Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 17

[Speaker 2]
Shri Sridharji has a lot of knowledge. That's why I was thinking of cocutting it down into pieces and making a left as well. You are making this, isn't it?

Yes, yes Please keep this as a separate program. I'll show you the other one. You are making it into a circle with this.

Then you make a circle... I'll show you a different one. I'll show one of the different ones first.

I'll show you a different one first.

[Speaker 1]
So just to remind you where we took off from, page 41, fourth line, remember that we're talking about the concept of saying that something is not there when it is there, which is kundapa, so underrating something, discounting something. And again, it's the mind-only school who's accusing someone else of discounting something. And again, the people that they're accusing of discounting something is the higher half of the middle-way school, meaning the consequence of the proscenium school.

So the main problem here comes from the Prasangika, Madhubika Prasangika are saying, you know, everything exists nominally. We can say that nominally things exist, but we cannot say that they exist in a true way, which they also use as a synonym in the middle-way school, upper half of the middle-way school, they would say also, it cannot exist by definition. So they say, nothing exists by definition or nothing exists truly, but everything does exist nominally.

And then the same time that the mind-only school is criticizing them, and they say, now, are you saying that about what kinds of things? Are you saying that about xianwangs, about changing things? And they would say, you are, aren't you?

And then they say, and more specifically among changing things, you can go to mental objects. And again, there are two divisions in mental objects, the main consciousness, which is called sasam, and then the samcungs, which are the various mental functions. So you have your main consciousness, main mind, and then you have all the various functions of the mind, which are sort of secondary states of mind.

So they say, do you agree, you middle-way school people, that these states of mind come from their own causes and conditions? Because if they do, if you say that they do, then they must exist by definition. In the mind-only school, coming from your causes and conditions is a sure sign that that thing must exist by definition.

So they say, are you crazy? First of all, you say that mind and mental functions come from their own causes and conditions, and then secondly, you're trying to say they don't exist by definition? Geshe-la says, be careful not to make a mistake here.

Remember that the mind-only school is criticizing the middle-way school and says, listen, don't you agree that anything that comes from its causes and conditions must exist by definition? You know it must exist by definition. But Geshe-la wants to make sure you don't have the misconception here that they are saying anything that exists by definition must come from its causes and conditions.

Because as you guys know, there are yong duks, there is emptiness itself, which in the mind-only school does exist by definition, but doesn't come from its causes and conditions. So Geshe-la doesn't want you to misunderstand and think that the mind-only school is saying, oh, only those things which come from their causes and conditions exist by definition. They're just saying, listen, it's definite that anything that does come from its causes and conditions must exist by definition.

[Speaker 2]
So Geshe-la wants to make sure you don't have the misconception here that anything that comes from its causes and conditions must exist by definition.

[Speaker 1]
So Geshe-la doesn't want you to misunderstand and think that the mind-only school is saying, oh, only those things which come from their causes and conditions exist by definition.

[Speaker 2]
So Geshe-la doesn't want you to misunderstand and think that the mind-only school is saying, oh, only those things which come from their causes and conditions exist by definition.

[Speaker 1]
So Geshe-la doesn't want you to misunderstand and think that the mind-only school is saying, oh, only those things which come from their causes and conditions exist by definition. So Geshe-la doesn't want you to misunderstand and think that the mind-only school is saying, oh, only those things which come from their causes and conditions exist by definition. So Geshe-la doesn't want you to misunderstand and think that the mind-only school is saying, oh, only those things which come from their causes and conditions exist by definition.

[Speaker 2]
So Geshe-la doesn't want you to misunderstand and think that the mind-only school is saying, oh, only those things which come from their causes and conditions exist by definition.

[Speaker 1]
So Geshe-la doesn't want you to misunderstand and think that the mind-only school is saying, oh, only those things which come from their causes and conditions exist by definition. So Geshe-la doesn't want you to misunderstand and think that the mind-only school is saying, oh, only those things which come from their causes and conditions exist by definition. So Geshe-la doesn't want you to misinterpret and think that true awareness is certain that they cannot grow from their causes and conditions.

And the state of mind in which we see them growing from their causes and conditions must be a mistaken state of mind, it must be an erring state of mind. So, you know, following your logic, oh middle way people, then, since these things don't exist by definition, then the state of mind which thinks that they're growing in all, must be a mistaken state of mind. And then Jetsen Kappa says, this is their idea, on on page 41, on the 8th line from the bottom, Lukde Samsong means, Jatankarpa again is reporting what they think, meaning the minority school.

Again, he says, oh, this is what they think, you know, this is their system, okay, and then the implication is that obviously Jatankarpa doesn't agree with it. But, you know, the minority school is saying, if we follow your middle way of thinking to the extreme, you middle way people saying nothing exists by definition, then the state of mind which thinks it sees things growing must be wrong itself. And then Geshe-la says, of course the middle way people would respond saying, hey, look, just because it exists by definition, doesn't exist by definition doesn't mean it can't grow.

Okay, we say on the one hand that nothing exists by definition, and then we say on the other hand that everything does grow exactly in the way, you know, it does grow, you can't say it doesn't grow, and we don't believe that, but anyway, this is their idea. So, we're repeating the minority, I'm sorry, the middle way people's response to the minority school, they say, look, it's true that things don't exist by definition, but things can nonetheless grow, things do nonetheless stop, so even though they don't exist by definition. So, look, there is a state of mind that can watch something grow and it observes something growing and it can say about that thing that it's growing, and that's not a mistaken state of mind.

And there's another state of mind that can look at another object and say, this thing is stopping, this thing is coming to an end, and it's not a mistaken state of mind. It does see it ending, it is ending, and it thinks of it as ending, and so it is ending. And so you can't say, according to our school, that just because it doesn't exist by definition that we don't believe in things starting and things stopping.

And then the minority school comes along, page 41, fourth line from the bottom, len mi tep te means, don't give us this answer, okay? I mean, they're still criticizing the middle way people, you know, don't give us this kind of answer where you say, oh, nothing exists by definition, but you can still say it grows and stops, because you can see that it grows and stops, and your mind can say it's growing and stopping. Don't give us this stupid answer, okay?

Mi tep te means, don't try to answer us like that. Now the minority school goes ahead and makes another... They say, okay, middle way, don't give me an answer like that.

You know, I can understand what you're trying to say, and I can even illustrate it for you and show you how wrong it is, what you're trying to tell us, okay? This is minority school talking to middle way school. Let's think about a speckled rope that looks as though it were a snake, okay?

In reality, a speckled rope is not a snake, but to the state of mind that thinks a speckled rope is a snake, it looks as though a speckled rope is a snake. So let's use your own examples, let's look at this example that you have. You say that all the growing of things, the starting of things, is like that speckled rope, and you think that the mind is thinking that it's growing, but it's not growing.

Then you're completely crazy. Your example is a bad example. You middle-weight people are in effect saying that the thing doesn't grow at all, okay?

So they're comparing ... the middle-weight school, by the way, never said this, right? They didn't say that there's no growing at all, and that the mind thinks that there's a growing.

They never said that. They just said there's no growing by definition, but that the mind thinks it is growing by definition. But the mind-only people, they're putting words in the middle-weight people's mouths.

You say that the mind looks at things that are growing in the way that the mind looks at a rope and mistakes it for a snake, and then the mind thinks that it's really growing when in effect it's not growing, and they say, that's your example, right? That's your middle-weight guy's favorite example, and we'll throw this example back at you and prove to you that you really believe that things don't grow at all, and that the state of mind that holds that they do is like a state of mind that thinks that a piece of rope is a snake. The mind-only school is not denying that a rope is not a snake, okay?

