Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 16

Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия) · записи курса ↗
Автоматическая расшифровка записи. Возможны ошибки распознавания: имена, тибетские и санскритские слова. Расшифровки постепенно вычитываются.

← пред.все занятия курса след. →

[Говорящий 1]
In the beginning, I said that there is no such thing as a single line, and that it is not possible to have a single line. But if you have a single line, you can have a line. But if you have a single line, you can have a line.

There is no such thing as a single line. You can have a line, but you can't have a single line. It's a very simple concept.

yes, they have to take them out to get another one So ... Let's say that you have a son you have two sons one is between you and your kid What are you going to tell your kid? I will not tell him because you will be talking to your kid yes.

[Говорящий 2]
I will not talk to my kid but i will tell him Hey, how are you?

[Говорящий 1]
I went off into a third expression and said, wait a minute, we were just having a good Yes, that's right. When the spirits come, the beings will feel it, because they know it's there. Therefore, the spirits will come, the beings will feel it, and the spirits will give it the power to pass over the evil spirits.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

So ... Here we go. We're on pace now.

Now, we're up to page 38, line 5, where Jeffrey Coffin is summarizing what R. S. Lyman is saying when he describes what it is to over-rate something and under-rate something, okay, or discount something.

So he says, deva-tena means therefore, when we say that any state of mind which says that constructs exist ultimately, right, then that would be what we call over-rating, or attributing existence where there is no existence. And then the opposite of that, which would be with regard to the other two groups, which are changing things and emptiness itself, which are things which actually are, do exist by definition, am I right? To say that those things don't exist by definition would be kunda, or under-rating something.

So, over-rating is to take the constructs and say that they do exist by definition. Under-rating would be to take the other two groups, changing things and emptiness itself, and claim that it didn't exist by definition. Which Jeffrey Coffin says, even though the wording is a little bit different, existing by definition and existing ultimately are the same thing, and not existing by definition and not existing ultimately are the same thing.

And then Geshe-la went back to page 37, in the first few lines there, and they're explaining what it means to over-rate something, or to see something when something's not there. And even though they don't use the word ultimate there, and they're more flirty with words like exist by definition, he says, on page 38, he says, Therefore, in the mind-only school, we can describe over-rating as taking that thing which doesn't exist ultimately, and saying it does exist ultimately, in an ultimate way. And we can take those other two groups that do exist ultimately, and then putting them down and saying that they don't exist ultimately is the other extreme.

So, therefore, Jethro Coffin very distinctly describes these extremes in terms of existing or not existing ultimately, and misinterpreting or misidentifying things as whether they exist ultimately or not. And that's basically his thought. Now he's going to talk a little bit about the difference between ultimate and deceptive.

You guys just had the idea of deceptive as opposed to ultimate-like reality, right? And now we'll go ahead and we'll have a little bit, we'll get into this new thing about deceptive reality, or what is the difference between ultimate and deceptive. Oh, and that reminds me, speaking of ultimate, you know, I think that we had a little bit to get enough to overview to you guys.

It probably relates to that idea about taking changing things and emptiness itself over here, and trying to decide whether or not they exist ultimately. Why? Because we had something about that, the emptiness thing existing ultimately or not existing ultimately.

So, let's go, I'm not sure we can go back to that. I remember we had some arguments. We didn't quite decide, did we?

So Geshe-la points out that on page 37, in the first couple of lines, we did not have ... Remember they were talking about the nature of the words, which are used for the labeling or something like that? And we, after much discussion, we figured out that they are talking about constructs, which is the construction and not really the constructing words.

And we decided to reinterpret those words, constructing words, as meaning construction. And then we got into the next line, line 2 on page 37. Arya-sangha describes them as, if you took something which did not exist definitively and described it as existing definitively, then you would have the problem of gondos, or attributing some existence where there is no existence.

So, Jeta-kappa and Geshe-la point out that Arya-sangha doesn't actually use directly the word by definition or definitively. And rather, Jeta-kappa says, we'll plug in here the word ultimately or not existing ultimately. Same thing.

Arya-sangha says, if you took something which did not exist definitively and described it as existing definitively, then you would have the problem of gondos, or attributing some existence where there is no existence. Don't forget on page 37, line 4, we were starting to discuss Shen-wangs, right, changing things in terms of several descriptions. One was that it was, for example, the basis which got the label, right, the basis for the laboring process or the construction process.

And then we said that Shen-wangs, or dependent things, had their own nature of being beyond expression. And we went into the meaning of beyond expression. Then we got into something that said, where he described them as those functioning things which exist absolutely, perfectly, ultimately.

Okay? Ultimately. So, to take things like Shen-wangs, changing things, which do exist ultimately, and then to say, no, no, they don't exist ultimately, which is what who says?

What they say, people come along and say that, they don't exist ultimately, about things which do exist ultimately, then they are incurring the second fault. They are holding the second string, which is to say, something isn't there when it really is there. Now, Geshe-la Kappa wants to point out, Geshe-la wants to point out, Geshe-la Kappa, in the middle of page 38, is saying, now in the second case, they haven't used the wording by definition, existing by definition.

They've used the wording existing ultimately. So, see the difference? When you're talking about attributing existence where there is no existence, they talked about things which didn't exist by definition, and saying they do exist by definition.

Then when they got to denying existence, which really was there, they talked about things that didn't, I'm sorry, did exist ultimately, and you're saying they didn't exist ultimately. So in one case you're using, to describe the process of attributing something when there is nothing, you're using the wording by definition. When you're denying the existence of something which really is there, you're saying, ultimately.

Geshe-la Kappa just wants to point out that you need to describe these words by definition. You might as well say the same thing. It doesn't matter which wording you use.

They both come out to the same thing. Yes. Page 37, line 5, when they're reporting the actual wording of the Surisakha Bhumi, in there they say, that which is beyond expression, that which exists in an ultimate way, that which is perfectly existing in an ultimate way.

And then they said, lophos, meaning functional thing, right? Which refers to Shenhuang. Changing things, things which is caused, produced things, functional things, all the same, right?

So it's interesting here that they don't mention numbers, right? They don't mention emptiness. They're talking about schools of thought in which you deny the existence of something which really is there.

