Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 13

[Speaker 2]
I am going to give you a little bit about the meditation that I do. I am going to give you a little but about the situation and the way of meditation. I am going to give you a little but about the situation and the way of meditation.

If you do not know how to meditate, you can use the meditation tool I presented earlier.

[Speaker 1]
We're going back to page...remember we were on page 33? We're on the 7th line from the bottom and if you remember, that's what Kappa said. Now what is the function of this sutra?

What is this sutra trying to do when it divides things into literal and figurative? And then he answers his own question. This sutra of course referring to the section requested or spoken at the instigation of the Bodhisattva Tathagatagarbha.

And then there were two reasons to go into what it was. There were two reasons to present this sutra, meaning the 13th wheel. First of all, there were two reasons to get into the distinction between the figurative and the literal.

The first one was that... So, sorry, I counted straight out there. Two functions.

The functions or the reasons for going into the exercise of trying to divide things into what was literal and what was not literal can be described as two. The first one would be to help students to approach those blanket statements by Lord Buddha. In the first turn of the wheel, blanket statement saying, everything exists by definition.

And then in the second turn of the wheel, blanket statement saying, nothing exists by definition. So it helps students to approach that. And then the function of the third turn of the wheel, which is that sutra wherein the Buddha explains the meaning of his other sutras, and particularly that chapter which was spoken at the instigation of that Bodhisattva, assists you in making the distinction between what was it literal, did he mean to say that all things were existing by definition, or did he mean to say that nothing existed by definition, or are you to make a distinction between them? And then the point is that you are supposed to now go back to those first and second turns of the wheel and decide, oh, this part of it he did mean, this part of it he didn't mean. And that's the first function, is to assist students in going back to those blanket statements and helping to determine what was spoken literally and what wasn't spoken literally.

And then the second function was really the thirteenth wheel, meaning this sutra, right, the word this sutra, was to assist students of the mind-only school, right, those students of the mind-only school, eventually to perceive emptiness itself. So it's to give them a means by which to perceive emptiness. And those are the two functions, those are the two reasons, from the mind-only school point of view, that Lord Buddha turned the third turn of the wheel, taught this sutra, taught this particular section, made the distinction between this is figurative and this is literal.

We covered this yesterday, I'm sure it's in your notes, for those of you who were taking notes.

[Speaker 2]
I'm sure it's in your notes, for those of you who were taking notes. I'm sure it's in your notes, for those of you who were taking notes.

[Speaker 1]
Now there's going to be a position, a mistaken position expressed, starting on page... You can now open your notes, we're starting on to a new section, we're starting on to something new. You can now continue on from the bottom of your notes.

From the second page of, I'm sorry, page 34, second line, on down to about the middle of the page, where in the middle of the line it says, we're now getting another position expressed by certain scholars of the past, certain thinkers of the past. One of them is going to be Jolamba and his followers, people who throughout history have followed his point of view. And then there's another one, a Sakya master by the name of Turboha, and this is going to be their position.

What is it a position about? It's a position about the idea that the third turning of the wheel undertakes to prove or to show that the first turning of the wheel and the second turning of the wheel were figurative, spoken figuratively, and that it itself, the very words in which the first two turnings of the wheel are described as figurative, are themselves meant to be taken literally. And then there's a debate about it, about, he hasn't expressed it clearly, he's memorized this whole text, and he's shot out those lines, you know, I don't think he wants me to actually translate them right now, but the point being something like, it sounds like they're going to try to prove that something about the third turning of the wheel indicates that all three turnings of the wheel are literal, okay, but I'm not sure how it's going to go yet, he's going to have to go through it word by word.

[Speaker 2]
He's going to have to go through it word by word, he's going to have to go through it word by word.

[Speaker 1]
So, here's their position, it wasn't quite what I said. They say, look, we all agree that the third turning of the wheel was something literally spoken, spoken literally, it's something to be accepted on face value, but their idea of what the third turning of the wheel and our idea of what the third turning of the wheel are, are different. Don't forget that we look upon the third turning of the wheel from the point of view of the outcome of the exchange, right?

After the exchange between the bodhisattva asking the question and the answer being given, based on that exchange, we define the third turning of the wheel as from the viewpoint of someone who's reached the outcome of that exchange, and they fall into the trap of defining the third turning of the wheel as all those teachings which the Buddha gave in the latter part of his life, towards the end of his teaching career, on this planet.

So, they're into saying, now they have to say that because they believe the third turning of the wheel is spoken literally, and because they define the third turning of the wheel as all that which the Buddha taught in the final stage of his life, the final stage of his teaching career, then they think they're forced into the position of saying that everything he taught during the final period of his teaching career is to be taken literally, all that is to be taken literally, and not just the third turning of the wheel as defined by someone who has reached the outcome of the exchange.

[Speaker 2]
So, the third turning of the wheel is to be taken literally, and not just the third turning of the wheel as defined by someone who has reached the outcome of the exchange, and not just the third turning of the wheel as defined by someone who has reached the outcome of the exchange, and not just the third turning of the wheel as defined by someone who has reached the outcome of the exchange, and not just the third turning of the wheel as defined by someone who has reached the outcome of the exchange, and not just the third turning of the wheel as defined by someone who has reached the outcome of the exchange, and not just the third turning of the wheel as defined by someone who has reached the outcome of

[Speaker 1]
Now, we're pointing to certain teachings that the Lord Buddha gave in the final period of his life, right? They are then forced to say that certain teachings that...they point out to certain teachings that the Lord Buddha gave in the final period of his life to people who were not even Buddhists, okay? People who had not yet entered the Buddhist path, and people...most of those non-Buddhist tenets, most non-Buddhist systems saying, if you ask them, do you believe that there is a self-nature to a person, that a person has some self-nature of their own, they would say yes, the person does. Almost every non-Buddhist belief system, if you ask them, does a person have some kind of self-nature, then they would say yes, a person does have some kind of self-nature. And then they say that, well, Lord Buddha, in the final period of his life, in order to relate to these people, in order to be able to communicate with these people, gave certain teachings in which he's sort of expressing the opinion that maybe there is such a thing as a self-nature to the person, you see.

So, in order to, you know, he's in an audience of people who are all non-Buddhist, he's trying to draw them in or suck them in gradually or slowly into the Buddhist path, so he's sort of saying, well, you know, this person that has a self-nature, and he seems to be referring to something like that, to the self-nature of a person. We know he's doing that for the purpose of bringing them closer to the Buddhist path and then eventually getting them into where they won't believe that anymore. But at first he has to talk about, in those terms, in order to relate to them, otherwise they couldn't relate to him at all.

So, now we're starting to get into an issue with the belief of Jonampa and Tobowa, and we're starting to get into a problem with their...because the Buddha taught that in the latter part of his life, we're going to have to start saying, according to them, that this was spoken literally, and that he literally meant what he said when he was trying to relate to those people. So, we're starting to encroach upon a problem here.