They do believe that a rope is not a snake. They are using this as an example. They're just trying to throw back to the middle-weight people something that will hurt their position, so that it's not as though the mind-only people, although they're using this as an example, it's not as though mind-only people really do believe that a rope is a snake.

They don't believe that a rope is a snake. They're just trying to use it to twist it back on the middle-weight school, to show the middle-weight school that the middle-weight school thinks that nothing, that the birth of things doesn't exist, or the starting of things doesn't exist, okay? Okay.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. All right, so again, it's 41, third line from the bottom, they're going to start, the mind-only school is going to start criticizing the middle-weight school, not only with regard to the arising of a sprout or something like that, which is what we've been talking about, the starting of something. But now they're going to attack them with regard to the very workings of cause and effect.

They're going to say, look, according to you, you think cause and effect doesn't exist by definition, and here are all the problems you have, that if you don't believe that cause and effect exists by definition. So they're going to move on to a different example, which is the workings of cause and effect. Now the minor way school comes up to the middle way school and says, okay, that was our example, rope and a snake.

And now we'll get down to what the example is meant to represent. So the example is a rope and a snake, and now what the example is supposed to represent or meant to represent is the workings of cause and effect. So if you guys say that cause and effect doesn't exist by definition, then you guys must be saying that cause and effect doesn't work at all.

This is their misinterpretation of the middle way school. If you guys say that cause and effect doesn't exist by definition, you must be saying that cause and effect doesn't work at all. If you say that, then cause and effect in the form of karma and its consequences can't exist either, because you would say also, I suppose, that that doesn't exist by definition either.

So now if we say that karma and its consequences doesn't exist by definition and therefore doesn't work, well then it's not true that if someone does a good deed, they get a good result from it. And if somebody does a bad deed, somebody gets a bad result from it. So according to you middle way people, the very connection between doing something bad and getting a bad result, suffering, and doing something good and getting a good result, which is some kind of pleasure out of it, then according to you, that whole thing must be cancelled, must be non-existent, because karma and its consequences doesn't exist, because cause and its results doesn't exist, because they don't exist by definition according to you. That's the mind-only school's criticism of the middle way.

We are talking, don't forget, from the point of view of the mind-only school. You start slipping into middle way school, you're going to be in trouble here, you're going to get some hassle here. So don't forget, we're in mind-only school.

[Speaker 2]
So don't forget, we're in mind-only school, we're in mind-only school, we're in mind-only school, we're in mind-only school, we're in mind-only school, we're in mind-only school, we're in mind-only school, we're in mind-only school, we're in mind-only school, we're in mind-only school, we're in mind-only school, we're in mind-only school, we're in mind-only school.

[Speaker 1]
If you say that a thing which didn't exist by definition could function, if you say that a sprout could function even though it didn't exist by definition, that it could still function, and if you say that cause and effect could still function even though it didn't exist by definition, then you would be discounting something. We could accuse you of discounting something, you'd be saying that something that was there wasn't there and it still functioned. So that would be discounting something.

And then the middle-weight school says, no, no, we're not discounting anything. It's only if it doesn't exist by definition that a sprout could grow or a cause and effect itself could function. So it's only if we do that, don't tell us we're discounting something because we're not.

And now the mind-only school seems to be coming back to the middle-weight school and saying, okay, we'll take it your way. You seem to be saying that there is a cause and effect which could function even though it didn't exist by definition. Then that would be a case where something caused that didn't exist by definition was creating an effect.

And then they go on. And then the mind-only school is saying, if you decide not to discount this arisal by definition, if you middle-weight people decide not to, if you say we're not discounting arisal by definition, then you must be saying that there must be another way of arising of things other than not existing by definition. So if you are saying, I'm not discounting arisal by definition, and then you're saying, you must be saying that there must be some other way of growing other than existing by definition.

So, in effect, you're saying it does exist by definition, and then you come to our idea of how things cause it. So if you middle-weight people say, we're not discounting anything, then you must be saying that you're now switching over from something other than not existing by definition. And when you switch over, in effect what you're saying is, now cause and effect does work by definition, and not even enough just the way we mind-only people believe.

So that's fine. So you middle-weight, this is mind-only people talking now, right? You middle-weight guys say you're not discounting anything.

So you must be saying that things don't grow through causes and conditions that are existing by definition. And even though you middle-weight guys just don't want to say the words that exist by definition, you're admitting they exist by definition. So you're choosing not to use the words that exist by definition, but you say you're not discounting something when you say that things don't exist by definition, must be starting things.

So you must be saying that, if you say you're not discounting that, then you must be saying that things that don't exist by definition, something other than them is causing the growth or growing things. So you must be saying that things do exist by definition, even though you don't want to use the word that exists by definition, and then you must be also agreeing that things exist ultimately. Because to exist by definition and to exist ultimately is the same thing.

So in essence, what you middle-weight guys are saying, even though you don't want to say it in words, is that all these things, cause and effect, and the growth of a sprout, exist ultimately. That's really what you want to say, even though you refuse to use the words. Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. objects such as changing things, shenwangs, okay. So suppose the middle way school comes along and says, okay, changing things don't exist by definition.

Then what they're saying in effect is that, according to the mind-only school, right, is that they don't exist at all, okay. So if the middle way, this is all mind-only school, right, if you middle way people come along and say that nothing exists by definition, for example, changing things don't exist by definition, then you have to be saying that those changing things don't exist, right? Right.

Okay, and then there can't be a state of mind which is labeling them something or not, because that state of mind itself is a shenwang also, right? And more than that, there wouldn't be anything to put the label on, because there wouldn't be any changing things. So there couldn't be a state of mind which is attaching labels like thinking of things a certain way or speaking of things a certain way, because there wouldn't be anything to give the label to, because according to you it doesn't exist by definition.

So there wouldn't be any basis, there wouldn't be any object which to give a label, whether it was mental or verbal, there wouldn't be any way to give a label to it. And then what would happen? There wouldn't be any labeling state of mind.

The labeling state of mind itself wouldn't exist. So there wouldn't be any labeling state of mind at all. And then, you know, you middle way people go around saying everything is a construct of labels, everything is a projection, everything is a creation of the mind which is labeling things with thoughts and names.

But according to you now, because there's nothing to label with thoughts and names, the state of mind that gives the thoughts and names doesn't exist. Therefore, your whole system, which says that every existing object in the universe is creation or projection of that state of mind, can't be true either. So your whole school starts to get screwed up.

Not only that, but emptiness itself then, which is the absence of any other way of existing, right? Emptiness itself, according to your school, which is the absence of any other way of existing rather than just existing through labels, then that wouldn't exist either. And then there wouldn't be emptiness on all things either, because there wouldn't be any basis for that emptiness anyway.

Okay? So there's a big cycle of criticism, right? There wouldn't be anything to give labels to.

There wouldn't be any state of mind giving it labels. It wouldn't be true that everything was labeled through mind and thought. Then it wouldn't be true that the opposite of that, which is its emptiness, existed with regard to all things.

And even if it did, there wouldn't be anything that could be empty, because those things don't exist either, according to you. So your whole school is screwy, you know? The mind-only school is complaining to the mind-maker school in a big cycle on each stage of how they present things.

They say, your whole school has no foundation at all if you say that cause and effect doesn't exist by definition. And then that's Je Tsongkapa's version on page 42, third line, of what Bodhisattva Levels says on page 39, beginning from the third line. That's his interpretation.