What are they denying here? They're denying that Shenhuang, functional things, exist by definition, right? Or exist here, they say, not so much by definition, they say ultimately.

When you deny that these things exist ultimately, when they really do exist ultimately, you're incurring the fault of saying something's not there when it really is there. But nowhere in these actual quotations, right, does Arya Sangha actually mention that ultimate things, I'm sorry, that emptiness itself does not exist ultimately, or that some people, meaning the Prasangika state it doesn't exist ultimately. So, what's happening here?

He's talking about the process of Prasangika refusing something which really is there, with regard to functional things and changing things, Shenhuang. Nowhere here does Arya Sangha say, they deny that with regard to emptiness. It should have been in here, right?

It doesn't come here, right? But they do deny that. They do say emptiness itself doesn't exist ultimately, right?

But he says, because we know, because everybody knows that those two groups hang together, Shenhuang and Yongzhu, changing things and emptiness itself, everybody knows they do hang together. So, when some group like the Prasangikas come along and attacking the Mainolian thing, one of those two partners doesn't exist by definition, or doesn't exist ultimately, which is kunda, right, which is refusing something which is really there, then they must be saying it about an older boss. They must be saying it about their new boss.

And Jatakappa says that. So, kunda is refusing something which is really there, and refusing something which is really there, and refusing something which is really there, then they must be saying it about an older boss, which is refusing something which is really there, and refusing something which is really there. Yes.

So now, Jatakappa goes on, line 7, at the end of line 7 on page 38, and he says, the first one is deceptive, and the other two exist ultimately. Deceptive means constructs don't exist ultimately. That's what he means when he says the first one is deceptive.

And then he goes on to say the other two do exist ultimately, which means referring to changing things and to emptiness itself. And when you discount something with regard to the latter two, what you're saying is the opposite. You're saying they don't exist ultimately.

Actually, they do exist ultimately. Actually, they do exist by definition. And when you go ahead and say they don't exist by definition, or they don't exist ultimately, that's what it means to put them down, or to discount something about them, which is actually there, and you say it's not there.

So, I want you to think about it, and I want you to answer me, OK? Now we've had, for the first time, a distinction between deceptive and ultimate. Somebody has said, oh, the first is that one is deceptive, and that's our ultimate.

How many categories within each of those two, deceptive and ultimate, would you pop? If I came up to you and said, you know, what do we put in the first one? Deceptive category, ultimate category, what would you say?

What would be natural reaction? In this country. I don't want other countries.

Is this a communal statement? You two, inside. What do you say?

Are you agreeing with her? You have to now learn that there's a, you know, I told you before that you have to make a distinction between ultimate and ultimate reality. Ultimate things and ultimate reality.

And now you have to make a corresponding distinction between deceptive and deceptive reality. A distinction between deceptive and deceptive reality. He's trying to remember what Elizabeth said when he asked, what is that thing which exists ultimately, but which is not ultimate truth?

And what was his reply? He said, it is the ultimate, but it's not ultimate reality. Wait, no, no, no.

I didn't say ultimate reality. Mine's ultimate reality. What else could that be?

It could be a lot of words. That's fine, that's fine. That means that you have one left over that you were trying to pass on.

Didn't you have one that you were trying to pass on? It's time to face the truth. Something which was ultimate, but which was not ultimate reality.

To me, you said that's how the ultimate reality is. I think it's a different concept. Obviously, truth is unchanging.

He said that it's an example of everything. Not every unchanging thing. It is an example of something that doesn't have a sense of existence by definition, because there is emptiness.

It includes the unchanging. Somebody over here said unchanging things. And Winston disagrees.

You were saying, he said unchanging things are an example of something that is ultimately existing but not ultimate truth. No, that's not true. I think it's an example of something that you didn't do.

Right. It doesn't even have any physical significance. Then, Damsen, you're a kid.

I can tell you, you're a kid, but you can't say a lot. Stop it. He has an example of something that's really interesting.

It's really interesting. He asked for something that was an example of a thing that did not exist by definition. Someone said Stockholm.

And I was saying, like, not everything is Stockholm. It does not exist by definition. The only thing that does exist is the same thing.

So in that sense, it's interesting, because it's hard to explain. I'm not going to explain it, but I'm going to explain it. So I'm going to explain it.

I'm going to explain it. I didn't know you were talking English. Hahahah Dandera, dandera, dandera You sure are funny Such a nice guy And then, you know, they tell us Chandam does yoon geun Dieogy, diegy marrida Chandam did.yeah Chandam does yoon geun Chandam dimba myin geun hula Ask yong, shan Chandam do yeung Chandam dimba Okay, I'm all confused about whether you're talking about this money. Anyway, let's go back to the beginning. Something which exists ultimately, but something which is not ultimate reality, not fiction, but digital. Let's do a bit of a converse, okay?

Let's do a switch here. Find me something which is disjustful reality, and which does not exist in disjustful reality. Because I'm a yunkei, I'm going to go through my yin.

I want to switch. Shana. Are you yunkei?

[Говорящий 2]
Shana.

[Говорящий 1]
How do you say again what you said, Shana? It's... Okay, we're going to get to the gutter here.

Do you take it as part of kundal jamba or not? It is made up of such reality, but it does not exist in such yin.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Shana. You're right on both regards. Now, why can we say that changing things or creating things do belong to deceptive reality?

Very simple. They don't make it into the group of things that belong to ultimate reality. Why?

Only young groups do, okay? Only emptiness gets to be in the category called ultimate reality. Therefore, by the default, it makes it into the category called things which are deceptive reality.

Now, on the other hand, does it exist deceptively? Is it a thing which exists deceptively? No, it is not.

Why? Hey, go to the text, line 7, end of the line. It says, first one is deceptive, and the other two exist ultimately.

You don't have to figure it out. You can go straight to the text here. It says only the first one exists deceptively.

Good time. Okay. So therefore, you don't have to think about it much.

He said only the first one exists deceptively. Good time. So, chenwangs must not exist deceptively.

They must exist ultimately. Right on both counts. So, if you think about it, chenwangs, or changing things, make it into both categories, right?

They are the thing which is not ultimate reality, but which does exist ultimately. And they are the thing which is deceptive reality, but doesn't exist deceptively. So, they make it into both.

