Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 15

[Говорящий 2]
How can I do it without him? I'm telling you, you need to come and learn from him. Okay?

Rotok is on your neck, which means there's a Rotot there. When you do the Roto, you move your neck to the back, by the way, if you gave the Roto to the Roto, you'd receive the Roto in the back. If you gave it to the Roto, you'd receive the Roto in the back.

When you take the Roto away, you may get another injured, and you have to go and get help. So if you take the Roto away, you'd receive a Roto in the back. And, one day, you'll have to come and get it in the back.

So, it must be better that you don't take the Roto away.

[Говорящий 1]
Geshe-la is going to start out from a quotation that we actually had last class. He says, you know, it's not like something you have to take new notes on, you know, you've already had it, I talked about it at the end of last class. But we like to bridge across the classes, you know, we like to take off from the end of the last class and then join you into the beginning of the new class.

So he's going to go back to a particular quotation that we had at the very end of the last class and then bridge in today's subject matter. So we're on page 36, 6-9 for the bottom, at the end it says, Chang-sa-le, which means, this is a quotation from Arya Sangha's work called Bodhisattva Bhumis. And in that work it says, what is it like, you remember how it started out, it says, what's that like?

Okay, what's that like, meaning what's what like? What is emptiness like according to your mind-only people, okay, according to the mind-only school, what is emptiness like? And then it's defined, he defines it by doing this, he says, it is that state which is the absence of the two extremes, okay?

So remember that there are two extremes, one extreme where you say something is there which isn't there, one extreme where you deny that something is there which really is there, and Arya Sangha's definition or description of emptiness according to the mind-only school is that thing which is the absence of those two extremes. So those are almost like two different kinds of gacchas, and emptiness is the thing which is the absence of those two extremes. Gaccha says, be careful to distinguish, as we did yesterday, between the extreme or the edge of the cliff or the cliff, right, all the same word in Tibetan, and the mind that is holding to that extreme, okay?

So the extreme is a non-existent thing, but there's a tendency or a state of mind which believes in that thing. So you have to be able to distinguish between the state of mind which is grasping to that thing and that thing in itself. That thing in itself doesn't exist.

So there are two states of mind holding to two things that don't exist. One state of mind is holding that something is there which isn't there. One state of mind is holding something, is denying something is there when something really is there, and so you have to distinguish between the mind that holds the extreme and the extremes, and the lack of the two extremes being emptiness itself, according to the mind-only school.

Next quotation, page 36, last line, in the Bodhisattva Bhumis, then Arya Sangha is going to come along and say, what do I mean by those two tendencies, those two mental tendencies? Those two tendencies to do that, the state of mind, those two states of mind which hold to those two non-existent objects, how do we describe those? So now we're moving into the new material, with the last line on page 36, Arya Sangha is promising to go into what are those two states of mind like, what are they characterized by?

[Говорящий 2]
So now we're moving into the new material, with the last line on page 36, Arya Sangha is promising to go into what are those two states of mind like, what are they characterized So now we're moving into the new material, with the last line on page 36, Arya Sangha is promising to go into what are those two states of mind like, what are they characterized So now we're moving into the new material, with the last line on page 36, Arya Sangha

[Говорящий 1]
So this is sort of more of a general description of the states of mind of overrating and underrating, right? I almost don't like overrating because it's more like inventing something when nothing is there, and then underrating which is like denying something which really is there.

So, he says, Je Tsongkapa says, de nyi nyi means which these two now, these two states of mind, and then he starts quoting from Changsha, from the Bodhisattva Bhumis, and then he gives sort of a... Je Tsongkapa is showing how Master Sangha gives sort of a general description, but there's not much detail at this point.

[Говорящий 2]
Nothing, nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

Nothing.

[Говорящий 1]
OK. Here we go. In the very last line of page thirty-six it says tulpa sobpay cinnam which means, All existing phenomena starting from physical matter on up.

And then he says, and all functional things from physical matter on up. So why does Arya Sangha say that? To us, if we don't look very closely, it just looks like he's saying, all things from physical matter on up, all working things from physical matter on up.

And you might just skip over that. It might just seem almost like an appositive, like he's just saying, everything from physical matter on up, all working things from physical matter on up. It sounds almost like just an appositive, just like a repetition, but it's not at all.

In the first expression, you're treating all phenomena, which means, doesn't it, that we're treating all phenomena, including produced things and unproduced things, changing things and unchanging things. And then out of that group of changing things plus unchanging things, he withdraws, for examination, all functional things, which is a code word, as you know, for a changing thing or a produced thing. And don't forget that when we were trying to establish emptiness according to the Mind-Only School, we favored establishing it with regard to changing things.

It's a lot easier to establish it with regard to changing things than it is when you throw in those unchanging things and you have to go through all these gymnastics to establish the emptiness of it. So he says, the Arya Saga is cleverly or unknowingly taking all existing things and then isolating all changing things and saying, now about those things we have to talk about their emptiness. How do we describe the habit, the tendency to overrate things with regard to these objects?

So Geshe-la says, let's go from all existing things to functioning things, which means produced things, and let's go down to jashi, the boy jashi that we talked about yesterday. So we have to examine how it is that the mind tends to see something there when it's not there. And this is how it does it.

Consider the fact that the boy jashi is what we call jashi. Okay? Which is a construct, right?

Consider the fact that the boy jashi is what we call jashi. Does that in itself exist from its own side? Does that exist by definition as a construct?

A construct you say, no, it doesn't exist by definition. But there's a state of mind that holds that jashi, the fact that jashi is what we call jashi is something that should exist naturally. A rose is a rose, right?