He's presenting very beautifully the mind-only school's complaint against the middle-way school.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,

[Speaker 1]
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes So the students or the disciples for whom the second turn of the wheel was designed are the most intelligent ones, according to the Mind-Knowing School, right? And so, that very difficult to understand sutras, which is referring to the second turn of the wheel, by those who are possessed of the Mahayana.

So, here it says, and which possesses emptiness. So, that which possesses difficulty refers to the second turn of the wheel. That which possesses emptiness, here the wording is possesses emptiness.

What the wording possesses emptiness means here is that it describes as its principal subject matter, emptiness. So, when you say possesses emptiness, it means described as its principal subject matter, emptiness. And when you say difficult to understand, you're saying, that which possesses difficulty, you're saying, which was designed for students of the highest intellectual ability.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes

[Speaker 1]
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes of the mind only school, and they're not describing the mind-demeaning Prasangika students, ok. So get that straight, don't mix that up now, don't forget who's talking now, ok.

[Speaker 2]
OK.

[Speaker 1]
then all those poor guys you know those guys who didn't get the meaning they didn't understand that the Buddha was we had something else in mind gompa means you know he had something else in mind when he said that said what during the second turn of the wheel that nothing exists by definition so some poor guys meaning the mighty Mika Prasangika didn't get it that when the Buddha said that nothing existed by definition he was speaking he had something else in mind what did he have in mind we know what he had in mind those three groups the three attributes right that's what he was really talking about he wanted to divide things into the three attributes and then say that some more and some weren't existing by definition but some poor souls didn't get it they don't get it that the Buddha had something else in mind when he taught the second turn of the wheel and said nothing exists by definition all those poor guys okay that's all so far so those poor guys didn't understand what the Buddha really had in mind when he said that nothing existed by definition and they are sushi my number top up means they have this state of mind that's just making things up you know they think something they just misunderstanding everything beginning it all wrong you know they're getting it all wrong their mind is just grasping on to different ideas and getting everything wrong and then they look for my name I mean they put my name is they're not making any sense at all they're speaking illogically they are not basing what they say I'm correct reasoning and then they come up and what do they say they come up and say everything's a projection everything just depends on some kind of construct of your mind or something like that these same guys you know come up they don't know anything they didn't understand what the Buddha meant they're not being logical and then they finally come up and say oh all existing every existing thing in the universe is a projection everything is a construction of your mind please say so you guys say that's where it is we're on the page 42 six lines from the business yeah do you know say you guys come along and say that's exactly the way it is everything is only a concept of the mind right everything is just a projection you know you guys that's all it is that's what you guys say and then you anyone who comes along and says oh and this is a correct view you know this idea of things that everything is just a creation of construct or a projection and then anyone who comes along and says oh this is pure view this is correct worldview you know anybody who comes along and says that well Suciety.

Geshe-la says it's important that when you reach the word Su which is five lines from the bottom at the beginning you cut it you know it's almost as if there were a yiksha there after no okay so he's like they say that's all it is anyone who say that what that's exactly all there is what just projections just the creations of the mind okay stop and then everything from Su on anyone who would say that this is a correct view five from the bottom five lines from the bottom page 42 no no because he says cut it no meaning oh this is the only way it is and then anyone who says that Suddhita Suddhita talan five lines from the bottom because he looks like you're having trouble finding you got it page 42 five lines from the bottom cut it at no between no and Su anyone who says that says the middle way school is having correct view anyone who says that Su they are people with correct view and that's the way we see it that's the way people should see it what everything is just a projection things are just projections things are just coming to him who's saying that middle way school okay that's the way you should see it and take a moment and that's the way you should tell it to the people you know they came on me that's the way you should spread it okay everybody should understand you know you should think that way and you should spread it that way that's the way it is they say

[Speaker 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

[Speaker 1]
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 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 That's what I was trying to say.

Okay? Fourth line from the bottom, we say, well, then, according to you, you middle-weight people, since nothing exists by definition, then the very thing which we attribute to, the very thing which we label, the very thing which you construct about or make your projections about wouldn't exist at all. The basis for the labeling wouldn't exist The thing which you give the label, the thing which you think of, in a certain way, wouldn't exist at all, tse wang s.

In other words, things which are dependent, things which come from their causes and conditions. wouldn't even exist at all. Then, what would be the next implication?

The state of mind which gives it a label, the state of mind which appends or attaches a label onto it, wouldn't exist at all either. What would happen then? Well, then constructs wouldn't exist.

The whole category called kundaks wouldn't exist. So you wouldn't have dependent things, you wouldn't have constructs. And as you know, the very definition of the third group, sorry, yondrup, which is emptiness, is the non-existence of the non-existent construct with regard to the changing things.

And then you've lost all three groups. You've lost all three groups that you believe in. You've lost changing things, you've lost constructs, and you've lost the lack of a non-existent construct on top of those changing things, which is their emptiness.

So you've lost all three groups. Then you want to go ahead and say, Oh, everything exists by projection only, projection only. Well, what?

What's left? How are you going to have a projection only if you took away all the things you're projecting about, and then you took away all the projections, and then you took away the absence of the projections that don't exist? So what projections have you got left to have to go around saying, everything's a projection?

Okay. Kalagyur means now, where on earth are you going to come up with your projections now?

[Speaker 2]
That's all.

[Speaker 1]
That's all, that's all.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
So you guys, then he mentions the word, last line, page four, to namdang. Namdang normally means synonym. Geshe-la says, in this case, namdang means your version, or your take on reality, or your take, your version of what's correct to say.

So he said, for example, if you want to understand the word namdang, you can say, if a person has proposed four different versions of explaining something, and then you say, okay, I don't mind the other ones, but this one, you blew it. You know, this one is a mistake. So the minority school is coming up to the middle-aged school and saying, okay, on this particular one, you've made a mistake.

And so, in a way, you know what? You are refusing the very existence of two things, very specifically, changing things, or dependent things, and the emptiness, or the yongdrup, which exists with regard to them, the totality which exists with regard to them. If you go ahead, and if you want to cancel out those two objects, then aren't you kunda?

You know, aren't you saying something is not there when it really is there? And then they say, aha, now we caught you, you are discounting. You know, you have fallen into the extreme of discounting something, because those two things, changing things and the emptiness which pertains to them, do really do exist, but according to your namdang, right?

According to your version of reality, they couldn't exist, so you're discounting things. We accuse you of discounting things.

[Speaker 2]
You have no idea how much your Buddhist philosophy delays. We are the one who says things in the name of Dharma, and we're the ones who ask you to believe. That's why you can't find anyone who can accept.

We are the one who says things in the name of Dharma, and we've been saying it for hundreds of years. We're the ones who have been quoting things for hundreds of years. We have always been in the same place, but we are saying it in the name of Dharma, Page 43, line 1.

[Speaker 1]
Aha! Second half, right? So now that you middle way guys have got through refusing the very existence of dhāpa, which means constructs here, okay, kuṭṭhāks, I'm sorry, śenwangs, that thing which is given the construct, okay, changing things, sorry, now that you've denied the existence of changing things, and you've also denied the existence of dekhaṇa, meaning the young group or the totality or the emptiness which regards those changing things, now that you've gotten through denying the very existence of changing things and the emptiness which those changing things have, well, now you're discounting things, aren't you? And when you discount something, then you're saying it doesn't exist. When you drop into that extreme, when you start holding to that extreme of saying those things which do exist, don't exist, you are what we call cetā.

Cetā means like nihilism, like an extreme of saying that nothing exists, okay, like it's a really getting into a serious wrong view. And he says, not only that, you are the masters of wrong view, you know, you're the main ones who have this particular wrong view which if you hold it, you're denying the very existence of things. So there are people who go around saying that things don't exist.