That's kind of cool. Okay. Oh, by the way, he kept saying deceptive reality as described in this content.

[Говорящий 2]
Right. Right.

[Говорящий 1]
Right. Time to make another star next to your nose, okay? We just got to a point here that said chenwangs, or changing things, do not exist...

I'm sorry. Are not deceptive. They do not exist as something deceptive, okay?

By the way, I'm not talking about deceptive reality, okay? Forget that. Put that aside for now, okay?

I'm not talking about deceptive reality. They are deceptive reality. They are a kind of deceptive reality.

They are an example of deceptive reality. Now, right here we just got finished saying they don't exist deceptively. I'm sorry.

Yeah, they don't exist deceptively, okay? They don't exist deceptively. Now, later on in the text, later on down here, somebody's going to come along and start talking about some kind of deceptive existence that they do have.

Somebody else is going to come along and start talking about a deceptive sort of existence that does apply to changing things. So put a mark here. Don't forget.

Remember where we said here they don't have any nature of being deceptive. And then later on we're going to get something else coming up where it talks about some kind of deceptiveness that they do have. I know two of you are taking off for Russia before our next class, so I know it doesn't much do my good to make a mark here, but there won't be anybody to look at the mark later.

Anyway, make a mark anyway.

[Говорящий 2]
Thank you. Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay. Now the next line. This is 8th line down on page 38.

This is kind of cool. Jethro Koppa says, you know, when you talk about the act of refusing something that really does exist, right? What do we call it?

Discounting something, right? Discounting something which really is there. What did we discuss discounting about?

You know, what was it that we used as the basis of the discounting? It was shenwangzi. It was things that had causes, things that were produced.

And what did we say about it? Those things actually do exist ultimately, and that state of mind says they don't exist ultimately. Okay, so keep that in your mind.

When you're talking about discounting, you're looking at things which, you're looking at changing things, which really do exist ultimately, and you're saying about them they don't exist ultimately. Now, Jethro Koppa says, wheel around 180 degrees and shoot your arrow. That's what the word daedang means, okay?

You know, you've been aiming here and shooting here, and then just close your eyes and whip around 180 degrees and let go of your arrow, you know? Shoot the other one. What is the opposite?

What is the direct opposite of that? It would now be to take a different basis, which is kunzang, okay? Kunzang, which really don't exist ultimately.

And then if you do say they do exist ultimately, then you've got the 180-degree opposite state of mind, which is that which sees something where there is nothing, okay? Kunzang. So it says, you want to know what kunzang is?

Kortendorf is aimed at these objects and thinks that these things don't exist about them. And then kunzang, flip around 180 degrees, thinks about its brother, which is construct, which is the opposite, that there isn't something about them, sorry, which is there is something about them which isn't there. That's how you can think about these two extremes, these two ways of holding the two extremes.

When I was describing it in terms of an arrow, there's an expression here that says deiton, okay? That da is not the word for arrow. It's exactly the same pronunciation, okay?

A three-day-old da, third column, right? But I'm not implying that that's the word for arrow, okay? That's an expression meaning to do a 180-degree turn.

And I don't want you to think that I meant this other spelling than arrow. It's simply an expression for a 180-degree turn or direct opposition or direct flip-flop. That's just an expression.

The meaning of the words from 6th line up in the bottom on page 38, when they say gup gyur mi, that's this point in the text, in this particular context, they are referring to the bodhisattva levels of Arya-sangha. So in the bodhisattva levels of Arya-sangha, when Arya-sangha is describing the state of mind which attributes something existing, there is no existence there, right? He's talking about constructs, and he's talking about the state of mind that says about a construct, which in reality does not exist by definition, the state of mind that attributes existing by definition to something, which does not actually exist in definition.

Now, in that particular wording, in that particular section of Arya-sangha text, he has not said to take something like constructs which don't exist ultimately, and to think they exist ultimately. He hasn't used that wording. But we all know that it boils down to the same thing, since it's just a couple.

Once you've said about something that it exists by definition, in this school of means, you must also be saying that it exists ultimately. So, you know, it's not incorrect to describe that state of mind as looking at constructs which do not exist ultimately, and saying they don't exist ultimately, okay, I'm sorry, looking at constructs which don't exist ultimately, and saying they do exist ultimately, that's describing that state of mind in that way, rather than describing it with the words that are actually used in the text of the Bodhisattva words, wherein it says, only take something that doesn't exist by definition, to think it does exist by definition, okay?

I don't think that's a good way to put it. I don't think that's a good way to put it. Looks like you had some kind of issue there, and if you want to, we'll get to it later.

All of what we just said relates only to that state of mind which is seeing something there when there is nothing there.

[Говорящий 2]
I don't know what you're talking about.

[Говорящий 1]
Now you can take the same wording, I mean, the exact same wording, starting with chapter 0, 6 lines from bottom of 38, wherein Geshe-la Kapil was trying to explain that if you held something to exist by definition, or didn't exist by definition, you are metaphorically holding that it exists ultimately, when it doesn't exist ultimately, right? Now just take that same wording, says Geshe-la, take out all of those adjectives and stuff, and you can reverse it to fit the other one, you see? You can say, in this case, when Arya Nisargadatta says, the discounting state of mind is focusing on now, instead of kundak-shenron, right?

So now you've got all these substitutions, you say, just go around and substitute. Instead of saying the overrating state of mind, say the discounting state of mind, when you describe it as something which looks upon something which is actually existing ultimately, instead of saying, didn't exist ultimately, right? And it holds it to be ultimate, I'm sorry, holds it not to be ultimate, where you would have said, holds it to be ultimate before, it's no problem that we don't use the corresponding phrase, exists by definition, instead of, you know, and existing by definition, because once you hold something to not to be existing ultimately, you are already holding it not to be existing by definition.

So that's the whole reverse, the total reverse, you plug in those words and just do substitution there. You know, it's not that Jetsun Kappa says that directly, that you can play a substitution game here and it will all come out very cool, this is my own idea, it's not that Jetsun Kappa said it, and it's not that I've discovered something about the text, it's not that I've discovered something about the text. Why, when Arya Asanga discards the overrated state of mind, he uses the language, takes something which doesn't exist by definition, and sees it to exist by definition, and then when he gets to the opposite state of mind, which is a truly in-time existence where there is no existence, he says, something which does exist ultimately, doesn't exist ultimately, which is discounting, right?