[Speaker 2]
So, Jonampa, you were saying that in the latter part of your life, you were going to have to start saying, according to them, that this was spoken literally, and that he literally meant what he said when he was trying to relate to those people. So, now we're starting to get into an issue with the belief of Jonampa and Tobowa, and we're starting to get into an issue with the belief of Jonampa and Tobowa, and we're starting to get into an issue with

[Speaker 1]
the belief of Jonampa and Tobowa, and we're starting to get into an issue with the belief of Jonampa and Tobowa, and we're starting to get into an issue with the belief of Jonampa

[Speaker 2]
and Tobowa, and we're starting to get into an issue with the belief of Jonampa and Tobowa, and we're starting to get into an issue with the belief of Jonampa and Tobowa, and we're starting to get into an issue with the belief of Jonampa and Tobowa, and we're starting to get into an issue with the belief of Jonampa and Tobowa, and we're starting to get into an issue with the belief of Jonampa and Tobowa, and we're starting to get into an issue with the belief of Jonampa and Tobowa, and we're starting to get it in there, and we're starting to get it in there, and then we'll get into a really deep issue with Jonampa and Tobowa.

[Speaker 1]
the Tibetan here, is that Shende Rikchen Dr. Mawala Shemba means certain other schools, other meaning non-Buddhist, right, who believed in a self-nature, Dr. Mawala Shemba, who held this belief, and then it says trangway khyur du. And Geshe-la is sort of pulling a pun here. Trangway khyur du means in order to lead them, or in order to guide.

This is the past tense of DEM, like DEMPA LAM in the prayer that we do. So trangway means to bring them in, or to guide them in. But this also happens to be a way of spelling the word for figurative, you see.

So he's sort of pulling a pun. He says, oh look, he's trangwaying DEM, you know, into the Buddhist teachings. And then he goes on to say, you know, I've been looking around for some kind of sutra that was spoken in the third teaching of the Third Turning of the Wheel, that you might somehow interpret as the Lord Buddha saying that a person had a self-nature.

And I've come up with a certain sutra that we study about when we're studying Madhyamika. And this sutra is called deksegyi nimbo means essence of the once-gone-to-bliss. Maybe he gets it.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
We freed them. Okay. It's called deksegyi nimbo.

Deksegyi nimbo means the essence of the once-gone-to-bliss. Okay. Dewasepa nimbo.

And then it's called dakten jenduktu tenpay do, which means showing that the thing which is unchanging, the thing which is stable, exists truly. Okay. So this is some kind of sutra, what they call it.

The essence of the once-gone-to-bliss. That sutra which shows the thing which is unchanging, the thing which is stable or firm, which exists truly. Okay.

So Geshe-la says, I've been thinking that maybe that's... I have a couple in mind. And this is apparently in some group of four sutras which is discussed in the Middle Way teachings.

Okay. Because that teaching was given by the Lord Buddha in the latter period of his life. And even from the title, it would seem to be that Lord Buddha is talking about some kind of self-nature of a person or some kind of firm person.

And I think that these scholars are mistaking those words. Don't forget that deksegyi nimbo, essence of the once-gone-to-bliss, right? Sugata, right?

What that refers to is the Buddha nature of a person. Okay. So essence of the Buddha refers to your Buddha nature.

Your Buddha nature refers to the emptiness, mainly to the emptiness of your mind. The fact that your mind has the potential to become enlightened. And so they're taking that in that very common misconception about that concept about Buddha nature to mean that inside of a person is some little Buddha hanging out there.

And if you could just wipe off all these obscurations and things, you would discover deep within a person's being this Buddha with all the 112 marks and everything all set there and all pretty, beautiful, and already Buddha inside. And they took that to be the meaning, as many people have, and you even see it nowadays in Western books, you know that this is the meaning of Buddha nature. And if you could just wipe off these obscurations, you'd find the Buddha inside of everybody.

And Geshe-la says they are looking at this concept in those terms and that gets them very close to accepting the idea of a self-nature of a person. You see, when you have non-Buddhist schools saying, oh, there is a real soul or spirit or there's an inner being, a permanent inner being, self-nature to people within them, which is part of them. Rangchen-sun means which is part and parcel with their being.

Then you're getting very close to this other idea. So he says he thinks that they're referring to this sutra where the Buddha taught Buddha nature, because when you teach Buddha nature and you misunderstand the idea of Buddha nature, then you think that there's some kind of almost permanent, inherent self inside of a person, part and parcel with the person, which would be the self-nature of a person. So, page thirty-four, line five at the end, you start to get Jonama's belief about things, Jonama's belief about what the Buddha was saying, especially in the third turning of the wheel.

They say that the only thing that really exists is emptiness or yongdrup, totality. The only thing that really has any existence is emptiness itself, which is called totality, in the mind-only school. And what Lord Buddha is saying is that all the other things in the universe, all the things that you look at, all the things that a mistaken state of mind is focusing upon, when you perceive yongdrup, you're not being mistaken.

When you perceive all these other things, you are being mistaken. So, this mistaken mind is looking at all these other things and thinking it sees something, but those things don't really exist at all. So they're saying that all the objects which a mistaken state of mind thinks it sees don't even exist at all.

And the only thing that exists really is yongdrup, or totality, and that exists in truth. That is something which exists by, he doesn't say by definition, but he says in truth. Yongdrup, or totality, or emptiness, is the only thing that exists really.

And then all those other things which a mistaken state of mind thinks they see don't exist at all. And that's what the Buddha meant during the third turning of the wheel. That's the distinction that the Buddha was making in the third turning of the wheel.

And when they say Lekpa Chöwa, meaning making his fine distinctions during the third turning of the wheel, that's the fine distinction that he's making. He's making it between the things we think truly exist and don't truly exist, or don't even exist at all according to Dharma, and then those things which truly do exist, and that that's what it means when the Buddha is making fine distinctions during the third turning of the wheel. That's their take on what the Buddha is doing in the third turning of the wheel.

Then there was a great Sakya scholar named Tulpua, and he hailed from the same part of Tibet that Jonamba did. This is a place in Tsang, which is north of Lhasa, which happens to be Geshe-la's own home state. And there was a place up there called Jonang, which is an area name, so Jonamba means the person from Jonang.

And there was a great Sakya scholar named Tulpua, and he was a great scholar, especially of the... And he was a very great master of the great scriptures of ancient India. So he had spent many, many years studying the classical commentaries from ancient India, and he had become a great master of them.

And then he became aware of this Jonamba who was teaching all these rather unique interpretations of Buddhism. So Jonamba is becoming known to be a person who is reinterpreting Buddhism in special ways, coming up with special interpretations. And Tulpua had a great Sakya master.

At first he had the idea, I will study these new interpretations of Jonamba and I will attack them. I will come to Jonamba and I will prove that Jonamba's ideas are wrong. So he studied what Jonamba was saying and eventually he came to Jonamba with the intention of disproving his interpretation.