You're the worst, okay? You guys are going around saying, you know, of all these people who say nothing exists, you just became the worst, because you're denying the very existence of all changing things and all the emptiness of all changing things. So we would classify you, you middle-weight people, as the very worst of all.

Get it? Okay, Rinpoche, the last thing that Bodhisattva Level says to the tengyur, you know, is Prasangika is like, yes, you get it? You understand it now?

You're the worst of all the people who say nothing exists at all, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

[Speaker 1]
Nothing.

[Speaker 2]
No, sir.

[Speaker 1]
No, sir.

[Speaker 2]
No, sir. No, sir. No, sir.

[Speaker 1]
No, sir.

[Speaker 2]
No, sir.

[Speaker 1]
No, sir.

[Speaker 2]
No, sir. No, sir. No, sir.

No, sir. No, sir.

[Speaker 1]
No, sir.

[Speaker 2]
No, sir.

[Speaker 1]
No, sir. No, sir. No, sir.

No, sir. No, sir. No, sir.

[Speaker 2]
No, sir. No, sir.

[Speaker 1]
No, sir. No, sir. No, sir.

Line three, very difficult part here. At the end of the line, well, I'll read it from the beginning. Dela gongne means, if you think about those guys, meaning who?

These poor Madhyamika Prasangikas who have fallen into the very worst of the wrong views, you know, all the people who deny the existence of everything, the chief ones, right? And I hope you got it now. I hope you figured it out, says my early school to the middle-aged school.

Now, compared to that, someone who went around and said that a person exists self-existently, okay, right? Remember up to now we're talking about the self-existence of objects, which is more subtle, more difficult. Compared to somebody who fell so bad into such an extreme about that kind of self-existence, I would have to say that a person who fell into the opposite extreme, you know, keeping you in mind, gongne, I'd have to say that a person who fell into the opposite extreme, which is like saying people exist by definition, would even be a little better than you guys.

You know what I mean? Okay, generally speaking, Geshe-la wants to make sure you understand that it's not a good thing to think that a person is self-existent, right? But compared to you, Madhyamika Prasangikas, who have fallen so hard in this huge chasm of saying that objects exist self-existently or they don't exist at all, compared to you guys, these other people who might have a problem by saying people exist self-existently, they're better than you guys.

I mean, I'd rather meet that kind of guy than you guys, okay? And here the Tibetan text has an error, or there's a variant reading, okay? It's the third line, third phrase, third syllable from the insalatala, which normally means easy, okay?

This is like lehlamo or something like that means easy. Geshe-la says he's seen in the amdo versions of the text, the palatala, which would mean better, okay? Like in lama, which means higher or better or preferable here, okay?

Or that would be best, you know? Compared to you, as somebody who just had the last horrible mistake, which is still a horrible mistake, of thinking that a person's self-existence would be... I'd rather be them, it's like bla, palatala, right?

And he says you should read this particular syllable should be read as the amdo version, which is palatala rather than salatala, okay? I'd rather see somebody fall into that, too. I'd rather see somebody think that way.

Then the text goes on at the end of line three to say yi means but here, it's the disjunctive genitive, right? But somebody who holds this kind of wrong view about emptiness, meaning somebody who goes around saying nothing exists by definition, right? Somebody who goes around making these wild claims.

And then on top of that, specifically says that changing things and the emptiness which those changing things have, that those things don't exist by definition, and thereby refusing those things altogether. You know, if I had to weigh, and then Geshe-la says in kilos, you know, like, generally speaking, both of these ideas are wrong ideas. They are both mistaken ideas.

I mean, from the point of view of being wrong ideas, they're equal, okay? But if you had to choose one which was more heavy or more bad, right, one more grave than the other, you'd have to use...you'd have to say that the one...this Madhyamaka Prasangika crazy view that these two existing categories don't exist at all would like be kilos more and the other one be kilos lighter. And if you had to weigh them, then this would be worse and this would be better, says the text, okay?

Line four ends the second part of his quotation from Bodhisattva Levels. So, again, Geshe-la says, okay, we had this long exchange. My lower school was complaining about the middle-weight school, they accused the middle-weight school, all these various things.

First I explained it to you roughly, you know, I explained it to you, the whole thing. Then we went back to Bodhisattva Levels and we got the actual wording from the text, but it's the same point as we started out with today. It's the minor-weight school attacking the middle-weight school, then going back and forth, back and forth, like that.

And then the whole thing is being backed up by the quotation from the Bodhisattva Levels by Je Tsongkhapa. He's saying, this is where I got this version of how the minor-weight school complains to the middle-weight school. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. So Geshe-la says, you don't have to go way back a couple of pages to find the previous one.

Previous one here means the wrong idea that a person has a self-nature. Okay, so just mentioned in the line before, remember when they were comparing the two wrong ideas. So the previous one means the idea, the relatively less disastrous idea that a person had a self-nature.

He says, you know, if you think about it, this is simply an ignorance about the nature of a person, and it does not involve discounting the entire existence of the universe, right? So you know, comparatively speaking, the previous one is just a wrong idea about the actual nature of a person, and it doesn't really… it's just a kind of lack of awareness about the real nature of a person, but it's not an active act of canceling the entire existing things of the universe, right?

So there's a big difference here. Relatively speaking, one is lighter and one is heavier. And then it goes on in line 6 to say, you know, just the idea or just the general lack of awareness about the real nature of a person, and to go around and saying, oh, people are self-existent, right?

It's not like trying to cancel the entire existing things of the universe. And the former idea, right, the former wrong idea, the lighter one, would not, you know, that wouldn't be a basis for going to a hell rebirth, you know what I mean? That kind of idea, the first one, is not going to transport you directly to hell.

Just a general lack of awareness about the self-nature of a person is not going to throw you into the hell realms right away, okay? Just going around saying, I believe that people have a self-nature, right? I believe that people have a self-nature, would not be the kind of viewpoint or the kind of tenet which would disallow a person from practicing Dharma.

I mean, they could say, I'm still going to do my recitation in the morning, I'm still going to try to do the best I can, I'm still going to try to do virtuous things, help other people, you know, do my Dharma practice. And by the way, a person does have a self-existent nature, you know, that's not going to like totally immediately throw them into ruin. They can still do their Dharma practice, they can still undertake to do good deeds to help other people, and they will still get good results from them.

So just going around saying, you know, I believe, per se, okay, I believe in a self-nature of a person, doesn't automatically bring one to the edge of immediate ruin, okay? Pumbaa is a very harsh word, you know, like something that would be immediately deliver them into the clutches of absolute ruin, you know, it's not like that. They could still go about, you know, daily practice and still go around trying to do good things for other people and things like that.

Now, on the other hand, if you're a person who goes around saying, nothing exists by definition, nothing exists by definition, you know, then you would get immediately the opposite of everything he just said. Everything what he's just said about saying, oh, that wouldn't make you do that, and that wouldn't make that happen to you, and you wouldn't be brought to that, you know, just flip it all around. Mind only school, right?

You people who say, you know, nothing exists by definition, you're the absolute opposite, you know, take away all those not, wouldn't, you know, couldn't, wouldn't, and change them all to would, did, will, you know, and that's what's going to happen to you. We'll start on our reverses, right? Geshe-la will start to lay out the reverses for you.

So, in the one case, all you've said is that a person has a self-nature, but you have not thereby discounted the existence of every existing object. So, it's a distinction between, oh, a person has a self-nature, saying that, and then in this broad swath of destruction, you know, no existing thing exists at all, nothing has any existence by definition. So, that's the first, like, reversal.