When he gets to the discounting mind, he uses the word ultimately or not ultimately, right? Takes something which does exist ultimately, he says it doesn't exist ultimately, right? Why does he use synonymous terms with the overrated state of mind, which exists by definition and doesn't exist by definition, with the underrated state of mind, discounting state of mind, which doesn't exist ultimately, doesn't exist ultimately?

Why didn't he just use the same word? You know, why didn't he either use of, which doesn't exist ultimately, doesn't exist ultimately, or why didn't he just use, and with everything, does exist in a different way, doesn't exist ultimately? Why didn't he use different words?

One kind of wording all of this was, state of mind, and the other set of words existed among what? He wants you to know they're equivalent. You see?

He wants you to know that you could have taken all these words and put them over here. He's trying to, Geshe-la Kapa is telling you, Arya Sangha has another, what do you call it? Arya Sangha has a, another, there's another agenda here.

There's another hidden agenda here. He's trying to get you to appreciate the fact that existing by definition and existing ultimately are the same thing. That you could have gone, you could have switched them freely.

You could have substituted those words for each other. And that not existing by definition and not existing ultimately are exactly the same thing. Also, this is like a hidden agenda of Arya Sangha in these quotations that he's trying to get you to ask yourself, now why did Arya Sangha give you that word over there and he wanted you to come to sensitivity or realization.

He couldn't just give you one. They mean the same thing. So in a way, you know, we've used...

When Geshe-la says two expressions to get to four meanings, what he means is, over on this side when you say doesn't exist by definition, you are meant to understand over on this side doesn't exist ultimately. When they say on this side doesn't exist ultimately or something, you are meant to understand over on this side has an implied meaning that doesn't exist by definition. So just with two sets of phrases, you get, each one implies the other, you get a total of four.

So out of two sets of phrases, you get four different meanings. I get four out of two again by saying that, you know, a lot of children say maybe four comes down to two, but I think two comes down to four. You've got directly stated over here, overrating using certain language, which to me implies an implied underrating over here with the same language, and then you've got the reverse.

You've got over here an underrating using another set of words, then relating to an overrating over here with the same set of words. So with two explicit expressions, you've got four implicit and explicit expressions. For me, it's two leading to four.

It could be four, five, six, a hundred, who knows.

[Говорящий 2]
What does that mean?

[Говорящий 1]
You are getting me power tonight. You are my Yama. You are expelling some evil influence.

I mean, this is a good sign. It's coming up. Something's coming up.

When they talked about underage, right? Saying something's not there when it is there, they only said it directly in regard to changing things or dependencies, right? They didn't say it directly in regard to emptiness or what we call totality.

But, in these lines here it says, oh, the first one is deceptive and the second two are ultimate. So, there, they are saying, they do mention them both together as being ultimate. So, Jessica Copeland says, now where do I, how do I jump from one to the other, okay?

You may be asking yourself, okay? They didn't mention it directly with the state of mind which underrates something, that it does so in regard to emptiness itself. Back here, it did talk about the first one relates to deceptiveness and the second relates to ultimate, right?

So, the second two relate to ultimate. So, we're going to go there and explain how Jessica Copeland made the leap from one to the other.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
So, why is it that the bodhisattva level, when they talked about the state of mind which is discounting something and saying about dependencies, which actually do exist ultimately, but they don't exist ultimately, then how is it that I, Jessica Copeland, know that he's applying that to emptiness also, to totality also? Well, the case is that if it were true that just like changing things, let's put it this way, if changing things became something that didn't exist ultimately, then emptiness itself also would become something that didn't exist ultimately, because they are the same case, okay? Whatever applies to one applies to the other, okay?

If that, according to that state of mind, if that discounting state of mind were true, and if somehow, Shenlong, changing things, became things that didn't exist ultimately, then emptiness also would become something that didn't exist ultimately. And that's why I think you just throw them in together. Because whatever's true of one is true of the other.

So if you're holding, if the state of mind that discounts one were true, were correct, then it would automatically be true when it discounts the other. So let's put them together. Is that okay with you guys?

Got it? You two guys strike me like history. You remind me of kids, because when kids first get some kind of treat or a piece of candy from somebody, they immediately grab it in their mouth and start chewing on it and not listen to anything else.

But then, if somebody starts talking about some really beautiful story, you know, they're halfway through their talk-a-fire, and they're like, and then they catch it, and somebody's saying some really beautiful story about something, and then they're like, then they're like watching them, and they're thinking them, and they got this half-eaten candy bar in their hand. You guys are like that. When I get into a nice point, an interesting point, you start staring at me like that, and you stop writing.

And I feel like I'm going to have a piece of milk in my mouth. But don't be kids, okay? This morning you were like, uh, secretary, like pounding it out, you know, and like taking thousands of notes.

You're two guys. And then this afternoon you're like the kids with the half-eaten candy. Just kidding.

Now, Jethro Koppa is not just satisfied with Linnea's act. He doesn't want you to think that he's just making up this thing about whatever they said, whatever somebody refused about changing things, they would automatically be refusing it about emptiness itself, right? That's what they were essentially doing.

If it were true that changing things could be something that exists by, that didn't exist by definition, it would also have to be true that emptiness didn't exist by definition either. I'm not just throwing it in by myself. I got scriptural authority, okay?

Line 5, page 39, the middle of the line, Changsha Day, I mean, in the Bodhisattva Levels themselves, and that's just by Master Sangha, he himself says, suppose you were going to discount things like anything, starting with physical matter, right? And just by discounting the functional things in that group of all objects including physical matter, just by discounting the functional things, you would also be discounting ultimate reality or emptiness itself. So, he said himself, here, right here, if you decided that functional things or changing things were not something that existed by definition, then you would also have to be saying that emptiness itself was not something that existed by definition.

If you said that changing things didn't exist ultimately, then you would have to be saying that emptiness itself didn't exist ultimately either. Okay, that's a direct quotation from Changsha Bodhisattva Levels. that state of mind is to take something which does exist and refuse it to exist as complete.