But then the more he stayed with Jonamba and the more he got influenced by Jonamba, eventually he decided Jonamba was totally correct, and that everything Jonamba was teaching, these new interpretations were actually the way things are supposed to be. And then, far from actually attacking him or proving him wrong, he became one of his most devoted followers, and became one of the primary proponents of the Jonamba system.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, yes.

[Speaker 1]
There is this sutra called the Sutra of the Essence of the Sugatas, of those who have gone to bliss, which shows that that which is unchanging and that which is stable truly exists. And it does seem to say that there is a Buddha inside of all of this, all of its part and parcel, rang chesu, as part of us. It does seem to say it, but that's not something we can take literally.

That's something we have to take figuratively. The Buddha didn't mean that there was a little Buddha hanging out inside of every single person as part of your person. They take it somehow literally.

Of course we're not to take that literally. The Buddha didn't mean that. If there was a little Buddha in the middle of all of us that all we had to do was reveal, then things would be really easy.

I mean, life would be easy. But you and I know it's not easy. We have to make a lot of efforts to study and to learn and to meditate, and it's not like there's just some Buddha inside of you that suddenly you can become aware of and everything's okay.

Obviously things aren't that easy. We do make these prayers, right? In fact, it's the prayer at the end of class, right?

And at the end of the class we do say, you know, may I be able to accumulate that huge amount of merit and wisdom which is necessary for a person to become a Buddha. And you know, you do these prayers all the time. All the time you're saying, may I be able to one by one accumulate those mighty karmas, those mighty deeds that are necessary for me to become a Buddha, those two collections.

And we're making these prayers constantly over and over again. If it was that easy, we wouldn't have to make these prayers all the time. These prayers are indicating that it's a step-by-step process of accumulating one by one these great energies that are required to turn yourself into an enlightened being.

And the prayers themselves are indicating that that's necessary and that you have to do that. So if it were the case that there were just some kind of pre-made Buddha within us and we just had to reveal it or something like that, we wouldn't have to go saying these prayers. By the way, written by Arya Nagarjuna, right?

That may I one by one collect all the parts necessary, the energy necessary, by very great gradual effort, collecting together all that necessary mass of energy to turn myself into an enlightened being. We wouldn't have to do that, would we? There wouldn't be any prayers like that, would there?

So what was it that the ... when we say in our prayers that you have to collect one by one the energy to become a Buddha, then obviously if we compare that statement to the statement in that sutra of the Sugatas, right? The sutra of the very nature, Sugata Garbha, right?

The essence of the one who's gone thus. If you say that that statement is ... if you look at that statement and then you go to the statement in that other sutra where the Buddha said, you know, you have a self-made Buddha inside of you, this Buddha is inside of you, you have already the Buddha inside of you, obviously then this statement in the sutra becomes figurative, something we have to take figuratively.

It's just like Geshe-la says, the second turning of the wheel, where the Buddha said, nothing has any nature of its own. From the mind-only state point of view, that has to be figurative, that has to be something that the Buddha didn't mean literally, and that you have to go try to figure out what he really meant. And that sutra wherein the Buddha said, you know, there's a Buddha inside of you, you have the Buddha inside of you, I'm there within you, you know, obviously it's like the second turning of the wheel from the point of view of a mind-only school person, this is something we have to interpret.

And Geshe-la says, I think you jumped the gun and told them already what the Buddha nature really was. And I'll say it again, the Buddha nature, especially according to the Middle Way school, is the fact that your mind is empty, you know, the emptiness of your mind, you know, generally speaking there's nothing you can take all the way to Buddhahood with you, you know, there's nothing about you that's going to be there the day you get to Buddhahood, but you can take the emptiness of your mind. And the emptiness of your mind is the potential that will allow you to become an enlightened being.

So that's what the Buddha meant when he said Buddha nature, and that's what he was talking about when he said Buddha nature. And so obviously this is again something which must be interpreted, this again is something which is spoken figuratively. You do have a Buddha nature, it's not that you have some kind of prefabricated Buddha sitting there inside of you or something like that.

I forgot to do one thing from his last statement. He said, he had the idea of gong shi. Gong shi means what the Buddha really had in mind.

Okay, so obviously there's a gong shi, or there's a thing that the Buddha really had in mind when he gave the second turn of the wheel, according to my only point of view. And then there's something that he really had in mind when he talked about a Buddha being inside of you, a prefabricated Buddha inside of you, and what he had in mind was the emptiness of your mind. That's from his former one.

Now he says, you know, we could stick to the scripture, this book, and the book just trumbles on. The book just goes on. It mentions briefly about this sutra in which the Buddha seemed to indicate himself, and then it just goes on.

And why do I keep going off on these minor tangents to clarify what sutra it was, what sutra, what he said in the sutra, what he didn't mean in the sutra, what he did mean in the sutra? Why do I keep going off on these tangents? What I have in mind is that, although it's a bit of a detour, I'm thinking that you guys are Westerners.

You're going to come up against people who are going to raise questions with you. They're going to come up to you and say, hey, I read this sutra the other day. I found it in the bookstore, and it says that Lord Buddha said that there is a prefabricated Buddha inside of you, and I heard you say the other day that there's not, and I think all you Buddhists are contradicting yourselves.

You can't get your story straight. First, Lord Buddha says that in one scripture, which I read, and then you go along and say something else. Now, what's the point?

Are you guys contradicting yourself? And you have to be in a position where you can say, ah, there's this thing called gong xi, which means what the Buddha really had in mind when the Buddha said something. So, he's trying to get you sensitive to the idea of gong xi, meaning what the Buddha really had in mind when the Buddha said different things.

So, you'll be in a position, when somebody raises these issues with you, and you'll be able to say clearly, oh yeah, the Buddha said lots of things that he didn't mean literally. He meant that figuratively. Here's what he had in mind.

He had in mind that we do have an emptiness of our mind, which gives us the potential to become enlightened. And you have to be ... The reason I'm going off on these detours is to give you guys the tools or the ammunition you're going to need in the West when people raise issues with you on apparent inconsistencies in the Buddhist teachings.

[Speaker 2]
All right. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Now we have the eighth line from the bottom of page 34. On this point, other people have comments had, meaning that now they've introduced another group of debaters named Yang Zopa, Rinchen Tso. Rinchen Tso did appear before, way, way back there, at the very beginning, way back at the Chögyi.

Chögyi means at the very beginning of the book there's a section called the Offering of Praise. It's a standard part of a Buddhist book. And in there, there was no bleak reference to other groups trying to use disreasoning or something like that.

And Geshe-la, at that point, said, if you look back at your notes, there was somebody named Rinchen Tso who was struggling to understand these things but didn't understand these things and we gave him as an example. Yangdokpa. Yangdok is a...Yangdok or Yangdok? Yangdok. There's a place called Yangdok. It's like Topeka or something, okay?

And he's called the Topekan, okay? Yangdokpa Rinchen Tso. Now, he goes to the Jonambas and he makes sort of like two complaints.