And now the reversal of the next one, which was, you know, that's not going to throw you into hell right away, or anything like that. Well, now, this one, that the mind-only school is proposing, espousing, will throw you right down into the hell realm, according to the mind-only school. And now, your idea of middle-way school would take plain old normal people trying to do their dharma practice every day, and throw them under the brink of absolute destruction.

So, again, he's going back to that first reversal. He wants to say a little bit more about that. In the first case, some innocent guy comes along saying, you know, people have a self-nature, people have some self-existence, you know.

That's a wrong view, that's a mistake. But compared to the idea of going through the following thought process, oh, nothing exists by definition. So, cause things don't exist by definition.

So, the emptiness on top of cause things doesn't exist by definition. So, cause and effect doesn't exist by definition, or it doesn't exist. And then, karma and its consequences don't exist.

And then, the very rules of doing good deeds to get good things, and bad things will give you bad things, all those rules get broken too. And then, those can transport you to absolute ruin, immediate absolute ruin. That whole process of thinking that way takes you down into absolute ruin from the beginning.

You've then discounted everything which is of importance. Compared to that, then that other wrong view is sort of relatively harmless. Just some guy saying, you know, a person exists by definition.

That's one reversal. One reversal. you know, kind of believes what the books say.

And the books keep saying, unless you are good, you're going to go down to hell. And so then you start to think about yourself, well, out of self-concern, maybe I better start looking at it, maybe I better start making sure that I act better and better. So in a way, rather than transporting you to hell, this idea, you know, that I do exist and I better take care of myself, starts to lend you some encouragement to make sure that you don't go to hell.

You know, who are we to say if hell exists or not, we can't see it, you know. But there is some concern, you know, self-preservation, that comes into your mind, even though it's based on a wrong idea that you don't want to see yourself go to hell. So in a sense, if you look at that basic state of mind, it's not so bad, okay, compared to this other state of mind.

So in the short term, you know, you can say that this misperception about the nature of yourself can actually be beneficial, you know, in the short term, can actually inspire you to undertake good deeds, to avoid bad deeds, because in the short term, you don't want to see yourself go to hell, you know. So in the short term, in the short term, this is not so bad, in the short term.

[Speaker 2]
So in the short term, in the short term, this is not so bad.

[Speaker 1]
And he brought up this point before, and I was trying to remember and I couldn't remember, but now he's brought it up again, okay, he says, people like you and me, you know, forget these people up here who are unaffected by all these kinds of thinking, and they are doing their virtues on a different level, on the right level, right, on some kind of pure level. They are understanding things a different way, and they are doing virtues on a whole different level. But for you and me, people like you and me, who are just trying to keep ourselves out of the hell realm or something like that, you know, and our whole sense of why to do these things, our whole motivation for practicing Dharma, studying Dharma, our whole reasoning, the whole feeling that we have for doing these things, is ultimately coming back and based on our misperception of ourselves, okay, we are actually having this sense of a self or this protective idea about the self because of our misunderstanding of the self.

So it's actually at our level, okay, not for these people up here who are doing virtues for the right reasons and with the right perceptions. People like us, we undertake most of our virtuous activities, especially those designed at keeping ourselves out of a hell realm, actually based on the misperception that we have a self-nature. It is the perception of a self-nature of the person which motivates us to want to protect what we call ourselves, which actually leads us, for the time being, right, into doing good deeds in order to keep what we think of ourselves as getting to keep ourselves out of a hell realm, at our level.

I'm not trying to say that, you know, holding onto a nature of the self, a self-nature of the person, is a good thing. I'm not trying to say it won't get you into trouble. Of course it gets you into trouble.

It always gets you into trouble, okay. How does it get you into trouble? Some guy comes over with a stick, hits you with a stick, right, and then that sense of a self rises up and says, oh, oh, he hit me with a stick, better I should give him a hit with a stick back, you know, and then you hit him with a stick back, and then that guy's sense of a self rises up and says, oh, that guy hit me back with a stick, time for me to hit him back with a stick, and then it starts to escalate like that. So I'm not trying to say that it's good. Of course it must eventually lead you to big trouble, this sense of a self.

But I'm saying, you know, in that sense it's not so bad. It takes you both ways, don't it? Then the rest you got from what I just said, you know, I just went through the whole process with you.

I went through it step by step, you know. You come along saying nothing exists by definition, specifically changing things don't exist by definition, and then since the changing things don't exist by definition, there's no state of mind which can make constructs with regard to those changing things, then there's no construct, the absence of which becomes yongdru, becomes the emptiness of the thing, and then this whole trigger, each process is triggered, and then by definition, you know, so you are denying all these things, you're refusing all these things, and then you become a discounter, right? You become someone who says that something which is actually there is not there, and then you begin to become one of those people who just say nothing exists at all.

This is one angle of the path. So you got the first reversal, you stated the first reversal again, you know, but the opposite of the first one was, well then you become a person who denies the existence of everything, you know. Now what about the second one, won't take you immediately to hell, won't transport you immediately to hell, right?

Suppose you become a person who comes along and says, changing things don't exist by definition, and the emptiness which refers to them doesn't exist by definition. Then what you're saying really is that changing things don't exist and that emptiness doesn't exist. And then what you're really denying is that causes and effects work, you know, that effects come from causes.

Then you're into like, well, if you do a good deed there's no good result, if you do a bad deed there's no bad result, then it gets to be more extreme than just denying cause and effect, you are actually denying karma and its consequences. So when you get into denying karma and its consequences, you start to say, well then, it doesn't matter if I do a good deed because there's no good result from it, doesn't matter if I do a bad deed, there's no bad result from it. Then you start to get worse and worse and you start saying, well then, it doesn't matter whether I really do good deeds or bad deeds, you know, I can start doing whatever I want.

I can do good deeds, bad deeds, start doing bad deeds, whatever I want to do I can do, you know, and then that could transport you immediately to a hell realm, that kind of view. So the second one is reversed like that. Of course we can't see a hell realm, we don't know if a hell realm exists, people say it exists, probably does exist, but anyway that kind of thinking apparently gets you to a hell realm.

Reasoning number two, right? First one is that it's not so bad because you don't deny everything that exists. Second one, not so bad because it doesn't transport you directly to hell, well that's how it does.

Some people, for example, I guess I'll just give you a funny example, okay? Some people say other people going to the temple and spending all their money and making offerings and blowing all this dough on offerings and then they come up to them and say, hey, hey, stupid head, you know, what are you making all these offerings for? You could just take that mula down to the, you know, canteen and buy a couple of momotinas, where are you going to waste your money like that, you know?

Same kind of viewpoint. So, you know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
The next danger mentioned in the text is labi shi le yawa.

[Speaker 1]
Labi shi means the rules, okay? It means the correct way of acting actually literally it says foundation for a training or something like that But the meaning is in Tibetan normally means the rules okay, so what might happen that yellow means to be distracted from that So what might happen if you go around telling somebody look nothing exists by definition Which means to say changing things don't exist by definition Which is to say cause and effect doesn't exist by definition Which is to say good karma bad karma and the relationship between karma and its consequences doesn't exist at all So then what could happen to this person? I mean you might make a prostitutes go up to a good-hearted, you know Dharma person You start saying nothing exists by definition, then there's a danger that they will start to regret the virtues.