There's a state of mind that holds that it doesn't matter, you know, it should be called, he should have been called jashi from his own side automatically. That's his nature or something like that. There's a wrong state of mind that holds that.

It looks at jashi as what we call jashi and says that relationship or that fact that jashi is what's called jashi should be something natural or should be something self-existent. And that state of mind is seeing something where there is nothing there. It's seeing an inherent quality to the fact that jashi is what we call jashi.

And so in that sense it's making up something where there's nothing there. And that is the state of mind in Tibetan called drondok or making up something where there is nothing there. That's that state of mind.

So there Arya Sangha has very succinctly described that state of mind.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
So then we can say that... I didn't translate his last sentence last time which was that now you can apply this to everything in the universe. Now Geshe-la is going on to say now that you've got this reasoning straight, right?

You got it, right? With regard to Tashi the boy. Now that you understand it with regard to Tashi the boy.

What I said about him being what we call Tashi the boy and that not being something which exists by definition, right? So now take that reasoning and you can apply it to all other objects in the universe. So it doesn't matter what object you're taking.

Obviously all changing objects and then if you think about it all unchanging objects, okay? And you can go and apply that to every object in the world. It doesn't matter.

About every object in the world it can be said about every object in the world that the fact that they are the thing that's given their name doesn't exist by definition. Okay, I'll say it again. Whether you're talking about changing things or unchanging things, produced things or unproduced things, it doesn't matter.

The fact that they are what is given their name does not exist by definition in any case with any object in the world. With any object in the world there's an idea that it is what it is called. It is the thing which is called it, okay?

That fact does not exist by definition. That exist does not exist... That fact does not exist by definition.

And don't forget that by definition means existing from its own side with its own unique way of being. So it doesn't... The fact that any particular object in the universe is what is given its name does not exist from its own side.

It doesn't come from its own way of being. It isn't out there existing. It is a construct.

That is something that does not exist by definition. But our state of mind, that's a natural state of mind that occurs in all people, which says that the fact that someone is the thing which is given their name does exist by definition. It's somehow natural or inherent that someone should be...

that they should be what's given their name. And we believe that and we hold that. That state of mind, again, now with regard to every object in the world, is seeing something there or seeing some relationship there which is not there.

So it's seeing something there where there is nothing there. And that's a state of mind that we call dron-dron. So here Arya Sangha is finally describing the state of mind called overrating or seeing something where there's nothing there with regard to every existing object.

[Говорящий 2]
Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

Nothing. Kundalini. Nothing.

[Говорящий 1]
Nothing. Nothing.

[Говорящий 2]
Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

She said... Nothing.

[Говорящий 1]
Nothing. which come on page 37, starting from the fourth line, we start to see different expressions used for dependent things or changing things. The first expression will be tape-tsik-yi tse-me-shi which will mean that object which is labeled with the construct.

Okay? So that object which receives the label of the construct. First new expression with which shenwangs are referred to.

Okay? That object which receives the... or which is...

receives the label of the construct. And then second line, we're going to get judu mepe yangdapay ngupo which means a pure thing which is beyond description. Okay?

That's now a second phrase. Now it's used for shenwangs. Okay?

Be careful. Now it's used for changing things or dependent things. So far we have two new descriptions of changing things.

First one was that which receives the label of the construct. Secondly, that which is beyond expression and which is a pure thing, a working thing. Okay?

A pure working thing which is beyond expression. Okay? And then thirdly we have dundabar...

dundabar yupa dundabar yupa yangdapay ngupo dundabar yupa du suma duje dundabar yupa yangdapay ngupo And then thirdly, it's described as that which has some kind of ultimate-ness about it. Okay? So now we have three new expressions used for shenwang which seem a little unusual, right?

It is the object... That one's easy, right? It is the object of the labeling process of the construct.

It is some kind of working thing which is pure. And it is some kind of thing which has some kind of ultimate... ultimate-ness about it.

Now how... why and how we're going to find out. Okay?

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

Uh, then uh...

[Говорящий 1]
then what are we saying about these shenwangs? These changing things which we have discarded with these three new terms, okay? What is that meaning?

it that those people who are doing kunda, right, who are seeing something, who are denying something which really is there, right, how is it that, what is it that they are saying about these Shenrongs that is wrong, right? How are they denying the existence of something which really is there? That's described in the phrase, it's in the sixth line from the top of the page 37, where it says, tam che kyi tam che du, tam che kyi tam che du.

Geshe-la says there are different ways of explaining this phrase, which means in English, all to all, or something, okay, all of all, all to all, how's that, okay, all to all, in English. And he says in Tibetan there have been differing interpretations of what these words mean. One interpretation says this, the first all refers to all members of the higher half of the middle way school, meaning Madhyamika Prasangika, those people are saying, what, about every existing functional thing, okay, which is the second all, okay, so all to all means all those Prasangika guys are saying about all those functional things that they don't exist at all, okay, right, actually all they said was they don't exist by definition, but the middle, the mind only school says, well then you're saying they don't exist at all, okay, so this phrase all to all means, the mind only school accuses the higher part of the Madhyamika school of saying, all of you are saying about all functional things that they don't exist, okay, and that's what all to all means. One, the first all is referring to people, the second all is referring to all functional things, and it's an accusation to the Madhyamika Prasangika school saying that you are kundapa-ing, okay, you are denying something that is, you're saying that something's not there which is there, because by, if you say things don't exist by definition, if you say Shenlongs don't exist by definition, then you are refusing the very existence of Shenlongs, and then you're doing kundapa, okay?

[Говорящий 2]
Okay, so this is the Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika Madhyamika, that's it.