One, he says, I don't like your take on this whole thing. I don't think your take on things is correct. Secondly, I don't even think your interpretation of what the third turning of the wheel was about is correct.

When you say that the third turning of the wheel was meant to make certain distinctions, like this distinction, that distinction, I don't think that you're correct even in what you think the third turning of the wheel is.

[Speaker 2]
So, there's going to be some complaints from Yangdokpa. Geshe-la says he thinks he's a very interesting objection.

[Speaker 1]
He comes along and says, you know, if you take the third turning of the wheel, if you take the section spoken at the instigation of the making the distinction between what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken figuratively correct, if you say this way, the way in which that exchange describes what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken figuratively, if you say that distinction, the way it makes that distinction is correct, if you say that that distinction is correct, the way it makes the distinctions is correct, then you are forced into the position of Jonnambha. Meaning, if you say that the way that the sutra, that section of the sutra, describes the difference between the figurative and the literal is correct, then you're going to be forced to say that Jonnambha is correct in saying that, since that chapter or that section indicates or proves that it demonstrates that the third turning of the wheel is to be taken literally, then you're forced into saying exactly what Jonnambha says, which is that everything the Buddha taught in the latter part of his life is to be taken literally.

And this is Jandropa's complaint, and he says, we can't accept that, can we? You know, we can't go around saying that everything the Buddha spoke in the latter part of his life is to be taken literally. And so, there's an interesting take on Jonnambha's view, which is that he's right, Jonnambha's right, that if you take the manner of making the distinction between figurative and literal in that sutra, based on what the Buddha said, if you take that to be correct, then you have to take the third turning of the wheel to be literal.

If you take that as being literal, then everything the Buddha said in the latter part of his life had to have been literal. So, we must not accept the interpretation of the third turning of the wheel, of that sutra, as being literal itself. You know, we can't buy the way they divide the figurative and literal, or else we do get into the problems that Jonnambha is into already.

So, basically what Rinchen Tsog is saying, Jandropa is saying, that we cannot accept the distinction between the figurative and literal, which is presented in that third turning of the wheel. By the way, he also said, I forgot to translate from the time before, that Jandropa is a place where there's a lake, and the Chinese have named that lake something else, and the lake is called Jandropa. And I said, is it the blue lake, you know, in Songon?

He said, no, no, that's not Jandropa. This is now over towards Songon, and that's called Jandropa.

[Speaker 2]
So, Jandropa is a place where there's a lake, and the Chinese have named it Jandropa. By the way, I forgot to translate from the time before, that Jandropa is a place where there's a lake, and the Chinese have named it Jandropa. So, basically what Rinchen Tsog is saying, Jandropa is a place where there's a lake, and the Chinese have named it Jandropa.

So, basically what Rinchen Tsog is saying, Jandropa is a place where there's a lake, and the Chinese have named it Jandropa. So, basically what Rinchen Tsog is saying, Jandropa is a place where there's a lake, and the Chinese have named it Jandropa. So, basically what Rinchen Tsog is saying, Jandropa is a place where there's a lake, and the Chinese have named it Jandropa.

So, basically what Rinchen Tsog is saying, Jandropa is in the lake, and the Chinese have named it Jandropa.

[Speaker 1]
So, people ask Rinchen Tsog, well how are you going to do it? If that's not how we make the distinction between the figurative and the literal, then you know, tell us what your idea is, because if this is not what ranglug, meaning the position that we are to accept, is, then what is the position that we are to accept? And he says, you know, Rinchen Tso comes and says, consider the middle turning of the wheel, right?

And then the third turning of the wheel. Switch them. Reverse them.

Okay? So third turning of the wheel becomes second turning of the wheel, and middle turning of the wheel becomes the last turning of the wheel. So he says, switch the latter two turnings of the wheel.

Then we're okay, he says. Don't forget that this is not our position, okay? Don't start blowing your mind and saying, oh wait, wait, all this time you've been teaching three wheels and now you're just switching.

This is not our position, okay? We are reporting the position of this guy named Rinchen Tso. His position is that, hey, let's switch the second and third ones, okay?

He feels like he has to say that because poor Robert Tso went, you know, like that. And he looked a little freaked out. I just wanted to describe to you what he wants to do.

You see, this guy, Rinchen Tso, he wants to take the second turning of the wheel, third turning of the wheel, and switch the realm. That's his own idea. That's what he wants to do.

Now, whether or not he thinks that that's what the mind-only school would want to do is something I can't say for Shin. I didn't really think about it. But I guess probably he'd have to say he would think that this is what the mind-only school would want to do, but I haven't really thought about it much.

Actually, what I wanted to do right now, I want to describe to you his weird idea where he wants to switch these two. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Rinchen Tso's main idea is that if you look at the three turnings of the wheel, of each one building on the one before, you see what I mean? Of each one being a refinement of the one before. Supposedly, if a person is teaching throughout his teaching career, then A, he should be building and building upon what came before.

So the subject matter of each succeeding turning of the wheel should be better, higher, more sophisticated, more true than the turnings of the wheel that came before it. And he says if you look at it, in the third turning of the wheel we got this thing where he's trying to lead in people of other belief systems, and he's talking about almost in terms of a self-existent self, you know, that you guys mentioned, Yudhyananda mentioned. If you look at that kind of subject matter, and also you look at the subject matter of the second turning of the wheel, in which Lord Buddha blew it away.

He said, oh, emptiness, here's what it is. Obviously, that subject matter compared to this subject matter is higher, it's more supreme. So really, let's order the three turnings of the wheel not in terms of historical sequence, but in terms of refinement and reaching a higher level of meaning.

So we'll just take the second and third turnings of the wheel, says Rinchen Drog, we have to, and reverse them so that the order is correct in terms of a constant refinement and moving on to a higher level of meaning.

[Speaker 2]
Hm. Hm. Hm.

Hm. Hm. Hm.

Hm. Hm. Hm.

Hm.

[Speaker 1]
Hm.

[Speaker 2]
Hm. Hm. Hm.

Hm. Hm. Hm.

Hm. Hm.

[Speaker 1]
You know, these two shastras, the first one is called Dorje Gondar, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, Dorje Gondar is called Dorje Gondar.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, yes, yes.

[Speaker 2]
It's a very powerful shastra.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, yes.

[Speaker 2]
It's a very powerful shastra.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, yes, yes. Now we have an interesting problem. You see, there's a scripture called Sundogyi Amba Shubeddo.

[Speaker 2]
Sundogyi Amba Shubeddo.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, yes, yes, Sundogyi Amba Shubeddo, Yes, yes, yes, Sundogyi Amba Shubeddo, there's a, I don't know if it sounds good for it But there's a sutra which was requested by a king whose name was Lord of All Secret Words or something like that, Lord of Incantations or something like that. And in this particular sutra, which will be spoken about more later on, there is a criterion given for the ordering of the three turnings of the wheel. And in that particular sutra, it says that when you order the three turnings of the wheel, it should be in order of importance or in order of content or subject matter becoming more and more refined.