They did before, you know They'll say oh, you know, I was so stupid You know, I was trying to do good things for other people and I was trying to do virtues You know, I actually believed in cause and effect now you've clarified it all for me, you know, nothing exists by definition Comments consequences don't don't matter anymore. Oh gee, you know, I really blew it You know all this time been being a good person and all that and and now I see that it's all wrong And then yellow means they will be they will go to the outside of something meaning They will they will tend to reject this this viewpoint now meaning they will reject the rules now They will reject the way of life. They used to live by the Dharma way of life and they'll say oh, you know You might be depressing because you're right, you know, nothing exists by definition all these years.

I've made a mistake I've been trying to do good deeds. You show me the light, you know now I'll give up all that and I'll just do whatever the heck I want because now I understand if there's no Results because you say nothing exists by definition The word love is she's a gishla wants to point out doesn't just mean rules in the sense of monastic rule Okay, love is she can mean things that you have to train about and in a in a more specific sense it often means the rules for Novice monks or the rules for fully ordained monks or something like that He says in this case It just means the whole way of behavior of a Buddhist person meaning To try to do good deeds to get good results and to try to avoid bad deeds to avoid bad results here The word rules is not meant in its more specific sense of the rules of a novice or a fully ordained monk It's meant as rules in the sense of the general outline or the general system of Buddhist behavior good Buddhist behavior And then yellow means you would tend to reject it or you would become now You would move to the outside of those you would no longer live within that frame of life You would move you would pass away or outside of that way of life. You would no longer follow that way of life You I am not saying that you can't do it, you can't do it, you can't do it, you can't do it, that's it.

[Speaker 2]
That's it, yes.

[Speaker 1]
So up to this point, 9th line from the top, page 43, the Minor Way School has been wiping out the Middle Way School, they've been saying there are all these, not just problems with your viewpoint, but dangers with your viewpoint, right? Your viewpoint is actually dangerous for people, it actually is harmful to people. Your whole idea is very bad.

Therefore, Devachana means, and so, and now from this point on, you start to hear the Mind-Only School's actual viewpoint, okay? Now they start saying, now you have to believe like we believe, okay? So then it says, Kangla, meaning anything, meaning changing things, right?

Things which are dependent. Kanglepa, meaning, and that thing which is not true of all those things, what thing is not true of them? A construct which could exist of its own accord, I'm sorry, a self-existing construct, right?

The kind of construct which doesn't exist, right? The idea of self-existence itself, a self-existent, a so-called self-existent thing, existing with regard to changing things, okay? The absence of that, Detong means, that's how you arrive at emptiness.

Now Geshe-la says, now you'll appreciate that I took you through the process of the Mind-Only School, how they arrive at emptiness, right? With regard to those three attributes. So now you'll appreciate that we've already been through it a lot, and now when we get here, and the Mind-Only School says, that thing which doesn't pertain to those things, which establishes the emptiness of those things, you see, I mean, now you know that they're talking about those changing things, which do not have, applying to them, any kind of non-existent self or non-existent construct, and the fact that that non-existent construct doesn't apply to those changing things, is their emptiness, is their very emptiness. Now you can appreciate it.

That's how things are, and Hlamakayinpadeni means, and as for the rest of them, meaning all other things then can exist by definition, the changing things can exist by definition, all the things which we say exist by definition, really do exist by definition, don't they? So after all is said and done, after you've established that non-existing constructs don't exist with regard to changing objects, and that's how you get their emptiness, and then everything else we said about things existing by definition being true, well then, if you think that way, then you understand emptiness and everything else exactly right. That's exactly the way it is.

Not like you guys. Not like you Madhyamika guys, okay? And that's what the Mind-Only School is saying at the ninth line on page 43.

In that sense, you get started thinking as Tashi as not being somebody. Tashi is not the Tashi to whom the word Tashi applies by definition. Okay, so start thinking of Tashi that way instead of saying, uh, okay, uh, start thinking of Tashi that way and stop thinking of Tashi as a person who lacks a construct which exists self-existently, right?

Start thinking of Tashi as not being the guy, not being the Tashi about whom you can say he is the Tashi to whom the word and thought Tashi applies by definition, okay? And that's, and that's, uh, that's the correct idea of Tashi as Tashi being empty, right? Tashi, uh, having a yondrup, right?

An emptiness. And then Geshe-la says, and what's left over after that process? That's the real meaning of the word hlakma that I had trouble on here.

Hlakma meaning, well, what do you got after all that is said and done? Then you've got a plain old Tashi who does exist by definition, okay? Then you've got a Tashi who can't exist.

Once you've denied that there could be a Tashi which is a Tashi such that the word Tashi applies to him by definition, once you've denied all that, what's, once all is said and done, hlakma, what do you got left? Well, then you've got a plain old Tashi there who does exist by definition. Thank you very much.

And that's the mind-only school. Yeah, the same process he went through before. Yeah, yeah, the fact that that fact is not, doesn't exist by definition.

Yeah, yeah, I'm just finding better ways, more easy ways to say it, I think. Yeah, yeah, the fact that the fact, yeah, that Tashi is the object that receives the name Tashi doesn't exist by definition is Tashi's emptiness, and what's left over after all is said and done? A Tashi who does exist by definition.

OK, Nasangi. I am Tashi. I am Tashi.

Now, teacher, I don't have a name. Nisangi, no name at all. For me, I was named Nisangi never.

Sixth line from the bottom it says, now Je Tsongkhapa is getting into it. Suddha Svabhigopanam means functional things, such as everything from physical matter on up, all things which have a function. The fact that they are empty of any nature of the word which is applied, right?

And remember when we had it before, we had the word which was applied and it was confused with the words which are applied, the applying words, which seemed to indicate the applying state of mind, the state of mind which was giving the labels to things, the state of mind, whether it was verbal, calling them things, or whether it was mental, thinking of them as things. And Je Tsongkhapa was careful to say, don't confuse that phrase, which literally says the names of the label, right? Don't forget that here it refers to the kundaka itself, the construct itself, not to the constructing state of mind.

So the construct itself, meaning here the self-existing construct, the construct which doesn't exist with regard to Tashi, the construct which is not true about Tashi, but which hangs out there between the constructing state of mind and Tashi as an object to be labeled, right? There's this other thing between there, there's this construct or this idea you have about Tashi which is actually wrong. The fact that that doesn't apply to Tashi is Tashi's emptiness.

And that's that whole process again, right? The fact that a non-existent construct doesn't exist with regard to Tashi, being Tashi's emptiness, is the meaning, Je Tsongkhapa, of the words that came before. Now what words is he talking about?

That very beautiful thing, three, six, nine lines from the bottom of 43, where he says, that thing which is empty of that thing, which, okay, that thing which is empty of those things, right? That's all the words say. And Je Tsongkhapa is nailing it down for you.

That thing meaning those changing things, which are empty, yong drub, of what? Those things meaning those self-existent concepts, okay? And so he's just nailing it down for you.

That thing which is empty of those things means nine lines above. Nine lines above.

[Speaker 2]
Learning, learning, learning.

[Speaker 1]
So then Je Tsongkhapa himself explains those words, what's left over, right? Remember I was like stumbling on that, and I asked him, he clarified it. This is on the fourth line from the bottom, page 43.

And Je Tsongkhapa says, Hey, you may wonder what that word left over is talking about, okay? Lama Yobani. That's talking about what's after all is said and done.

That's the implication in English, okay? After all is said and done, what do you have left over? You know, what can you come up with?

Well, you got two things which exist by... I'm sorry. Okay.

Then what you come up with, what's left over after you come to that? Fourth line from the bottom, page 43. Ngopo tsam meaning the things which got the label, meaning changing things, okay?