[Говорящий 1]
One interpretation of the all-to-all, right, is different. Now here's a second interpretation of all-to-all. They say that if a Madhyamika Prasangika person came up to us, okay, if a person in the higher half of the Middle Way School, the Consequence Group, came up to us and said all, meaning the real nature of all things, the real nature of all functional things, the real way in which they exist, their real nature of all functional things, is that they don't exist by definition.

This is not accepted by the Minoli School, but now you have the Middle Way School, people would come up and say, the first all means all of the, what did you say? The real nature of, what did you say? All the real natures of real things is that they don't exist by definition, okay?

So it refers to the real nature of functional things. All the real natures of functional things are such that they don't exist by definition. Okay, how's that?

That's the first all, okay? And then the second all, which is sort of adverbial, right? To all, or in all, or at all, which is a postposition in Tibetan, it can mean any of those things.

At all means, now remember back in the Prasangika days when you were studying it and there was a reasoning shown to prove, it was called the proof for emptiness in which you reject the extremes, and you reject, for example, the idea that something could come from something other than it, and something could come from something not, that was it, and then you rejected both, you rejected neither. And then when we got to those kinds of reasonings, the Madhyamika Prasangika said, and this applies to all, meaning applies to all places, applies to all times, applies to all philosophical tenets. It doesn't matter where you are, it doesn't matter when you're talking about, and it doesn't matter who's talking or what philosophy you're talking about, it doesn't matter.

Regardless of place, regardless of time, regardless of philosophical tenet, it's still going to be true that no functional thing has any existence by definition, okay? So some scholars, some thinkers have said that the second all refers to all places, you know, it doesn't matter whether you're sitting in America, it doesn't matter if you're sitting in Nepal, it doesn't matter whether you're sitting in Tibet, it doesn't matter if you're sitting in India, it doesn't matter where you are. The real nature of things is that they don't exist by definition, of functional things is that they don't exist by definition.

So independent of your position in space, in the universe, the real nature of things, functional things, is that they're not going to exist by definition. It also doesn't matter when you're talking about. You can be talking about summer, winter, spring, fall, any time of the year.

It doesn't matter what time of the year it is. Every functional, no functional thing in the world has any nature of existing by definition, period. And it doesn't matter what thinker you're talking about, it doesn't matter who's talking or what kind of idea they're coming up with.

The real nature of things, nonetheless, is that they don't have any nature of existing by definition. And according, remember, to the mind-only school, which is where we are, that would be tantamount to saying that those things don't exist. And so they say, ah, you're conducting again, okay?

You're discounting things that really do exist again, okay? And in every case, in either thinker's position that you accept, it doesn't really matter. The person we're talking about who's saying it is the prasangika, marimika prasangika.

It's the higher half of the middle-weight school that's making these claims about all functional things not being existing by definition. You know, once we got into this idea, we've just mentioned in passing the prasangika idea about things not coming from themselves, things not coming from something else, not from both, not from either. We talked about this kind of proof used to demonstrate emptiness.

I thought maybe we'll just throw it in here because maybe you're not very familiar with it. You might enjoy hearing about how that proof goes. And please don't mix it up in your notes, okay?

Make it clear in your notes right here that we are moving over to prasangika middle-weight philosophy. I thought you just might like to hear it like kind of a cookie dessert. I'll throw in how this reasoning goes according to the marimika prasangika, not according to the Mahayana school.

I don't want you thinking later, you know, if Los Angeles brings up this kind of reasoning in a class, and I don't want you thinking, oh, yeah, they mentioned that in the minority, this is a minority school idea, or something like that. It's not, okay? It's a middle-weight school idea, and we're just injecting it here so that you can appreciate what the argument's about here.

Now I'm going to give you my take on it, okay? It doesn't sound like he's going to go to the other thing. Maybe he will.

We'll see. But anyway, I'm going to give you my take on this all-to-all, right? All-to-all.

If you look at the Tibetan of the all-to-all, which is on line 6, page 37, if you look at the grammar particle which is sitting there between the two all, it's not the instrumental, it's the genitive, right? So is it meant to say, all of the Madhyamaka Prasangika people are saying this about all functional things, right? Then if you know Tibetan grammar, you know that that would have to be the instrumental.

It would have to be kāyate kāyāgi kīkṣā yī, and it would have to be instrumental. It would have to be the instrumental case. But as you can see, it's not the instrumental case, it's the genitive case.

So I kind of like the interpretation of saying, we are talking about the real nature of all functional things, you see? Because this is of and not by, okay? So I kind of tend towards taking it not as people, but the first all shouldn't refer to people, but the first all should refer to all functional things.

And then you can talk about the real nature of all functional things. They say, doesn't exist by definition, or something like that, okay? But in either case, they are still saying something, right?

So whether you say it means, as I would tend to say, that the real nature of all functional things is said to be something that doesn't exist by definition, or whether you say all of them say that the real nature of functional things is that they don't exist by definition, it kind of boils down to the same thing. And in either case, you're still indicating that a certain group of people, called the Madhyamika Prasangika, are saying it. So that's okay, either way.

But I kind of tend towards taking it as a genitive and saying, the real nature of all functional things. I have. I have.

I have. I have. No, I have.

You guys have been too cool. You know, the way that great thinkers go, you know, it looks to me like it could go either way on this point. You know, the way that great thinkers go, the way that great thinkers sometimes tend to say things is, they might say, I don't give a damn whether there's an instrumental there or not, this is what it means, okay?

So, you know, kind of stubborn people, right? Just kidding.

[Говорящий 2]
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no

[Говорящий 1]
Then it goes on to say, there's on line seven, page thirty-seven, it says, these kinds of attitudes, or these kinds of outlooks, meaning overrating something and underrating something, right?