Because generally that's how we describe that state of mind. Now, is it the case that the Madhyamika Prabhupada Gita, that the higher half of the Middle Way school, is saying about changing things, shenwang, dependent things, that they don't exist at all? Is that what it means, in this case, for them to coin death?

Is that what it means, in this case, for them to discount something here? No. We're not saying, us mind-only guys and the Bodhisattva models are not saying that, we're not accusing the Madhyamika Prabhupada Gita of saying that functional things or changing things don't exist at all, although that's a general description of what the coin death state of mind is.

You know, the coin death state of mind in general says about something which does exist it doesn't exist. The point here, though, is not to accuse the mind-only school of saying, oh, look, changing things do exist, and you Madhyamika Prabhupada Gita people say that they don't exist. We're not accusing them of that.

We're accusing them of saying about something which does exist ultimately that it does not exist ultimately. That's what we're saying. We're not saying coin death, we're not saying discount in its normal sense of saying that that particular object doesn't exist.

We're saying coin death in the sense that they take a particular feature of that object, which is its fact that it exists ultimately, and then they say that it doesn't exist ultimately. So that's the distinction here. They're not accusing...

they don't accuse the Madhyamika Prabhupada Gita of saying that sarvas don't exist at all. Rather, they are accusing the Madhyamika Prabhupada Gita of coin-deafing them in the sense of saying that they don't exist ultimately when they do exist ultimately. That's the easy point.

Now we don't have to discuss much. That's a pretty obvious point. So in this context, think about it.

I want an answer, okay? Who is it that this counters? Who's it that this counters?

I'm looking for a philosophical person to mention in this. Who is it? Uma can tell you.

Answer me, okay? Are they saying, are the Madhyamika Prabhupada Gita saying, shenwa sarva-gupta? Do you think so?

So, when we accuse them of discounting something, what are they discounting? Good. That's all that this discusses, I think.

Case closed. Let's move on. You know, we're going to do just like computers.

I don't know exactly how computers work, but probably I would guess that as you keep loading in new stuff every time, the old stuff keeps moving up and down the screen or something. So, you know, we kept typing in stuff, we kept having more stuff, and now we're pushing all the old stuff back, and now we're getting to new stuff. I'm a person who has completely no idea about how computers work.

But having heard about computers and what happens when you keep typing on them, I'll just give you some examples. The second big division here, okay? We promised to go into a long discussion of what it meant to discount something and what it meant to overrate something.

And we've been through that. We've been through a detailed discussion of how it is that the mind overrates something. We've been through a detailed discussion of how it is that the mind discounts something.

Now, we get into the mind-only school version of how to avoid those first two. Now we talk about how to eliminate the state of mind that looks at those things in those first two, and how we arrive at, in the middle there, the mind-only school idea of what it is for something to be empty.

[Говорящий 2]
I'm a person who has completely no idea about how computers work. But having heard about computers and what happens when you keep typing on them, I'll just give you some examples. We promised to go into a long discussion of what it meant to discount something and what it meant to overrate something.

And we've been through a detailed discussion of how to avoid those first two. Now we talk about how to eliminate the state of mind that looks at those things in those first two, and how we arrive at, in the middle there, the mind-only school idea of what it meant to overrate something. And we've been through a detailed discussion of how to avoid those first two.

Now we talk about how to eliminate the state of mind that looks at those things in those first two, and how we arrive at, in the middle there, the mind-only school idea of what it meant to overrate something. And we've been through a detailed discussion of how to avoid those first two. Now we talk about how to eliminate the state of mind that looks at those things in those first two, and how we arrive at, in the middle there, the mind-only school idea of what it meant to overrate something.

Somebody's touching Shaggy.

[Говорящий 1]
Oh boy, here he goes. Okay, so, here he's going to say how to avoid those first two, right? And in the wording at...

He says, by the way, beginning from the sixth verse of the Bible, he says, well, if that's what it is to overrate something, and if that's what it is to discount something, well then how do I get rid of those two tendencies? You know, how do I avoid those two tendencies? And the answer is, well, let's talk about the extreme of overrating something, okay?

The extreme of overrating something. And we're going to discuss that thought, right, that doesn't exist, right? That the object which the overrating state of mind holds to doesn't even exist, right?

Here's how we take off in our description of it, okay? Here's a pretty general description of it. There's the fact...

Here we go, back to Justice. I hate to keep picking on Justice, but we've got to go back to Justice, okay? The fact that tashi is the thing that we call tashi, okay?

The fact that tashi is the thing that we call tashi. Now, if that... the fact that that doesn't exist by definition...

Okay, I'm sorry, let's do it again. The fact that tashi is what's called tashi, right? Imagine if that did exist by definition.

Which it doesn't, okay? If that did exist by definition, that existing by definition is gacha, right? The absence of that with regard to tashi.

The fact that tashi doesn't present any nature of being a tashi, which is called tashi by definition... Now think about that, okay? Right?

It's essential, right? The fact that tashi is not someone about whom we can say, tashi is the thing we call tashi, and that exists by definition, okay? The fact that that doesn't apply to him is tashi's yonji.

It's tashi's yonji. In what sense?

[Говорящий 2]
You understand?

[Говорящий 1]
I'm going to take an illustration and we're going to crack open the door to a marimika school just a bit, just crack it open a bit, go in there, bring out a demonstration, an illustration, okay, just an illustration from them, okay. Go to that middle way door, come back and say, remember that state of mind that holds things to be truly here. Think about the state of mind, according to marimika, which holds things to be truly existing.

If that state of mind is there and you're looking at it, you know, and you want to remove that state of mind, if you want to eliminate that state of mind, all you have to do is take it and say, hey, look, look here, things don't exist truly. Show it, the fact that things don't exist truly, that that state of mind which does hold things to exist truly has to stop, has to be cut off, has to be avoided or prevented, okay? So, if you have a state of mind which is holding things that exist truly and you want to stop it, all you have to do is pull out something and say, look, here's something that doesn't truly exist.

And then that state of mind has to disappear. If you can demonstrate that something doesn't exist truly to the state of mind that thinks that things do exist truly, then that state of mind has to go away. And by the way, one thing I forgot to mention in that last one is that in marimika, the state of mind that holds a thing to be truly existing is an overrating state of mind.