Those things which received the label. And then, ngopo tsam. Ngopo tsam means, and the labeling state of mind.

Those two things exist by definition, okay? So, what do you got when all this... After all is said and done, what is left over?

Oh, the thing which got the label, which does exist by definition, and the labeling state of mind, which also exists by definition, okay? That's what you got left over. And that's what the words mean in Bodhisattva levels when they say, After all is said and done, what you got left is...

Okay. Nasa. Nare.

[Speaker 2]
Nasa.

[Speaker 1]
Nasa. Nasa. Nare.

Nasa.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, did it. Nare.

[Speaker 1]
Nasa.

[Speaker 2]
Nasa. Nasa.

[Speaker 1]
Nasa.

[Speaker 2]
Nasa.

[Speaker 1]
Nasa. Nasa. Nasa.

Oh, you already got it. Nasa.

[Speaker 2]
Nare.

[Speaker 1]
Nare.

[Speaker 2]
Nasa. Nasa. Nasa.

[Speaker 1]
Nasa. Nasa. Okay, here we go.

A repeat of what Bodhisattva levels meant when they said, That thing which is empty of those things, right? So now there's a nice summary of it. Starting from three lines in the bottom of page 43.

Kāṅgiri-tomba-nī-kuṇṭhā means, What is it which the thing is empty of or devoid of? Oh, it's constructs. And Geshe-la points out again, he's anxious to point out, we're not talking constructs in general, are we?

We're talking about that construct which is the ultimate gākchā, the ultimate thing which emptiness is empty of, the ultimate thing which emptiness denies, right? Is those constructs which don't exist. So when they say here, in this line, Oh, that thing which those things are devoid of, meaning constructs, he's talking about the non-existent construct which is the self-nature of objects, right?

Then he says, And what is it that's empty of it? Shenwangs, right? Changing things.

So you have that, sorry, that thing which they are devoid of, which is constructs that don't exist. What is it that is devoid of them? Changing things.

And the fact that the latter is devoid of the former is the meaning of yonggru, or totality or emptiness, okay? So the wording here is that the fact that the latter is devoid of the former is what totality or emptiness refers to. And it's about this that people are arguing whether or not these things exist, okay?

And then he says, Go back to page 39, go back to like, one, two, three, four, five, six, eight, about eight lines from the top, where he begins to talk about, they're not talking about whether or not things exist nominally. They're not talking about whether or not things exist in general. The argument here is whether or not those things exist ultimately, okay?

So remember that the wording, you know, there was a distinction between when the Mind-Only School talks about, to the Madhyamika School, saying, you don't believe these things exist, or you do believe these things exist, the argument is not about whether or not these things exist. The argument is not either phrased about whether or not these things exist nominally. The debate is about whether or not these things exist ultimately.

The word is ultimately, right? So, Jetsun Kapa, when he says on page 43, in the last line, don't forget that the meaning here, when they talk about existing and non-existing, is with regard to this process of this thing being empty of this thing, and that's being its emptiness, okay? The fact that this object doesn't have this true about, or is devoid of this, is its emptiness.

We're talking about existence and non-existence with regard to that process. We're not talking about existence and non-existence in general, and that's why at the page 44, at the very top, Jetsun Kapa says, existing and non-existing as we clarified it above. And so you got to go back to page 39 and see that's what we're talking about.

That's when Jetsun Kapa says, as we clarified it above, it's back on page 39. Lhasa, you? Lhasa.

[Speaker 2]
Lhasa. Lhasa, Lhasa.

[Speaker 1]
Lhasa, Lhasa, Lhasa. If you've been very sensitive to the words here, and I asked you to go back to page 39, if you actually did go back, all it said on page 39 was, they're talking about doesn't exist. We're not talking about doesn't exist nominally.

We're not talking about doesn't exist in general. We're talking about doesn't exist ultimately. Then when we got to page 44 and the very end of page 43, we said the meanings of existence and non-existence here are as I mentioned before.

You should have wondered, well, you know, when you said before, you were just talking about the ways in which they didn't exist. There's no mention on page 39 about the ways in which they do exist. When he gets to page 43 and 44, then he's talking about, oh, when we mention existence and non-existence, we mean it in the way before, okay?

Actually, in the before on page 39, Je Tsongkapa only mentioned, we don't mean doesn't exist nominally. We don't mean doesn't exist in general. We mean doesn't exist by definition.

But his implication there is, we're talking about existing or non-existing, or existing or non-existing. So, when he says doesn't exist, Je Tsongkapa is actually, what he's referring to is that the distinction here or the argument here is between not existing or existing nominally, not existing or existing at all, not existing or existing by definition. And then he says that on the end of page 43.

That's where he gets that from, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Mm-hmm.

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

Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
He says, the text at this very instant said, is eliminating this particular, and then it said, you know, it says eliminating our talk. Okay. Mm-hmm.

Lesson. Lesson. Mm-hmm.

Lesson.

[Speaker 2]
Lesson.

[Speaker 1]
Lesson.

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Lesson.

Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

So then when you get to the top of page 44, and Je Tsongkhapa is saying, okay, well then in so doing we have eliminated, we have prevented the extreme of believing that something is there when it isn't there. And also later on he says we've prevented thereby the extreme of thinking that nothing is there when something is really there. So remember those are the two, we call it overrating and discounting states of mind.

So especially he says if you get rid of the overrating state of mind, and then as we went back on page 36, 6th line from the bottom, the very opening of this whole section, remember, was talking from the bodhisattva levels, and it was saying something like, if we are able to eliminate not only the state of mind which overrates things, but that non-existent thing which it is grasping onto, which is the extreme itself, which we call the extreme itself, and the non-existent thing which the opposite state of mind is holding onto when it denies something that really is there.

So once you can overcome those two extremes and reach a middle, remember that from the very beginning we said that it was the hope and dream of the mind-only school that if they could show you how to avoid this extreme and prove that that extreme doesn't exist even, and if they could help you avoid this other extreme, then by doing so, when you avoid this extreme, you reach a certain conclusion. By cancelling one extreme, you thereby establish a certain kind of truth. By cancelling the opposite extreme, you establish another kind of truth.

And one of those two extremes really, in essence, says on page 44 at the top, these are called the extreme of thinking that things do exist and the extreme of thinking that things don't exist. The extreme of thinking things do exist means do exist self-existently, say. And then the extreme of thinking things don't exist is normally described as thinking if they don't exist self-existently, then they can't exist at all.

So those are two different extremes, one that believes things are as they seem, and the other which says if they're not as they seem, then they don't exist at all. Those are two different extremes. We call them the extreme of thinking things do exist as they seem, and the extreme of thinking that things don't exist, meaning if they don't exist as they seem, they don't exist at all.

So really, the two extremes from the mind-only point of view. The first extreme in which you are overrating something is to say the extreme of existing. That is the same thing as holding on to the extreme of existing.

Geshe-la repeats that, don't forget that the state of mind which is believing that thing and the belief which that state of mind holds on to are separate things. The state of mind is called overrating. The thing it holds on to is called the extreme or the cliff or the chasm or the edge of the cliff or something like that.

And in actuality, that object which that state of mind is grasping on to doesn't even exist. What it believes is there is not there. And that's the overrating state of mind.

So from one point of mind-only school, by avoiding one extreme, they are establishing or setting forth a kind of truth. When you have managed to avoid or cut out that extreme, you have, in a sense, come to a middle way, on one hand. And then when you are able to refute or deny the other extreme, then you are also established.

You've got like, here are the two extremes, and then the truth of denying those two extremes is somewhere in the middle. He is kind of making a pun, right? Because this kind of makes the middle way, right?