Overrating something and discounting something, will chuh-tsum-pa-che. Chuh-tsum-pa-che is an ancient word that means to waste somebody, like ruin somebody, okay? So chuh-tsum-pa-che means that'll ruin them, or it'll waste them completely.

And Geshe-la says if you want to know the connotation of this word, it would be something like somebody gets a big inheritance or something, and they get a lot of money, and they could do a useful thing with it. And then instead of that, they just keep blowing money, blowing money, blowing money. They just say, blown it, okay?

So, you know, he just spends it all like any which way he wants, and then suddenly at the end he's got nothing, and he has wasted an opportunity, wasted or ruined an opportunity. So this word in Tibetan means those people who hold these viewpoints. Who is he referring to?

The people who are overrating things are those first two schools of the four schools, right? The Vaibhashika schools, the detailist schools, and the sutra schools are overrating things. So they're wasting their lives, ruining their lives, wasting themselves by thinking that.

And then those tengyuras, you know, those prasangikas, they are wasting themselves too, you know? They've got this other extreme which is that, holding to another extreme, which is that something which really does exist doesn't exist according to them. So they on their own side, again, are wasting themselves.

They are ruining the perfect opportunity they have to practice what? And then he goes on to line eight, he says, chu duwa di. Generally duwa, as you know, means vinaya or some kind of teachings on monastic discipline or something like that.

Here it does not mean that. Chu duwa here means that beautiful, fantastic dharma which functions to dulwa, which is the other form of that verb, that duljas, which means disciples, okay? So you have in Tibetan it's that disciplining dharma which is used to discipline those who are to be disciplined, you see?

It's a big pun in Tibetan, okay? I'll say it again. That disciplining way which is used to discipline disciples, you see?

So you get dis-dis-dis-discipline in English also. So this disciplining dharma, which is called chu duwa di le nyamba, means they have, in a sense, degenerated from this, they have lost this beautiful dharma, okay? They have degenerated from this beautiful dharma.

They have dropped down or gotten worse. They have degenerated from this beautiful dharma. Now what, from the mind-only school's point of view, is this beautiful, wonderful dharma?

Their dharma, okay? Their interpretation or anything, okay? So they are degenerating from this beautiful disciplining dharma, meaning our system, right?

And Geshe-la says, you know it's a little weird when you think about it because degenerate means to get worse or to come down or to fall down or to get worse. And usually in our minds we see Madhyamika Prasangika up here and we see mind-only here, and then you got, it's kind of weird to think of these guys accusing these guys of dropping down lower and you'd come out looking like that or something, and it feels kind of weird to say that. But don't forget that we're in the mind-only school.

From their point of view that's how it really looks. Mind-only school is up on top, all the other schools are down below them, and from their point of view that's perfect, that's what it looks like. And those poor guys have degenerated from this pure dharma, okay?

Then in the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8th line from the bottom of page 37, Je Tsongkapa is sort of dividing the quotation, the two quotations actually, from Bodhisattva Bhumi, and he's saying, everything down to the words, well the second quotation actually, everything down to the word about wasting your life or ruining yourself, okay, is directed at, mainly at the Madhyamika Prasangika and saying, that's how you guys are seeing something, are denying something that's there when it really is there.

So he's describing the kundepa, or the underrating or the discounting by the Madhyamika Prasangika. All the words of the second quotation up to the words, you are wasting yourself, is describing how the Madhyamika Prasangika are discounting something which is really there. Then everything past that word in the Tibetan, from chu-su-an, is describing the consequences of thinking like that.

You will waste yourself, you will lose this precious dharma, you will degenerate from this beautiful path. Everything beyond that is describing the consequences. So Je Tsongkapa, in his explanation of this latter quotation, is saying, here's how you are discounting something which really does exist, and then here are the consequences of discounting that, and that's what's going to come to you if you do that.

He'll give a concrete example that will help you appreciate. He's going to go back to that all to all, right? Over there it was all say, all say.

You don't have to write this note, okay? This is a note not to be written, he says. If I go back to that expression, all to all, and back there it said, all to all don't have, right?

Which in English you have to reverse, right? No existing phenomena has these qualities, or no functional thing has these qualities. So all to all doesn't have.

But when he thinks about it, you guys exemplify the opposite. All to all does have, meaning all you students here have been imparted the great blessing of Seram Monastery, because everybody's slurping and coughing and sneezing. So all to all has, okay?

You like this way to turn it around or not? Is that a nice way to do it or not? I know in America you think sneezing is somehow kind of dirty or gross, and in Tibet we think it's wonderful because you're getting something dirty out of your system.

So I'd love to hear a big chorus of sneezing. So on page thirty-seven, Je Tsongkapa is taking the words from the Bodhisattva Bhumi throughout the book, and he's dividing them out, right? He said, oh, this section refers to the tendency of the mind to create something where there is nothing.

And then this section refers to the tendency of the mind to deny something when there really is something. And this section is kind of referring to the results of that kind of second way of thinking. And that's how he is.

Je Tsongkapa has...actually, those two are different quotations, and he's chopped them out, and he's kind of arranged them for you to demonstrate what it is to hold to those two extremes.

[Говорящий 2]
And now...

[Говорящий 1]
Let's hear a chorus. I try to do one, too.

[Говорящий 2]
Just kidding. OK. OK.

Nice.

[Говорящий 1]
Now Je Tsongkapa wants to address a very difficult phrase in the Tibetan from Arya Sangha's Bodhisattva Bhumi, the Bodhisattva Levels, right? And this is very, very tricky, very greasy, OK? Slippery.