And that's the way that there's a certain order of the turning of the wheel which appears in that sutra which was requested by this king. And then there's an order of the wheel that you guys have come up with or a justification for the ordering of the wheel in your dukdhun, in the outcome of the exchange. According to you, given the exchange that occurs in that sutra called the sutra in which the Buddha explains the antenna of his sutras, right?

You come up with this justification for the order of the three turnings of the wheel. In the third one, it was revealed that the first two were figurative and then that's the ultimate one. And you've got some kind of criteria that you've established by virtue of the exchange.

And then there's this other criteria for the ordering of the wheel which comes much later in this text, it's explained much later in this text, in which the Buddha says each turning of the wheel should be better than the last or it should be more refined than the last. And Rinchen Tulk says to us, don't you think that your version of the turning of the way in which we order the three turnings of the wheel and the Buddha's version of the order of the three turnings of the wheel should match? Don't you think there should be some correspondence or correlation between that sutra in which the king requested the sutra, in which it presents the rationale for the ordering of the three turnings of the wheel and your rationale for the ordering of the three turnings of the wheel?

Don't you think they should match? Don't you think they should at some point, you know, correlate to each other? Does the fan bother you or is it all right?

You want it a little bit more or would it bother you?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, it bothers me a little bit, but I don't think it's a big deal. Things are a little different these days. Things are a little different these days.

I think people start looking at things in their head. I hope there's a change where people see different thoughts and attitudes.

[Speaker 1]
Then we come up and say, look, it's not necessary that all the presentations of the Order of the Three Turns of the Wheel ... it's not what you say that we have to match this way of ordering the wheels or we have to accept this rationale of the Order of the Three Turns of the Wheel and therefore we can't have our Order of the Three Turns of the Wheel. That's not necessarily true.

There can be these two rationales for the Order of the Wheel. It's not necessarily true that they have to match your statement, that we have to match that other sutra. It's not true.

And anyway, oh, Rinchen Dalt, you want to move that chapter requested by the Bodhisattva Dandamyam Dapam, right? You want to move that chapter to the Second Turn of the Wheel, right? He says, right, I do.

And then, I mean, the Second Turn of the Wheel according to us, you see, you have to ... he keeps saying, just like he's saying, according to us, according to us, according to us, you see? Because he doesn't accept it anymore, right?

So we have to say, all right, you're saying that now we have to move this one to the Second Turn of the Wheel according to us, to what we used to say was the Second Turn of the Wheel. He says, yeah, right, that's what I say. Then we say, well, in that sutra itself, in the sutra in which the Buddha explains the meaning of his other sutras, and specifically in the chapter requested, spoken at the request of the Bodhisattva, isn't it true that in that chapter itself, Lord Buddha describes the Three Turnings of the Wheel?

And doesn't he say, oh, the First Turn of the Wheel took place at Radhanati, it was spoken for the benefit of those who had entered the path of the listeners, right? And in that teaching, the Buddha gave the following teaching about the following subjects matter, right? Rinchen-dong.

He says, right. And then doesn't it say in the second one, you know, Lord Buddha went through all these existing phenomena and said none of them exist by definition, and then he says that was the second one. Doesn't he, Rinchen-dong?

He says, right. And so doesn't Lord Buddha himself, in the Turning of the Wheel, that you want to move to the Second Turn of the Wheel according to us, say that the first two turnings of the Wheel were like that, and that the Second Turn of the Wheel wasn't that, it was the Turn of the Wheel where he said that nothing existed by definition, right? He says, no.

Okay? And he says, what do you mean, why not? He says it's the second, right?

And then Rinchen-dong says, second can mean a lot of different things, you know? He said second, you know, second can mean all sorts of different things. I'll tell you what second means.

Second doesn't mean Second Turning of the Wheel. Second means second belief system. And Lord Buddha's not talking about the Second Turning of the Wheel when he says that was the second one.

He's talking about that's the second belief system. What? First Turning of the Wheel, or the first, was the belief system of the Hinayana, and then second just means the Mahayana group of people, you know?

That thing when he said nothing has any nature of its own by definition, Lord Buddha was just talking about the second group, meaning the Mahayana people. So they weren't talking about the Second Turning of the Wheel, so Geshe-la says, I don't know. That's what Rinchen-tung says.

That's what Rinchen-tung wants to say. Rinchen-tung's like, you know, this is his position. What is his position?

Geshe-la is quick to point out that Rinchen-tung is correct on one thing, which is that, even according to our own system, right? The second turn of the wheel was the one in which the Buddha reached his highest degree of expression, the highest degree of meaning. Can we go back and prove that somewhere?

Is there some place in the book here that we can go back and establish that even that Rinzentok is correct when he says that the second turn of the wheel, according to us, our version of the second turn of the wheel is the highest one, is the one in which the Buddha reached his most supreme expression. He says, yeah we do believe that, about that he's correct. Go back to page 27, the third line from the bottom, he says, tam mani merpe nampe kye lo sam med tu chungway kye tu kola, and then that is to say that turning of the wheel in which Lord Buddha taught everything, emptiness, you know, everything was empty, is exceedingly amazing, okay?

Unbelievably amazing. The exceedingly is the che, okay? In Tibetan, che means most especially exceedingly amazing, okay?

And then when he got to characterizing the first turn of the wheel, which is on page 27, six lines from the top, he says, tu kye kola lo sam med tu, he just says amazing. He's talking about the first turn of the wheel. So our own characterization of the first turn of the wheel is amazing.

Our own characterization of the second turn of the wheel in which Buddha concentrated on emptiness, taught emptiness, is most exceedingly amazing, you know? And Geshe-la says, that proves that even according to our own beliefs, to our own beliefs, the second turn of the wheel was the most important. That is the one in which the Buddha reached his highest form of expression.

So Rinpoche is right about that much. So, you know, if you're not careful, you might actually start to believe that what he says is correct, you know, that maybe you should switch the second one over to the first one.

[Speaker 2]
So, the first turn of the wheel, which is on page 27, six lines from the top, he says, tu kye kola lo sam med tu, he just says, tu kye kola lo sam med tu, he just says, tu kye kola lo sam med tu, he just says, tu kye kola lo sam med tu, he just says, tu kye kola lo sum...