Because it's seeing something that truly exists when there is no truth, okay? Now we go back to our school, the mind-only school, and it's looking at something very simply stated. To say it very simply, the construct which doesn't exist does not apply to changing things, okay?

Let's say it again. Those constructs which don't really exist do not apply to changing things. But there's a state of mind which holds that they do apply to changing things, okay?

It sees nonexistent constructs as applying to changing things. All you have to do to that state of mind is say, look, they don't apply, okay? And then that state of mind has to go away.

If you can demonstrate that the non-applicability of those nonexistent constructs to changing things, then automatically the state of mind which is overrating it and believes that it does see some constructs that actually don't exist, a thought changing things, then you stop that state of mind. It will go away. And what do you have to do to reach that state?

What do you have to show for it to understand that? What do you have to show for it to go away? Just emptiness.

The emptiness meaning the non-applicability of nonexistent constructs with regard to changing things.

[Говорящий 2]
That's it.

[Говорящий 1]
He's teaching you how to avoid that state of mind that's overrating something, right? The first state of mind. And he doesn't go into that much detail about how to stop or prevent the state of mind which is discounting something.

So he's putting a lot of effort into showing how to stop the overrating state of mind at this point. He's taking special... remember we said special pains or special care to teach you how to eliminate that particular state of mind.

So if you want to know why Je Tsongkhapa is taking so much pain to teach you how to eliminate or to avoid a state of mind which attributes some existence there, when there is no existence there, the overrating state of mind, remember that in order to stop that state of mind or prevent that state of mind, what do you have to show that state of mind? Emptiness. Emptiness.

Young group, right? You just show it emptiness, you just show it young group, which means the lack of a nonexistent construct with reference to that changing thing, right? The lack.

So don't forget what Je Tsongkhapa's main mission is in this whole book, right? His main mission at this point, what is he trying to do? He's trying to describe to us the mind-only school.

And more particularly, he's trying to describe to us the mind-only school's position about the meaning of emptiness. We're trying to get to emptiness. We're trying to demonstrate what emptiness is.

We're trying to explore emptiness by seeing how this particular school feels about emptiness. So naturally, he has to spend more time on that state of mind which most relates to emptiness. In this case, meaning that state of mind which is prevented or avoided by thinking about emptiness or by demonstrating emptiness.

[Говорящий 2]
I'm not saying that you can't do it.

[Говорящий 1]
He does describe it, and here's how he describes it. First, he takes an example. He takes off by an example.

Think about it. When you discuss a person like any particular person, right, when you're talking about any particular person, first you take the parts of that person, and then you label it that person, right? So, you've got to have the parts of the person, and when you discuss or talk about any particular person, first you focus on their parts, and then you label them with that person's name, and then you start talking about the person.

That's how you arrive at any particular person, okay? But suppose, and that, and those five parts or five heaps of a person provide the basis, provide the thing to be listed. They provide the thing to be labeled, and then you label it, and then you start talking about the person.

But supposedly, like, pull the rug out and took away those five parts of the person. Could you then talk about the person? Or could you then even think about the person in terms of a label, you see?

Could you then call them somebody? If you just pull them all out. Pull out all the five heaps, do them out.

Could you then be talking about such and such a person? Could you then even label them or name them somebody? He says, be careful not to say, Lo Sanchez, in five, don't translate me as five heaps.

I didn't say five heaps. Okay? We said heaps.

Okay? We said heaps. And that's important because, like, in the formless realm, people don't have bodies.

Right? But then it's the four heaps which provide the basis for the label. The four heaps which are being labeled.

There's no five, they don't have five heaps. They have four. So, Lo Sanchez is no, don't go saying five heaps.

All I said was heaps. Heaps is a big deal. Can't do it, right?

So, suppose you pulled out the heaps. Okay? However many there are.

Then could you have a person there? Could you talk about a person there? That's being pulled out by Dekha Kapha as an illustration.

And now, only later is he going to tell us how it relates to what we're talking about. Okay? Now, here comes the relation to what we're talking about.

It's Arya Thanga's wording now when he's getting into the example and the illustration of the heaps. I think he's correcting me and saying, it's not Dekha Kapha Thanga right now. It's actually, these are actual words from Arya Thanga.

Then he starts to say, now page 40, line 2, he begins to explain something. He says, all those, similarly, right? Similar to that illustration.

Okay? Similar to that illustration. If you take all existing phenomena, it says, well, it actually says here, functional things among all existing phenomena.

And if you were to remove them, then let's say, if you removed all shenwams, right? If all the things which change, if all the things which are produced were removed, then there wouldn't be any way in which they could be labeled with constructs. That means the labels could never be applied to them.

Constructs could never be applied to them. You couldn't have constructs. And you couldn't have the mind constructing, right?

You couldn't have the mind saying, this is called this. Or thinking about this like this. There couldn't be any labeling or attributing state of mind, constructing state of mind, if there were no changing things to be labeled.

So there wouldn't be any constructs. There wouldn't be any construction state of mind, if there were no changing things around to be labeled or to have constructs about them. In the same way as that other illustration, right?

Don't forget the other illustration.

[Говорящий 2]
If you remove all the shenwams, then there wouldn't be any labels. If you remove all the constructs, then there wouldn't be any labels. If you remove all the shenwams, then there wouldn't be any labels.

If you remove all the constructs, then there wouldn't be any labels. If you remove all constructs in your mind, it wouldn't be constructs. But if you remove all of them, then all of the labels are the same.

So that there is shadow. You remove all those things. Remove all them.

Just remove all the constructs, how you put them next to each other. Isn't that that kind of logic? Even if you remove all the combination of this, then if you don't put it next to each other, materially, if you don't put the shishisha up, You roll it forward, then motivation.

Once you remove all of them, So, if you didn't have shenwangs, right, you couldn't have the kundaks that relate to the mind.

[Говорящий 1]
And if you didn't have changing things to act as a basis, then you couldn't have any constructs about them, and neither could you have any constructing state of mind or any names or labels to make constructs with. And the point here is that, interestingly, there's an extra point here. If you didn't have changing things, then you couldn't have that state of mind anyway, right?