Page thirty-seven, first line, he says, DOG PA'I TSIG GI NGO BO NYID, which, if you take it as the way it looks, it looks like to say, the very nature of the words which are used to label, of the labeling words, right? And Je Tsongkapa is pointing out that you could take this in two different ways, you know? The very nature of the labeling words, which Je Tsongkapa also...you know, you could call it DOG PA'I TSIG GI NGO BO NYID on page thirty-seven, fifth line from the bottom down to the fourth line from the bottom. You could use either the past tense or the present tense. One way it would be DOG PA'I TSIG GI NGO BO NYID, one way it would be DOG PA'I TSIG GI NGO BO NYID. You could take it either way.

It doesn't really matter. The question is, what is he referring to here, you know? Are we referring to the state of mind which applies the label, or are we referring to the construct which is a result, or a consequence of that label being applied, OK?

And Je Tsongkapa wants to be sure that you understand that it is the latter, OK? That it is the kundak, it is the construct and not the state of mind which is creating the construct. Because if you take these words on their face value, it seems to be saying the nature of the words of the labeling, OK?

It's the nature of the words of the labeling. So, you might take those words to mean that state of mind which applies a thought to create a construct, or those words which are used to create a construct, labels which are applied to make a construct. You might take it to the constructing mind.

You might take it to mean the constructing mind rather than the construct which that mind constructs. And he's anxious that you should take the word DOG PA in its past tense, which is DAG PA, which means the essence of the words of the labeling, OK, rather than of the labeling state of mind, or the labeler, OK? So, in that sense, these words become a reference to constructs rather than a reference to the constructing state of mind, which if you're not sensitive, you might take those words as meaning.

So, there's the state of mind which is applying either a thought or a verbalization to create a construct, and then there is the construct itself, which is of the nature of construction, or something like that. He wants to make sure we take it the second way and not the first way. Now Je Tsongkapa says, you know, now I've told you this thing, you know, I think these words have to be read as referring to the construct and not to the words with which you make the construct or the state of mind with which you make the construct, OK?

Even though the wording might indicate that. And he says, you know, I can prove it to you. Arya Sangha, elsewhere in his text, in the Bodhisattva levels, is using this same expression all over the place, whether it's way up in front of the text somewhere, whether it's way down below this reference somewhere, you know, all over the place he's using this same expression.

So, I'm going to go to a few of those and demonstrate to you that what I've said about the expression in this particular context is true of that expression in other places as well. And so not only does...the way Je Tsongkapa actually says it here is a little bit of a variant on that. He says, the fact that this expression doesn't mean what it appears to mean, in other words, does not apply to the constructing words or constructing state of mind, but rather applies to the construction itself, right?

The fact that that's true, he says...he words it a little bit differently. He says, you can see it clearly in the abbreviation of Arya Sangha, right? There's a book called The Abbreviation, right?

You can see it clearly in the abbreviation and in other texts, as well as in other places in the Bodhisattva levels. So he's covering his bases. He says, in the abbreviation and other books by Arya Sangha, and here, in other places in the Bodhisattva levels, you can see that he uses that expression.

to refer to constructs themselves. Don't forget that that expression had a little attachment on it called ngol, right? The nature of the words of labeling, right?

The nature of the words of construction. And we didn't want you to take words of construction now as being the labeling state of mind or the constructing state of mind or the words with which you make a construct. And we've decided that.

So you've got that in your mind. So Geshe-la says, now look, let's cut the...I mean, let's consolidate things, okay? Let's just...you've got this whole long notes that have been piling up here on this point. Let's go straight to the pits of the matter, okay? The real wording up there on line one is the nature of the constructing words, right? So now we take it to mean the nature of the constructs which were created by the words, okay?

You have to be careful with that. And Je Tsongkapa, even on the last line, page 37, is starting to use the past tense, right? The nature of the terms or the words of the construction, of having constructed, right?

So now we've got...not just talking about the constructs, but their nature, okay? Got it? So now we're talking about the ngol part.

Before we talked about constructing, constructed, constructs, okay? Let's just wrap it all into one little thing. What is the nature of constructs?

You tell me. Do they exist by definition or they don't exist by definition? The nature of constructs is that they don't exist by definition.

Then there's a state of mind that thinks that the nature of constructs is that they do exist by definition. What is that state of mind doing? It's creating something where there is nothing.

It's saying there is an existence by definition where in truth there is no existence by definition, and that's jondo. And that's why that phrase came in the first line of page 37 in the description from Arya Sangha's Bodhisattva levels to describe the state of mind in which you overrate something or you create something where nothing is there.

[Говорящий 2]
That's the nature of constructs. Kuntak. Kuntak.

Sherwan. Sherwan Ten.

[Говорящий 1]
Sherwan Ten. So, when we talk about a constructing state of mind, when we talk about words with which you create a construct, okay, or whether we're talking about the construct itself, right? Still, Jatakapa is not done ringing out those words from Bodhisattva levels about the state of mind which overrates something, okay, or which sees something which is there which is not there, or seeing something as there which is not there.

He's not done with this yet. He's not done with that quotation yet. So he's going on to treat the words in there that say the basis or the foundation for the construct, okay, for the constructing words.

If you want to use the actual wording of Bodhisattva levels, it's the basis or the foundation of the constructing words. Now, what's that talking about? Don't forget the constructing words or construction or however you want to say it is referring to kuntak.

It's referring to constructs themselves. And don't forget the constructs have to have a foundation or something to which they pertain, okay? And in this case, what's that?

That's the dakshi. Dakshi means that thing which is labeled with the construct, that thing which is... to which the construct is applied.

What are those? You guys know. Shenwans, okay?