[Speaker 1]
And then Geshe-la says, but what is our real own position, you know, what would you have to say is our actual position on this whole matter? you know what did he mean when he said most exceedingly amazing you know what does that mean and he said he's quick to point out that in our own system he's going to express what we really believe and he says what we really believe we can't go saying that that one thing that the Buddha said is better than the other thing that the Buddha said you see what I mean you can't say that oh this thing the Buddha said is good and this thing the Buddha said is stupid or something like that that's not the point when we say most exceedingly amazing or something like that what we're talking about is not so much that his words are more amazing not even so much that his content is more amazing during the second turn in the wheel because in the third turn of the wheel as well he teaches emptiness okay so so you know you can't go saying that the second turn of the wheel is better than for example the third turn of the wheel because it teaches emptiness because it does the third turn of the wheel does teach emptiness but there's a difference in the method or a difference in the methodology the difference in the way in which the Buddha teaches emptiness in the second turn of the wheel Lord Buddha uses a great many different reasoning to demonstrate emptiness even in the Prajnaparamita literature this is called limitless unlimited through unlimited means or through unlimited types of reasoning the Buddha taught emptiness during the second turn of the wheel so you know through to not just many or not just through a multiplicity but through an infinite infinitesimal number of ways Lord Buddha taught emptiness during the second turn of the wheel then when he got to the third turn of the wheel it was in more of a sort of a limited way less kinds of reasoning not not such a vast amount of reason so from that point of view even though we can't accept that one teaching the Buddha is better than another teaching of the Buddha or that one is higher than the other and that even even the subject matter here they are both high subject matters but it is in the method he uses or in the amount or the the intricacy or the many different ways of angles at which he gets the emptiness in the second turn of the wheel makes it most exceedingly amazing therefore you can appreciate this statement you know when we say that there's this distinction between the second and third turn of the wheel the methodology that the Buddha used the manner the intricacy and the multiplicity of his presentation in the second turn of the wheel as opposed to the third turn of the wheel now I can appreciate what we say when we say that the second but we mentioned this before that the second turn of the wheel was designed the second turn of the wheel was directed towards mind only students of extraordinary mental facilities extraordinary mental levels you know who had much what we call sharp powers and then the third teaching the wheel was taught or designed or directed more for mind only school students of lesser powers so now because of this thing I just said about the meaning of most exceedingly right you guys should in your own mind start to get some kind of an instinct for why we say that the second turn of the wheel was designed for people of very sharp powers and at the third turn of the wheel was designed for people of lesser powers now you and your own mind start to get a feeling because because of that crucial word most exceedingly you know pivoting on that word you can appreciate now why we say that the students for whom the second turn of the wheel word was designed are of sharper or higher facilities and that the students of for whom the third teaching the wheel was designed are relatively lesser facilities now you now you have a flavor of why because of the intricacy of the presentation and the multiplicity of the presentation almost the limitless multiplicity of the of the reasoning used to establish emptiness in the second turning of the wheel so you got it right that's that's you got that distinction of why one would be spoken for the sharper one for the next up so really the distinction boils down to this doesn't it there's one kind of person that if you present these intricate and very multifaceted arguments to them they suddenly understand emptiness and then there's another kind of student that if you if you confronted them with these intricate arguments they wouldn't get it at all and there's the difference between a what we call relatively sharper and relatively duller facility mental mental power you know we had a point this morning just like you say we better go back to these points now because we're not going to finish the book on this trip and and we have to go back to these points otherwise I bring them up and then you're not really you don't you're not really equipped to know what I'm talking about so we're going to have to kind of jump to what was it remember we said that there was a sutra requested by a certain king named Lord of incantations or something like that and and he has requested teaching the Buddha and in that sutra Lord Buddha has given a rationale for the ordering of the three of the three turnings of the wheel so we better go to that rationale and explain it now while we're on it while we have a chance to get at it and not wait for it to come way down at the end of the book okay the way in which the sutra requested by the king sets forth the order of the three wheels is exactly according to the three scopes presented in the lam rim teachings in the teachings on the steps of the path to enlightenment they talk about people of three different scopes there are people of beginning scope or lesser scope then there are people of medium scope and then there are people of greater scope the greater scope being the Mahayana people the people who follow the bodhisattvas way so so you have these three different scopes and according to the sutra requested by the king named Lord of incantations or whatever those three different scopes correspond to the three turns of the wheel so that all of the Buddha's teachings which were designed or which talk about those subjects which are treated in the in the works on the steps to enlightenment the lam rim text as relating to people of lesser capacity or lesser scope are called the first turn of the wheel all those teachings of Lord Buddha which relate to people of medium scope are called the middle turning of the wheel and then all those teachings which Lord Buddha gave designed for people of higher scope or the Mahayana scope are called the third turning of the wheel and that's how that's the rationale given in the sutra requested by the king for the order of the three wheels turnings of the wheel that's a little bit delicate question to ask because you can't like just jump ahead and say because the third one relates to Mahayana people the first two don't relate to Mahayana people you know you can have a kid in first grade who's like saying you know I'm coming to first grade I'm going to sit in this chair because I want to be president United States you know and he can study in the first grade he can sit through the first grade and say with the intention and motivation I'm going to be president United States then you got other kids in first grade just sitting there taking up a chair and that's all they want they're not looking ahead in president United States or anything like that so it's a little delicate to say that definitely someone in the first or second category are not Mahayana and that they're just Himayana but generally speaking it's sort of relates to the Himayana yeah good delicate listen remember that you know Armita talks that your way of your rationale for ordering the three turnings of the wheel better match the rationale for the ordering of the three turns the wheel you know when you talk about the exchange and the outcome of the exchange and how a person who's been through the exchange now views the rationale for the three turnings of the wheel order and then the order as presented in this sutra requested by the king named Lord of incantations whatever his name is okay so this is why we don't have to match that one this is with it there is a big distinction between them where does the crux of the distinction lie it's in the students or the disciples for whom the teaching was designed right this concept of that certain these teachings are given with certain people in mind you know maybe other people will study those teachings but there are certain teachings that when the Buddha gives them he has certain groups of people in mind other people may end up studying them but but these teachings are designed or directed towards certain people it's on that difference that we're allowed to say oh we can order them one way and they can order in the other way okay what is the distinction between the two when you talk about the order as presented in the sutra requested by the king you can be talking about all three turnings of the wheel being designed for one single person you see I mean all three turnings of the wheel are designed for the same people for the same person meaning when they're at this stage in their spiritual lives the content of the first three the wheels appropriate for them and then you move them up up up you keep pushing them up up up they keep graduating they keep getting higher in their spiritual life then this is the content of the second turn of the wheel is designed for them and then they keep going on and getting higher and higher like the long rim right and then the contents of the third turn of the wheel become appropriate or designated or designed for them so that when we talk about the rationale for the order of the three turns of the wheel spoken in the sutra requested by the king we're talking about students for whom it was designed that will end up being the particular students intended for all three turns of the wheel okay as they move up in their own spiritual life but if you look at the rationale for the three turn order of the three turns the wheel as presented from the point of view someone's been to the outcome of the exchange and looking at that oh this turn of the wheel was designed for those specific people of those particular belief systems or those particular capacities and in this one was designed for those people and the third one was designed for those people there's no intention and there's no understanding that