Just one of the changing things. So it's not just that you couldn't have constructs if there were no basis in the constructs. If there were no basis in the constructs, there'd be no changing things.

If there were no changing things, there'd be no mind. Think about them that way. There'd be no words to use to describe the way they work.

So those are other changing things. So those are one more kind of changing things. Now, what we've been getting into is a lot of no, no, no's, OK?

We're saying, if that didn't exist, then this couldn't exist. If shenwangs didn't exist, then kundaks couldn't exist. If you said this didn't exist, then you'd have to say that this doesn't exist.

But don't forget that we're not so much talking about, directly, about shenwangs not existing. That's not what the nature of discounting is here, remember? It wasn't that the umma, that the prophet people were saying, oh, shenwangs don't exist at all.

What were they saying? They were saying, those things don't exist ultimately. Those things don't exist by definition, OK?

If that gets into the extreme of saying that they don't exist at all, then I'm not going to say this. That may, may, may have something to do with it. Shenwang may have something to do with it.

That's why, since we're going to pray, And the point I guess I want to make with this, the actual wording of the Bodhisattva level is not to say that, if you thought that changing things didn't exist by definition, right? The actual wording there is, if you thought that changing things didn't exist at all. See what I mean?

It doesn't say by definition, or ultimately, or anything like that. But Jeta Kappa wants to point out that what they're referring to is, if you thought that changing things didn't exist by definition, right? Because we're talking about the current definition of life, which is not holding that changing things don't exist at all.

It's holding that changing things don't exist by definition. But, so, if you were to say that changing things didn't exist by definition, then you would incur these problems.

[Говорящий 2]
So, that's a, when Bodhisattva level says, if the foundations didn't exist, or if changing things didn't exist, what it's really talking about is, if the foundations didn't exist by definition, if the foundations didn't exist by definition, if the foundations didn't exist by definition, if the foundation didn't exist Discounting what?

[Говорящий 1]
Discounting some fact about Shenlong, right? About changing things or dependency. When they attack somebody, first of all, they're not attacking some...

the wording here is the other guy. The other guy doesn't refer to some non-Buddhist group, but neither does it refer to the first two Buddhist groups of the four. Neither does it refer to the Vaibhashikas, the detailists, nor does it refer to the Sutras.

Why not? Because they would never go and point to the thing that got the label of thoughts and names, right? The thing that received the label either through thought by saying, this is a vase, right?

Or by label, you know, giving it the name vase, right? Giving the name vase verbally or thinking about it as a vase, giving it a name in a sense mentally, right? They wouldn't look at the thing which is called those names, which is a code word for what?

The thing that gets the name, which is a code word for Shenlong, right? Meaning changing things or creating things, right? They would never look at those things and say about them, oh, they don't exist, don't exist.

Those two groups would never do that. Those two groups would never look at the things that get the names and the thoughts, the theme of things, and say about those things that they don't exist. Those groups would never say that.

Therefore, when we say those guys, we're neither referring to non-Buddhist groups, nor are we referring to the first two or the fourth Buddhist groups, the classical Buddhist groups.

[Говорящий 2]
They would say, oh, they don't exist. They don't exist.

[Говорящий 1]
And, you know, who's the people who are accusing other people? By the way, so far we've said the other guys can't be non-Buddhist groups. The other guys can't be the first two groups of classical Indian Buddhism, right?

So, who are the other guys? Who is it? Who are the other guys?

Well, we know who's accusing somebody else of being the other guys, right? We know who's accusing somebody of corrundeping. We know who's accusing somebody else of discounting.

That's the mind-only school, right? They are the accusers. Therefore, they can't be the accusees, can they?

So, that only leaves one group. And Jetsun Kappa says, de na, meaning, therefore, ergo, OK, there's got to be those guys who say that nothing is by definition at all. And who's that?

Oh, well, that's the Madhyamika practice. So, we've identified who it is that they're criticizing when they say, hey, you guys are discounting things. They're talking about the Madhyamika practice.

[Говорящий 2]
OK.

[Говорящий 1]
You may have heard me use, in my, you know, as I'm teaching, I keep saying, Jetsun, Jetsun. Jetsun is the colloquialism for de na. De na means, therefore, and that's why.

Jetsun, Jetsun, the colloquial means, and that's why. Therefore, and you may have heard me say a lot of de na with Jetsun in this class. Now, those guys, who are they talking about?

The Madhyamika practice, OK? So, those guys, by the way, the point here is not, generally speaking, they are not saying that Shen Wang is changing things and all that other stuff. They're not denying that they exist, at all.

They're not saying that they exist. No, Shen Wangs are impossible. Neither are they denying that Shen Wangs exist nominally.

OK? Nominally. So, they're not denying that they exist altogether.

Neither are they denying that changing things exist nominally. What are they denying? They are denying that they exist ultimately.

They are denying that they exist. What they are trying to say, with their existence, is that they exist ultimately.

[Говорящий 2]
Can you show that?

[Говорящий 1]
You're talking about me, right? Maybe we should stop here and let it rest here. And I said, no, no, five minutes, don't waste five minutes.

Especially if people are leaving, don't want to waste any time. And he said, oh, you know what, I just remembered something. I had in mind to give you guys some advice.

You know, Dharma study, Dharma life advice, before you left. I had in my mind that I was going to lay this on you on the last day that you all left. The day before you guys all left, I was going to lay on you some Dharma advice.

Now, I could just do it on the last day that everybody else leaves, and then it would only be reported to Elizabeth and Rob by somebody, rather than spoken to them directly. That's not so cool, just to have it reported to you by somebody else. So, let me say a few direct words.

And Michael will test it. You guys are leaving, so we've got to do it today, OK? I was thinking to do it later, maybe I was going to do it around that way.

Maybe it wouldn't be comfortable for Michael if I started talking about this stuff. Anyway, we're going to talk about it, OK? Very, very general advice for you.

You know, the subject you're studying right now is like ivory tower stuff. You know, it's way up here. This is the airy heights of the deepest kinds of Buddhist philosophy, you know.

And we're floating around up there, we're flying around up there, we're in the top of these towers, and we're discussing these high philosophical concepts. And, you know, that's very good for the intellect part. You need it for the intellect part.