Made things, dependent things. So, Je Tsongkapa has gone ahead and described what the words from Bodhisattva levels mean when they say that basis to which the construct is applied.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
If you want to see where the word foundation was actually used in Bodhisattva levels, go back to page 37, line 5, at the beginning. It says, tendu gyurpa, which means, those things which serve as the basis of, okay? And that's where they're referring to Shenwans.

That's where Je Tsongkapa has pulled out something that would indicate the foundation or the object to which the construct pertains, which is referring to Shenwans, which is referring to created things, dependent things. Now, right after that, on line 5, page 37, you see where it says, judu me bi dak ni, where they're starting to refer to Shenwans, or caused things, as something beyond description. Now, let's go to that, because that's kind of strange.

Je Tsongkapa is going to go to that next.

[Говорящий 2]
Je Tsongkapa is going to go to that next. Je Tsongkapa is going to go to that next. That's all.

That's all.

[Говорящий 1]
Page 38, line 3, end of the line, it says, di nyi judu me bi tsukyatindabar gyurpa, which if you take it literally means, those same things exist in an ultimate sense in a way which is beyond description. Those same things exist in an ultimate sense in a way which is beyond description. Now, Je Tsongkapa wants to go into what is the meaning here of the words, beyond description.

First of all, you have to understand what the de nyi is referring to. De nyi, those same things, is referring to Shenwans, which have just been mentioned, right? Which have just been mentioned as the basis for the construct, okay?

What the construct refers to. So, de nyi, that word, those very things, or those same things, is referring to things which are dependent or caused. Then it says, judu me ba, they are describing, they are characterizing caused things as being beyond description.

Now, you and I both know that, you know, a couple days ago or yesterday, we talked about emptiness as being beyond description. Now, here they're talking about changing things, dependent things, as being beyond description. Things which depend on their causes and conditions are somehow beyond description.

Now, obviously, they don't mean the same thing, but there is a similarity in how they are beyond description, okay? Beyond description in both cases refers to an inability to describe them accurately in words, okay? What does that mean with regard to changing things?

Now, I ask you to consider when you have a water pitcher on the table and you are looking at it with your eyes, okay? Your eye consciousness has a certain awareness, or it is perceiving the water pitcher in a certain way, okay? And get a sense of that right now, you know, think about looking at some object in this room, looking at it in a certain way.

Now imagine what it is to imagine that object, okay? As opposed to looking at it, okay? Imagine the difference between looking at an object and the experiential content of that thing, and then looking away and trying to imagine that object, you know?

The one is a pale version of the other, right? The imagining it is a pale version of the direct experience of it with your eye. And remember that imagining, in a sense, is creating a construct mentally, and then what's its brother, what's its parallel?

Creating a construct in words, you know? So describing a pitcher, describing a water pitcher in words, applying a construct that would apply to a… a verbal construct that would apply to a water pitcher is a pale version of the actual visual experience of a water pitcher, and that's what it means to be beyond description, okay?

Beyond description means that descriptions, verbalizations to describe a pitcher, are pale compared to the actual direct visual experience of a water pitcher, and in that sense, changing things are beyond description.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay. Okay.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
There's another way of taking… of describing or interpreting how the expression, beyond expression, refers to changing things, to produce the object. There's a second take on this, on this, how they're beyond expression.

If you think back to… well, just when you walk into a room and you see something, it takes you like a millisecond to name it. Mentally, you don't say, this is a radio, or this is a water pitcher, right away.

And… and before you learn the word for a thing, you can perceive the thing, and before you learn the word for a thing, that thing can exist in general, okay? So if we go back to the boy Tashi, right?

You don't think of that baby just when it comes out as Tashi, because you haven't learned the word, no one's applied the word Tashi to that baby yet. So in that sense, a millisecond before anyone applies a word to a certain functional object, it is judameva, it is beyond expression, okay? Because no one's thought of it yet that way, no one's applied that word to it yet that way.

You can expand this idea… by the way, this idea is presented in some Amdo scriptures, okay? And this interpretation is expressed and is described in those books.

And you can think of that… all existing things are the same way. You know, you are looking at something, and you don't know the word for it, especially in a foreign language, let's say, okay?

So if you're American, and you're looking at a water pitcher, and you're not thinking of it in terms of, oh, here's a bumba, you know? Oh, bumba, you know, you don't come up with the word bumba, you don't think of it as bumba. So we can describe it in all these ways, in all these ways about the existence of a thing prior to its being named that thing, functional things, right?

Changing things. In that sense, they are beyond description. Until such time as they are thought of or referred to with their particular names, they are beyond description.

Now Geshe-la points out that this is not in an absolute sense, this is in a relative sense, meaning dependent on each person. This is person dependent that we're saying this. You don't know the name for it yet, so from your point of view, so far, for you, or for you, or for you, or for you, for each individual, it is beyond description until such time as you personally learn or come to apply the name to it.

So this concept of things being beyond expression, in the second sense, is an individual thing, okay? It's not, you know, in general, everything in the world has its own name, you know? Things, all objects, all functional things have their own name.

But for each individual person, there is a state, there is a stage at which you have not yet named it with that name, and during that stage, we can describe that functional thing, or that Shenmong, as being beyond description. The next one, the phrase, if you remember, the next phrase that was applied to changing things, or Shenmong, or produced things, was dundampar yupa, okay? Dundampar yupa.

You can see it on line 4, page 38, okay? Now we have to make a very clear distinction. Dundampar yupa means, exists in an ultimate way, okay?

Exists in an ultimate way. Exists ultimately, okay, in English. Don't forget that in the mind-only school, functional things do exist by definition, okay?

They do exist by definition. So if you went up to a mind-only school and said, do changing things exist in an ultimate way, they would say, of course they do. Yes they do.

They do exist in an ultimate way, okay? Now would they say that they are ultimate existence, okay? They are ultimate truth or ultimate reality, okay?