those people are all like one group of people that are going to be graduating and moving up to those this was spoken for those people designed for them this turning the wheel was designed for these this turning the wheels it was designed for these and so that's why we say to rinse it though we don't have to necessarily match the rationale that was used for the order of the future in the wheels three turnings of the wheel that was presented in the sutra requested by the king that's not a necessity that we have to match that with our understanding come of who it is that these three turnings of the wheel were designed for and your version of who these three turns the wheel was designed for that the crux of the distinction in the rationale is based on the students for whom those three turns the wheel were designed for and since those are totally different in these two cases it's not the case that the two rationales or even the three orders have to be the same so did you get the point that that this way of ration this rationale this rationale is totally different so Jetsun Kappa in his response to these two presentations right we had one by Jonamba and we had the other by Rinzento and he's looking at these presentations is look you know you guys so Jetsun Kappa comes back to these other two guys we've got Jonamba and we've got Rinzento and he's saying you know first you got this idea you know you have this idea about what it means to be the first the middle and the final turn of the wheel and then Rinzento you come up with some other idea about this is what it means to be the first the middle and the last turn of the wheel and then you know what the real problem is is that you guys did not read that chapter spoken you know at the request of the bodhisattva very well you know you didn't dig into it you didn't examine its contents you didn't think carefully very very carefully about what is the Buddha getting us and what does the Buddha think are the three turns the wheel you know you got sort of distracted by the expressions first medium and final right you're taking you know your mind is immediately grasping on to the meaning of first medium final you know and you you're you are more focusing on the words first medium final right and you haven't gone so much into the meaning of what the Buddha wants what the Buddha himself intends to say are his three turnings of the wheel you're you're not paying enough attention to that section that we was requested by the bodhisattva if you did you went straight there and if you ripped it apart and studied it carefully you wouldn't have come up with all this stuff you know you're getting distracted you're almost like wasting my time and I giggled and then guess what I said well you know I'm not wasting their time they're great scholars and they have a valid points to raise and they're great thinkers and and you know it means like but you know in a sense just some copper is trying to say look you know why fool around you know go to the sutra read it carefully then you won't be saying all this stuff you know and then guess you're not said okay translate it and then you say wait wait wait I wanted to add something more I don't want them to think I'm just making up this version of what death encompassing let's go back to the text and find out where death encompass actually saying that page 34 about the six line from the bottom and and what they are saying is that oh the way in which the Buddha divided figurative and literal in the last day the wheel is not be taken literally right and and then they go on to say he says you know really both of these systems meaning pain you get young means both of your system both you don't number and you mentioned both you know the problem is that you haven't taken the time you are raising this issue without having looked very very carefully at the meaning of that section during the 13th wheel if you had we wouldn't have had to take this long detour and guess I said yeah we wouldn't have wouldn't have had to take this long detour so if you think about it we're about to embark on a new section and you could say case is closed you know take that take everything in that section close it up penny ah but wait a minute you know there's these two little points I was thinking about that I didn't tell you I really wanted to tell you these two little points from from that section we were just on so I'm gonna just you know we'll just skip back and give you two little points that I was thinking about that I didn't mention to you page page 27 he says go back to page 27 where they did characterized both the first turning of the wheel and the second thing we know I translated it as most exceedingly amazing in Tibetan there are actually two different words one is amazing and one is wonderful you know one he's saying the first turn of the wheel is amazing and wonderful and then later on he says the second turn of the wheel is amazingly amazing and wonderful exceedingly exceedingly amazing and wonderful so actually there's two words here in the Tibetan I only gave you one of them one is amazing and one is wonderful with regard to both of those turns the wheel so this is let's get into those two words why do we characterize the Buddhist speech as amazing by the way this particular word in the Tibetan newspapers I remember it was a little bit to me to replace believe it or not you know like it means really happened but is amazing or almost unbelievable right so not that means with strange or extraordinary or amazing why do we characterize the first and second turnings of the wheel as amazing and and guess what says you know amazing means there should be something extraordinary about it there should be something exceptional about it there should be something that sets it apart from all other things what is it that sets it apart from all other things what is it that makes it different or extraordinary or special that we can call it amazing it is there are two reasons why the why the speech of the Buddha in this case is amazing in general actually is amazing and he says first reason is what we can call the motivation with which Lord Buddha speaks okay so Lord Buddha is is looking at a person and and he's only thinking about what would be a benefit to them it is only out of compassion that Lord Buddha speaks so you know people like us we might even teach Dharma with some kind of intention of being famous or people get to know me or well you know people will talk about how great I am or something like that but Lord Buddha doesn't have any such motivation the only motivation Lord Buddha has he looks into your mind each student's mind and out of incredible love for them out of incredible care for them is only speaking because he wants to benefit them and he's only speaking what will benefit them and and his and his whole intention for speaking at all is that is to look into the student's mind see what would help them and then give them what would be a benefit to them then double equal or ninja too much it then even in last shot and the second reason why it's amazing is that as far as content right how well does the speaker understand the content of what they're saying you know for us you know we could say oh I know it pretty well or I didn't think about too much or you know we people like you and me can say something can make a statement without really understanding all the implications or understanding everything about what we're going to say but Lord Buddha is not like that omniscient being knows everything in the universe and based on that knowledge is saying something so they know where of they speak because they're omniscient and that's the second reason why their speech is amazing now we've covered the first advocate amazing okay so so whereas the word amazing is sort of looking at from a causal point of view right what is instigating the speech of the Buddha you know what is the Buddha have in mind what kind of understanding of the subject of the Buddha have before the Buddha speaks right those are all sort of causal those are all from the point of view of before he speaks or or speech from the point of view of a cause or the cause of the speech now we get into the word wonderful metatour which which has a it's focusing on the result of the speech okay so what does that mean metatour says guess lies something that is set set apart okay the meaning of metatour which in general in Tibetan is a difficult phrase okay it's not a very transparent phrase he says somehow it has some connotation of being set apart something higher okay something extraordinary and he says what does it have to do with here is that from the point of view of goals or from the point of view of the result of the speech if Lord Buddha talks like this if Lord Buddha gives instructions like this and if each person follows it they will get certain results what suppose there are people just want to become an arhat you know a reach nirvana on the listener track you know even if that's all they want right they're just saying oh I want to reach nirvana and listen to track I want to get to the end and listen to track if they follow these instructions perfectly you know the Buddha has given some kind of teaching the Buddha has spoken something if you do it step by step step by step and if you follow the instructions carefully then they those people who want to get to a listener's track nirvana will get there definite and then suppose there's other people come along and say I'm not satisfied with that I want to get to the self-made Buddha track nirvana you know I want to get to nirvana on the track of self-made Buddha well Buddha gave those instructions Lord Buddha taught that Lord Buddha's speech from a causal point of view will give you that result you know if that's all you want if that's what you want if you follow the instructions you know one two three four get to the end there reaching nirvana reach nirvana according to self-made Buddha track and suppose those people say wait I want more you know I'm not satisfied unless I get on to total perfect enlightenment you know even if people come up and say you know that's not enough for me I'm going on to higher goals you know if they follow what Lord Buddha taught one by one follow them one by one follow the exactly the instructions giving then you will achieve that that goal so the Buddha speech is wonderful right first was amazing now it's wonderful wonderful from the point of view of goals if if you follow exactly the instructions you can get whatever your heart desires

