal or figurative? You know, how do we decide that something is figurative or how do we decide that something is literal?

So two different issues here. What is it that we are examining to determine whether it is figurative or literal? And then secondly, how is it that we decide that this thing is figurative or literal?

So what it is that we are looking at to decide that is the speech of the Buddha. It is the word of the Buddha, the word of Lord Buddha. So what we are looking at is the collection of the speech of Lord Buddha, the combined quantity of those things which Lord Buddha said which are either to be taken literally or to be taken figuratively, and that is the object which we are going to focus upon and decide whether or not those things are figurative or literal.

So we take the speech of the Buddha in general, which is composed of the speech of the Buddha which is to be taken literally and the speech of the Buddha which is to be taken figuratively, and we call that with a combined name of these are the objects which we have to decide are either figurative or literal. So that is the identification of what it is we are going to be deciding is either figurative or literal. Now how do we decide what is figurative or literal?

There we divide out those two groups, right? That speech of the Buddha which is to be taken figuratively and that speech of the Buddha which is to be taken literally. Now how do we, what test do we apply or how do we determine that they are either figurative or literal?

What is the method that we use to determine that this is figurative and this is literal? Well the method we use here is to decide whether or not in these two turnings of the wheel, right? This is actually the first two turnings of the wheel, right?

The figurative ones. Did the Buddha make the fine distinction? Okay, remember that the third turning of the wheel is called the turning of the wheel in which Buddha made fine distinctions.

So the question is about the figurative ones, first and second turning of the wheel, are these turnings of the wheel, are these teachings of Lord Buddha in which he did make the fine distinctions? And you say, no, they are not. He did not make the fine distinctions.

This is where he made the fine distinctions. So this becomes figurative and this becomes literal. When you have some teaching of the Buddha in which he did make fine distinctions, between what?

He took those three groups, things which are constructs, things which are dependent on other things, meaning cause, and things which are totality, meaning emptiness, and then he went through and made the distinction. What distinction? He made the distinction and said, oh, those two, meaning changing things and emptiness, what you call totality, he said, yeah, those things exist by definition, and then this other thing, meaning constructs, don't exist by definition.

So he made that fine distinction among the three groups, saying, these things do exist by definition, these things do not exist by definition. Having this group of scriptures being a group of teachings about which Lord Buddha made the distinction between these things being something that exists by definition and these things not being something that exists by definition, that is the way in which we establish that this group of teachings is literal, and these groups of teachings are not literal, and that's how we make the distinction between the teachings which were literal and the teachings which were not literal.

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

[Говорящий 1]
So, what have I just done? He says, I'll ask you a question, and he says, no, don't tell him I'm going to ask him a question, because when I say I'm not going to ask him a question, they stop writing and they look up and they stop paying attention to what's going on, you know, they stop making notes. Just don't ask him about that, we'll ask him about it later, we'll ask him a question later.

So, go back to this point, we've just described what it is, which speech of the Buddha we are going to examine to decide whether it is literal or figurative, which is called in Tibetan, the basis upon which we will make the distinction, meaning those teachings which we will determine, which we will undertake to determine whether or not they are figurative or literal. We finished that, and then I went on and explained to you the method by which we decide this thing is figurative and these particular teachings are literal. We talked about that already, okay?

So now I have a question to ask you, some kind of question to ask you. If we decide that it's all the literal and figurative teachings of the Buddha that form the basis, or that form the material for what we are going to decide, this is literal and this is figurative, right? If you take all the literal and figurative teachings of the Buddha and you jam them all together and you say, now these are the things that we are going to try to figure out whether or not they are figurative or literal, if you take them all together like that, and maybe divide them and try to figure out which ones we can say are ones that we can decide are figurative, and which ones you can say are literal. Sticking to our current context, okay, I don't want you to float around, go around to different places and pick up different teachings of the Buddha and try to bring those in. Sticking to our immediate context here, you know, restricting yourself to the immediate context here, which ones, how many, for example, do you think might be in one group, how many might be in another group, of scriptures that we determine are figurative, and teachings that we determine are figurative, and teachings that we determine are literal?

Give me an answer. Huh? Is that just Kristi's own idea, or does anybody else think that?

So, if you say there are two groups of teachings that we can decide are figurative, can you please count them for me, what are those two? Once you've eliminated those two, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the other one is, so, I'm not even going to grace that with a question. So, we've decided that there are three types of teachings that we can decide are figurative.

You've correctly determined that out of the three, two of them are to be taken figuratively in the current context. Then, what backup will you give me? You know, what kind of evidence or proof or reasoning will you give me?

Now we're on to why, right? That second distinction. What makes them figurative?

How are you going to defend your decision that they are figurative? What is it that would make them figurative?

[Говорящий 2]
What makes them figurative?

[Говорящий 1]
I only saw one hand go up, I guess the rest of you don't have hands or something? If you say you're with her and that's the best you can do, then is it the case that when she eats a delicious cookie, you are also eating a delicious cookie? That tastes good to you too?

[Говорящий 2]
Just kidding. I'm kidding. That's not true.

I don't even know what to say. I don't even know if that's right. If you have to tell me what to say, I'm going to tell you.

I'm going to tell you, and you're going to tell me what to say. She would tell me, Father, that you hear that temple story. I ask her, how and why did you get there?

I was only one year old. I was only one year old. I was a novice.

If I was a novice, I would go to school in my current grade. I just wanted a normal school life. I don't know if you've ever heard of it, but it's a story about a young man who was in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love

[Говорящий 1]
with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell in love with a girl, and he fell or literal. And again, we have succeeded in figuring out how to decide whether it's figurative or literal. We have now succeeded on those two points.

What was it that brought us to this point? What was it that made us come to now this current understanding of those two things? It was all that stuff that came now, all the way back to the beginning of the mind-only section here.

There was a general overview in which he spoke in very, very general terms about middle-way view and about a mind-only view. And then, ever since then, it's been days now, it's been pages now, ever since the beginning where the Buddha first started, just a couple of days, first started talking about the mind-only view, which was triggered by a question and then clarified by an answer by the Buddha. And now we've got all these pages, all this discussion, and now we have come to the end here.

We've come to the decision, okay, now that allows us to say, oh, this is what we're dividing into literal and figurative, and this is how we decide whether it's literal or figurative, in just a couple of days. And that's how we've gotten to where we are now. What was it that made you able to answer?

If you think about it, in your own mind, try to consider what has made you competent or in a position to give an answer to my two questions. What is it that we are trying to decide whether it's literal or figurative, and how is it that we make the determination that it's literal or figurative? If you think about it, for you personally, it has been our discussions and the teaching that has occurred to date, the days of going over it, the days of talking about it, back and forth, back and forth.

And then for you personally, the result of all this is that you've been able to identify those things. Taktak means exactly, you know, I asked you a question, you gave me right back a good answer, and so you've reached a point where you can state both of those things. Jetsam Kapha is saying the same thing here.

He says, here's what it is that we are trying to determine if it's figurative or literal. Here's how we make the determination of whether it's figurative or literal. And the ability to do that, says Jetsam Kapha at this very page, 32 in the middle, is that the ability to do that is due to the fact that we've been now through all these separate points that we've been through over the course of the text so far, in the mind only.