And Geshe-la says, when you get into the Tibetan word, dempa, which means reality or truth, you know, ultimate reality, now that's a whole different ballgame, right? You have to learn to distinguish between saying, this thing exists in an ultimate sense, and saying, this thing is ultimate reality. Those are totally different things, okay?

Even in the mind-only school, they would never come up and say, this changing object, this dependent shenwang thing, is ultimate reality, because for them ultimate reality is yongdru, is totality, emptiness itself. So don't confuse the expression, ultimate reality, with existing ultimately. Of course in the mind-only school they have to say that changing things, or caused things, or functional things, exist in an ultimate sense, or exist ultimately, meaning by definition, of their own accord, from their own side, with their own unique way of being.

They have to say that, but they would never come up to a changing thing and say, this thing is ultimate reality, because that's a totally different grouping, right? So please remember to distinguish between those two. In this school, in this school.

Now line four, page thirty-eight, we have a further clarification. Don't forget where we are in these lines. We are describing, Jetsab Kapha is giving you more description on what it means in Bodhisattva levels, that book, when they say that the Madhyamika Prasangipa people are discounting things, or they're saying nothing, they're denying something is there that actually is there.

And here we go back again to that expression, all to all, right? All to all. Now whether you take it to mean all the Prasangikas who say that all the functional things are such that they don't have their own, that they don't exist by definition, then you're applying all to all to people who say something about all things.

Well whether you apply all to all as meaning it's true of all functional things that their very nature is not to exist by definition in all places, in all times, and in all ideas. Whichever way you say it, it doesn't matter. Jetsab Kapha says in line four, they, meaning the Madhyamika Prasangika, are thinking that about things which in actuality do exist ultimately, right?

So remember we just talked about existing ultimately. What are they talking about? Shenwang, things which are dependent.

They do exist ultimately, but those Prasangikas, now from the mind-only point of view, stupidly come up and say they, all of them, are not all of those things, you know? And no matter which take you take, no matter which way you take all to all, right? Doesn't matter.

They're still talking about Shenwangs which do, in actuality, dundabar-yipa, which do exist ultimately. And therein lies their mistake, and that is what it is to say something's not there when something really is there, okay? The thing does exist ultimately, and then you go out saying all of them don't exist all those ways, okay?

I gave you a second to finish your notes there, and I was stalling so you could finish your notes, because I have a debate for you, and I have a question for you, okay? You ready? I guess you should try to wake us up, okay?

Suppose somebody comes up and says, if something exists ultimately, then it must be ultimately true. Otherwise stated, you could say, in mind-only school, okay? In mind-only school.

If somebody comes up to you and says, if something exists ultimately, it must be ultimate truth. Or otherwise stated, you could say, is there a difference between existing ultimately and ultimate truth?

[Говорящий 2]
Thank you. Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
I remember the question, it was, is it necessarily the case that if something exists ultimately, it is ultimate reality, right? And you said, no, it's not necessarily the case, okay? Which is my khyapa, right?

Not necessarily the case means my khyapa. Geshe-la says, you know, you really should have answered khyapa, because when you say it is necessarily the case, the question doesn't go any farther, and everyone's happy, and everybody stops. But now that you've said it is not necessarily the case, the other guy's going to come and say, sure, you know, well, give me something that is not like that.

So you kind of set yourselves up for extra work, okay? So if you are going to say my khyapa, what are you going to show? Then what are you going to say about Bumba?

What's your duty to him? He said, just give me one part. Just the first part you said.

And now what is it not? So everybody's got that, right? Everybody can understand that.

If the word ultimate shows up in both paths, right? Ultimate truth and existing ultimately, right? The word ultimate is showing up there twice.

And sometimes people lock onto that word ultimate. They say, oh, the word ultimate appears here. The word ultimate appears here.

So it must be equivalent. But you've got to be sensitive to that word reality. And that only appears on one side, right?

That only appears on ultimate reality, didn't appear on existing ultimately. Be sensitive to the absence of the word reality on the one side, and then say, oh, no, no, not the same thing, even though the word ultimate appears on both sides. So, back to you again.

Conveniently, you took a water pitcher, which is what I would have taken anyway. When a mind-only person in school says, take a water pitcher, it exists ultimately, what do they have in mind when they say it exists ultimately? How would they describe existing ultimately?

Okay. Everybody think the same thing? I've only translated Tibetan.

It exists by definition. And it exists from its own time. Is that it?

Is that all? If you throw in the Rangshiriki Drupa thing, you're introducing new hassles. A new can of worms.

I think I'd leave that for now.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Right.

[Говорящий 1]
Right. So, from the state of view of the mind-only school, okay, from the point of view of the mind-only school, when you say it exists by definition, when you say it exists from its own side through its own unique way of being, when you say it exists in an ultimate way, and whether you're talking about a pitcher, a water pitcher, in which case it's a little easier, or there's a brother there, it has a sibling, which is called, in Tibetan, it's called that thing with a long spout and a rounded body and a basis that allows it to stand, a stand, a rounded body and a spout that you can pour water out of, which is the definition of a water pitcher.

Either one you talk about, it doesn't matter. In this school, all three of those expressions, it exists by definition, it exists through its own unique way of being, from its own side, and it exists in an ultimate way. As Anne pointed out, okay, that that's exactly right.

Those three expressions, which seem to be three different kinds of, you know, three different things, are, in this school, one and the same. It doesn't matter which one you use. They all refer to the same thing, they are all implying the same thing.

So, no matter which one you use, these are synonyms in the mind-only school to describe functional things. Some of you, Anne answered, it means, to exist ultimately must mean that it exists from its own side, through its own unique way of being. And then some guys over here said, to exist ultimately means to exist by definition.