[Speaker 2]
you might be wondering why I keep flipping back you know like why I keep

[Speaker 1]
going back to something we covered before and revisiting it to catch the meaning of a few words or a phrase or something like that you know my usual style in the monastery is I just truck through the meaning you know we just blast through the meaning like a rocket you know we just go point to point you know I pick out all the important points I pick out all the philosophical issues and we blast through it like a rocket we use the shooting through it like that and then that what happens is is I get into that mode with you guys you know you're from another country you're from another culture and but I'm still in my old monastic mode you know when I have those other and Tibetan students here and we're just blasting through those meanings and going through a like a rocket ship and then and then when you guys go home it occurs to me that you know I didn't go over these these finer points with you that as Westerners a you you might not be familiar with that my Tibetan monks will be automatically familiar with and be you're going to be questioning things and you're going to be questioned in a way that my students aren't going to be questioning so you're going to go back to another country you're going back to another culture where they will be examining everything you say they will be examining all the words they'll be examining and questioning things you're more I have to go back and remind myself you know that you guys are going to be in a more inquisitive in a more questioning mode about the meanings of specific phrases and you're going to also have to be you're going to be in a mode where people are going to question you more in more detail so then after you guys have gone home and I've gone through one of these rocket blast sessions then it occurs to me later that I better go back and clarify certain words for you guys so that you can get a deeper appreciation for things that I can

[Speaker 2]
assume in the monastery with the other monks man it's very important for you

[Speaker 1]
guys that as I mentioned page numbers keep writing down the page numbers okay so like when I say page 27 line 3 you go down and write pages and line 3 because what happens is I come back and say now we're going to go back and revisit something your whole presentation and you know it's going to get screwed up it's all going to get out of order you know if you don't have it a box written around and say this applies back to page 27 that he taught before if you don't order your notes that way and I want you later to go back and actually physically reorder your notes take this information go back to your notes and stick it up there and put it in the right place otherwise you know you'll show these notes to other Westerners and they'll say oh my god you know these Tibetan Lamas they're like crazy you know they're like mixing this and then they're mixing that and everything's all mixed up I don't want that happen I want you to reorder those notes go back home make them nice and put them in the correct order you know what I just said was oh when I'm among my own Tibetan students I'm going to like a rocket ship because I know I understand you know I take it for granted that they know all these words and the meaning of all these words and anything like that you know from one point of view I don't do what want to make you feel like because I'm not doing that with you I think you don't know anything okay but but you know even if you go check my other Tibetan students you know which I take it for granted they can appreciate all the fine points here and all the deep connotations of these words you know actually you could go back home I know that you guys are staying over at get on house pull out one of those poor little monks and I'm not to get a girl house I could put any other house okay any other any other house in my say go to some fine young monk and say you know we got these two words here you know amazing and incredible you know and could you just tell me you know what's the difference between there you know what's the fine difference in the connotation between that you guys get you know I'm saying that I take for granted that they know but you know when I think about it if you go if you go if you go ask them what's the distinction between these two adjectives well you go test this food yourself and tell me how there's a bit of a problem when I teach my Tibetan students is that you know if I stopped on words like these two little adjectives and I went into some long explanation about oh this is what this one really means and this is what this one really means they would become impatient with me they say oh you know we're Tibetans you know we know what those things we know what I mean we know what medicine it means you don't have to go over that with us and knowing that they would not even appreciate it I just go on see I don't I oftentimes don't stop to give them a fine point because I I'm afraid that they will think I'm being nitpicky or unnecessarily nitpicky or that I'm bringing up details about things they already understand so I tend to just chuck on through and not stop at those points. Now we've reached a new section totally new section and he wants to Gisela wants to give a brief introduction to that section just a little brief summary of what that section is going to be talking about in the first one having explained about the three turnings of the wheel having explained about figurative literal all that now we're going to actually get into Arya Asanga's presentation of the mind only school okay so now don't forget that Arya Asanga is the in master Asanga is the is the innovator or the person who has opened reopened right the mind only school in this world so first of all we're going to go into master Asanga's presentation of the mind only school in terms of what does he say what does he say are his sources okay so we're going to look at master Asanga's presentation of the mind only school from the point of view of when master Asanga started to spread the mind only beliefs what did he think his authoritative sources were and you know what he's going to say he's going to go to the sutra in which the Buddha explained the true meaning of his sutras. He's going to go to this Samyukti Murtana Sutra and he's going to explain first of all Je Tsongkapa is going to explain what are master Asanga's sources for beginning and espousing the mind only school that will be the first section and how is it that he takes those sources and what sources does he use and and how is he doing that will be the first whole section coming up the second section coming up here will be what is then the main content of the mind only school you see what is it that the mind only school teaches and especially what do they teach with regard to the ultimate subject being emptiness okay so so the whole section second section will be here's what master Asanga's mind only school teaches and in particular with regard to emptiness so those will be the two sections that we're moving into now we're about to run out of time but if I just give you a very very quick bypass pass over you know overview of what Arya Asanga is going to identify as his own sources we can go to two of his greatest books one is called Dua which is like the compendium and or the abbreviation and the other one is called Changsa which means bodhisattva Bhoomi in which Bhoomi in which in which Arya Asanga presents the paths and levels of the bodhisattva so we can go to those two books now in those two books when Arya Asanga is presenting matters of what Geshe-la calls minor points okay matters of minor points not very difficult points okay points which are easily resolved okay points which are not like major turning points a major pivot points okay major key points when he goes into those points master Asanga doesn't even bother to explain them in detail he says oh you guys go look at Dada Gongdo okay remember that the sutra in which the Buddha explains the intent of the sutras is the third turning of the wheel and especially in there the the chapter spoken at the request in response to the air question of the bodhisattva Duryodhana path so one indication of where Arya Asanga believes his own sources are are Arya Asanga's own statements in his two famous kinds of works which are huge works in which he says oh this point I don't have to go into much you can get it from the sutra on the intent of the sutras because you know just go read that I don't have to I don't have to explain it much it's very clear it's not a very difficult point you can get that from that sutra so that shows that are in Arya Asanga's own mind his authoritative sources most importantly include the sutra which is

[Speaker 2]
the third turning of the wheel and and then conversely every time he gets to a

[Speaker 1]
very difficult point a sticky point a major point you know something he always introduces it by saying and you know here's a point that you wouldn't get if you just went back to the original sutra in which the Buddha explains the intended sutras so on this point I guess I'd better go into some detail for you and that is how he goes about writing his two great books the abbreviation and the bodhisattva you know this the levels of the bodhisattva so it's interesting that he's also indicating that that's his source when he says you won't be able to get it by yourself just by going back to the original sutra which is the sutra in which the Buddha explains the meaning of the sutra which is the third turn in the wheel right so I better explain and that's why and how Arya Sangha goes into writing these huge books