You know, you do have to go up to those high, high lofty places of philosophy and tear apart ideas and think about ideas and understand everything. It's necessary for you to do that. But in your heart, when you're talking about your own Buddhist practice, you have to go down to the lowest common denominator.

You have to go down to start at the beginning and build up the structure of this building from the bottom, from the foundation. So, you know, even though intellectually it's good, and it's necessary for you to go up and fly among these lofty heights of philosophical questions and stuff, in terms of your own Buddhist practice, in terms of your own heart, you have to go down and start from the beginning, you know what I mean? You can start down in the instructions for people of lesser scope.

Go down and start with ideas about how to take refuge, what it means to take Buddhist refuge. In your practice, in your personal life, you have to go down to the beginning and start down there, start from the foundation. So, you know, if you want to talk about your own practice, you have to go down to the lowest common denominator.

So, you know, if you want to talk about really getting an insight into what emptiness means according to the highest schools of Buddhism, according to the consequence group of the Middle Way, the Umar's consensus, nothing to get, right? If you really wanted to get into those and really perceive what it means for something to be emptiness in the highest interpretation, in the highest sense of the word, if you really wanted to see what it was that emptiness meant, And, you know, what do I know about that, you know, I'm just, you know, what do I know about emptiness? You know, I mean, I come to think of it, you know, how could I describe that?

How could I even talk about it? You know, I mean... Anyway, suppose there were somebody who was studying really well, and they wanted to see what the highest meaning of emptiness was, well, then, if they did study the Mind-Only School, if you did get into the Mind-Only School, and if you studied really, really well what they mean by emptiness, in particular, you know, in Middle Way, we're always talking about everything is a projection, everything is a construct of the mind, everything is a projection of the mind. That's a fundamental idea of the highest teachings of Buddhism, you know, that things are a construction of the mind, things are a projection of the mind.

They mean it in a certain sense, but if you go down into the Mind-Only School, and you look into how they describe constructs, that group of things called constructs, as being something which doesn't exist by definition, and in their mind, what that means not to exist by definition, once you get a clear understanding of what the Mind-Only School understands by constructs not existing by definition, then can we say that you're getting closer and closer and closer to understanding what the highest schools of Buddhism say when they say everything is a projection? Yes. And when we talk about emptiness or totality in the Mind-Only Framework, from the Mind-Only State of Mind, right?

From the Mind-Only School, right? State of viewpoints, and when we talked about study, and when didn't we talk about study emptiness in the following terms? The fact that you cannot say about Chashi, that Chashi, the fact that Chashi is what we call Chashi, the fact that that fact doesn't exist by definition, that that condition is what Chashi's emptiness is, got it?

The fact that Chashi is what we call Chashi, the fact that that fact doesn't exist by definition is Chashi's emptiness, right? And then in the higher schools, when you get into saying, I'm sorry, the fact that it doesn't exist by definition is Chashi's emptiness. Then you go up into the higher schools, the middle-weight schools, and you say, nothing in the universe exists by definition.

Nothing exists by definition. Isn't it true? Can't we say that this Mind-Only interpretation of what it means not to exist by definition is that case?

Isn't that getting you closer and closer to understanding what it means when Mahatma Gita says nothing exists by definition? Doesn't it seem to you the case that by studying this when you're getting closer and closer and crossing the threshold into understanding what the middle-weight schools say, when they say nothing exists by definition? And it's also been reported, you know, what do I know?

I don't understand anything, but, you know, people say that those great Indian thinkers of all days, you know, of all the time, they studied the Mind-Only school, they got deep into the Mind-Only school, they understood everything about the Mind-Only school, that that served to aid them in their quest to release tantric realization. You know, they got closer and closer to tantric realization by studying the Mind-Only school. So, that's another incredible reason to study the Mind-Only school.

It has been said, what do I know? You know, I can't confirm it from my own experience, but it's been said that the great thinkers of ancient India used deep insights into the Mind-Only school also to reach up to the realization of tantric practice itself, that very, very secret high practice. There are many things in the world which are called religion, right?

The Tibetan word is dharma, right? I mean, shih. I mean, there's lots of things that are called shih, dharma.

Particularly, you know, all over the world there are many, many different practices of religion. Particularly if you define a religion as something which is an attempt to help people, an attempt to teach people to help each other, an attempt to help people... If you define religion as an attempt not to hurt other people, that's how you define your religion.

We can say that there's a lot of religions in the world, but Buddhism is not the only one. If you define religion as an attempt to help other people, Buddhism may be the only religion around, and all those things qualify as religion. If you look about how is it that Michael was able to do that, you know what I mean?

If you look about how is it that Michael was able to do that, you know what I mean? that he was able to act as the intermediary to allow him to communicate to his students. At the beginning, he didn't know a single thing.

He didn't know absolutely zero. Based on the kindness of his teachers, especially... I'm not even looking at my phone.

What's up? What's up, Adam? He didn't know he was an intermediary to be able to communicate to you at all.

Each day, I'll bring in somebody else to translate. Don't take care of anything without a teacher. Listen.

Listen to this. You won't come to the school, you'll be sent home, you'll be sent to a school, then you won't be called up. If you don't want to go, you won't have any choice.

Since the school was established long time ago, I've always taught here, and ever since I've been here, I've been teaching here. Because he is not from here, he does not know what a community like this is. So, that is one thing I can't do.

Then, the third thing, is that the community should be divided. So, we should be divided into two groups, We will divide ourselves into three groups. Each one will have its own group.

So, we should have each in his own community. The way that Michael studied was magician's way. He studied everything to use it as a reason.

The reason he got to study that well was that he studied it monastic way, which is that he studied it logically, he got into the reasoning of things. The way we do things is we rip them apart, we think carefully, and if you do it that way, it's a long story. It's a very deep ocean, it has a very deep bottom, and that's the way he did it.

And basically he said that he knows that I did that in addition to my normal workload. He said that I did that in addition to my normal workload. He said that I did that in addition to my normal workload.

He said that I did that in addition to my normal workload. He said that I did that in addition to my normal workload. He said that I did that in addition to my normal workload.

He said that I did that in addition to my normal workload.

← пред.все занятия курса след. →