And you're both right. And it all boils down to the same thing, doesn't it? So, yeah, I'll take both of them.

Bob Chilton pulled out a thing called existing by nature, existing naturally, okay, which we haven't talked about yet, okay. And Geshe-la says, I think he's infected with Madhyamika, you know. In Madhyamika, to exist naturally, to exist by definition, to exist from your own side, these are all totally equivalent.

In Madhyamika thinking, these are all… In Tibetan, there's a word, thingyat. Now, thingyat, you know, in Tibetan, it's come up to you and say, he's my brother, meaning he's a close relation.

You see what I mean? And then you have to ask, do you mean same father and same mother close relation? You know, in Tibetan there's a word…

To give you an example, just an example, okay. In Tibetan, there's a word for true brother, which means same father, same mother brother, as opposed to brother, okay. So he says, in Madhyamika, to give you just an illustration, to exist naturally, to exist by definition, and to exist from its own side, are all brothers with the same father and mother, you know, same father and mother brother, okay.

In other words, they're basically all the same. They are the same thing in Madhyamika. But when you get to mind-only school, very subtle differences between those.

So be careful if you're going to throw up existing naturally.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
In the mind-only school, you got to be very careful here, because when you take those three expressions, to exist by definition, to exist from its own side, and to exist naturally, you have to group them into two. Take these two, exist naturally and exist from its own side, stick it to one side. Exist by definition, stick it to another side.

Why? These latter two, existing from its own side and existing by...existing naturally, in the mind-only school, are said to be true of every existing phenomenon, okay. Every existing phenomenon can be said to exist from its own side and to exist naturally.

That can be said of every existing phenomenon. But it cannot be said of every existing phenomenon, as you now know that it exists by definition. So in the mind-only school, there's a distinction between these phrases.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
He says, it shouldn't be...you shouldn't...what you're saying? This should seem a little weird to you, okay. If it seems a little weird to you, it's good, okay.

If it seems a little weird to say that somebody says, existing by definition, which seems to mean to exist from its own side, and existing from its own side, which is stating to exist from its own side, and existing naturally, which it seems to mean from existing from its own side, you should be thinking, I don't quite get it. I don't quite see much distinction between those, to where the mind-only school thinks you have to divide them into two groups. And the fact that Chilt was going like that, and seemed to have a little problem with that, is a good sign, because any normal person should be having a little bit of a problem with these three, because they seem to be very similar, seem to be almost the same thing.

[Говорящий 2]
Now, what's the difference in the mind...okay, mind-only school.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay, okay, I'm talking mind-only. I'm just talking mind-only. I'm just talking mind-only school, okay?

Just talking mind-only school. From the mind-only school point of view, what is the difference between these two, existing from its own side and existing naturally, and this, which is to exist by definition, okay? Don't forget that existing by definition in the mind-only school means to exist from its own side through some unique nature of its own, okay?

But these two, in the mind-only school, are described differently. They say, thani tathagat sarve tenay nye, which you've had before. When you look for the thing that's given the name, you do find something, ultimately.

Okay, so in their school, these two can be described, something exists from its own side, something exists naturally, when you can go looking for the thing that got the name, and ultimately you do find something. Okay, you do find something. That's what it means in this school, to be existing from your own side, or to existing naturally.

And they say everything does. Okay, so, in the mind-only school, if a guy comes up to you and says, anything that exists from its own side, or they could have said, take anything that exists naturally, anything that exists from its own side, or anything that exists naturally, must be such that it exists by definition, what are you going to say? Whoa, we'll say it again.

Everything that exists naturally from its own side, in the mind-only school's interpretation of that, must then exist by definition.

[Говорящий 2]
My job, sir.

[Говорящий 1]
Oh, now you've loaded yourself up with extra load. You've got an extra job. You just created an extra job for yourself.

Cho. We've got to show you. It would be a lot easier if you say, yes, yeah, I agree, yeah, there's no extra job, you don't have to do anything at all.

Cho. Oh, you're in trouble. Okay.

Okay, go ahead.

[Говорящий 2]
I don't know. I'll say.

[Говорящий 1]
Huh?

[Говорящий 2]
He's like, he's like you.

[Говорящий 1]
He's like, he's like you. That's a real, that's a real interpreter. I figured him.

I told him, I told him that you said it. Well, what would be the problem if we put, if we said, now he's giving you another doctor, that doctor to deal with, what would be the problem if you said, Now, think about it. Is there a problem if you say, what if...

That's your whole problem. When I said, it's necessarily the case, and then you said, it's not necessarily the case, and then you brought an example which proves that it is necessarily the case. That's your problem.

I was looking for something which was one and was not the other, and then you gave me one which was blocked. So, that's your problem. You guys got it?

Any problem with that? Everybody's okay with that? Okay, do you think?

So, what would you give as an example instead of this? Oh, yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
He says, okay. He says, oh, same thing. Somebody says contract, somebody says the unchanging thing.

Same thing. DIGGY MARE SAS DIGGY MARE SAS YONG DUG CHU CHEN GARANG SRIGYUR DU RTAG PA SREY ANI DIGGY MARE NASA NASA, NASA, NASA He says, we have to stop here because they're calling us to the assembly to do our thing here. We got an extra hassle, extra issue has been raised by Winston.

She raised the hassle. We'll decide all these things at three o'clock.

[Говорящий 2]
YONG DUG CHU CHEN GARANG SRIGYUR DU RTAG PA SREY ANI DIGGY MARE NASA, NASA, NASA YONG DUG CHU CHEN GARANG SRIGYUR DU NASA, NASA, NASA