So then they have come to some conclusion in the middle of avoiding those two extremes, which in their mind finally establishes the true meaning of emptiness, from the mind-only school point of view. Now we've established the great goal set forth, page 36, where Bodhisattva Level said, if you can deny what the overrating state of mind thinks is there, and if you can deny what the discounting state of mind thinks it is there, then you really come to a very perfect understanding, a complete and perfect discrimination of what it is in the mind-only school for something to be empty. And that's the meaning of page 44, the first three lines there.

He says, should I stop there or should I do a little bit more? That's right there. That's it, that's it.

[Speaker 2]
Yes. That's right. Yes.

That's right, that's right. That's right, that's right.

[Speaker 1]
So, this is a very difficult section. Page 44, line 4, end of the line, it says, Now we will quote Bodhisattva levels again. Ngopalama means, very difficult word here, it says, The preceding thing.

Don't forget that the word ngopal can refer to a functional entity, and then sometimes in scripture it's just used as entity altogether, just thing, things, you know, and it means in that case, whether the thing is changing or unchanging refers to all things. So, here you've got a very tricky thing, it says, That thing which is the previous thing, and that thing which is the lack of the thing. And Geshe-la says, now when they talk about the previous thing, they're talking about the state of mind which overrates.

When Bodhisattva level says, that previous thing, it's talking about the state of mind which overrates. And then it says, that thing which don't exist, it's talking about the state of mind which is underrating, discounting, and referring to their, dinyika-yobha-dharmepa means, the two extremes which those two states of mind think they see, which don't exist, right? Those two states of mind, one overrating and one discounting, they are both grasping on to something that doesn't exist.

So, the actual text of the Bodhisattva level says, those previous things and those non-existent things, the way they are, the existence and the non-existence they think they see, that thing which is free of those two, meaning free of the two extremes, which don't exist at all, right? So, those two states of mind, things that they think they see, and that other thing which is void or devoid of what those two states of mind think they see, that thing, now there's a third thing, okay? Got it?

That thing, which is that thing which is devoid of the thing which the former thing thinks it sees. Difficult section. Page 44, line 4, end of the line, it says, now we will quote Bodhisattva levels again.

Ngopalama means, very difficult word here, it says, the preceding thing, okay? Don't forget that the word ngopal can refer to a functional entity, and then sometimes in scripture it's just used as entity altogether, just things, you know, and it means in that case whether the thing is changing or unchanging, it refers to all things. So, here you've got a very tricky thing, it says, that thing which is the previous thing, and that thing which is the lack of the thing, okay?

And Geshe-la says, now when they talk about the previous thing, they're talking about the state of mind which overrates, okay? When Bodhisattva level says, that previous thing, he's talking about the state of mind which overrates. And then it says, that thing which doesn't exist is talking about the state of mind which is underrating, okay?

Discounting, okay? And referring to there, jinyi-gyi-yopa-dharmepa means, the two extremes which those two states of mind think they see which don't exist, right? Those two states of mind, one overrating and one discounting, they are both grasping onto something that doesn't exist.

So, the actual text of the Bodhisattva level says, those previous things and those non-existent things, the way they are, the existence and the non-existence they think they see, that thing which is free of those two, okay? Meaning free of the two extremes, which don't exist at all, right? So, those two states of minds, things that they think they see, and that other thing which is void or devoid of what those two states of mind think they see, that thing, now there's a third thing, okay?

Got it? That thing which is that thing which is devoid of the thing which the former thing thinks it sees and which that other thing thinks it doesn't see, okay? So now, this is how Chakravarti ends up, this is the Bodhisattva level.

That thing which is the voidness of what the former thing thinks it sees and what the other thing thinks it doesn't see, okay? That thing which is the voidness of those two is the perfect middle way which is free of the two extremes. And he describes it, he talks about nisamepa means which is non-dual, free of duality.

Free of what duality? Free of two bubus, okay? Free of two extremes, okay?

Non-duality meaning that object, that non-dual thing, okay? Now you've got it like that. That non-dual thing which is empty of what the one thing thinks it sees and what the other thing thinks it doesn't see, that thing in the middle which is free of those two things which is therefore non-dual, and that thing which stays in a state of non-duality is the middle way, okay?

That is the ultimate middle way which is free of the two extremes, okay? Whose wording is this? This is Master Asanga, okay?

He's describing the perfect middle way. What? The mind only's perfect middle way, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, that's right.

[Speaker 1]
So it's really beautiful. Sorry, mind only gets to their emptiness, right? This is how the mind only gets to emptiness.

If you think about it, that emptiness which stays in the middle, right, yondru, is free of any... any ultimate object which we deny exists, right? So this state of mind over on this cliff side, right, is holding to say...

this state of mind is thinking that something is there, a non-existent self-nature is there, okay? And it's believing in the gaccha, it's believing in a self-existent thing which is not there. So this state of mind which is overrating holds to a certain object which is really what emptiness is empty of, the self-nature of things, okay?

So the fact that that thing which this state of mind thinks exists doesn't exist with regard to emptiness is how we avoid the one extreme which is what the state of mind that overrates thinks is there. Then we avoid the other extreme by what? There are certain schools, meaning Madhyamika Prasangika, who say that nothing exists by definition at all, right?

So things which really do exist don't exist by definition. But the fact that this is devoid of what they say doesn't exist, meaning it does have something that does exist by nature, it fulfills its other half. So over here you have the fact that it doesn't have the existence that this state of mind thinks exists, and it does have the existence that this state of mind doesn't think it has.

The thing which is in the middle, which is the non-existence of this, and which is the existence of that thing that was said not to be there, the fact that it does have the existence that these people said it didn't have, the fact that it doesn't have the existence that this state of mind said it did have, that fact, that thing which has both of those qualities is perfect. Rabdhacarya means perfectly defined, perfectly, beautifully laid out emptiness according to the Mahayana school. That's how we get to Nisamepa means beyond any kind of extremes, meaning free from the two, non-duality.

Non-duality means free of this extreme and free of this extreme. Beautiful, free of the duality of these two extremes. Beautiful, perfect emptiness defined as what you get after...

Right? Left over? Now here's another sense of what you get after all is said and done.

After you've cancelled this one that they said it did have, and after you've established that it does have this thing that they said it didn't have, then you've... what do you got left? Perfect emptiness according to the mind-only school.

And...

[Speaker 2]
That's it.

[Speaker 1]
Geshe-la says, you know this word about what's left over, right? What's left over. If you think about it, it can apply to either changing things or emptiness according to the mind-only school.

Why? Because it is devoid of what these people say does exist and it's not devoid of what these people say doesn't exist. That thing which is devoid of what these people say exists and that thing which is not devoid of what these people say it is devoid of is exactly in the middle.

And that can be described, if you think about it, what's left over you can think of as a perfectly established emptiness according to the mind-only school. But it doesn't hurt also to think of it as what's left over in the sense of a perfect, existing-by-definition changing object. So you can put either one in the middle, he says.

In other words, what do you got left over after all that's said and done you can apply it both ways. You can say it's both of those two attributes. So if somebody was going to come up to you and say what's the definition according to the mind-only school I'm sure you guys now could give me a perfect description of what's the definition of how to describe emptiness according to the mind-only school.

In fact, I'm so sure we don't even have to ask you about it. So I'm sure you would have said what is the ultimate description of emptiness according to the mind-only school. I'm sure you would have said it's those things which are empty of any of the most subtle forms of self-existence and those things which do exist by definition the fact that they don't possess or that they are devoid of those very, very subtle forms of self-existence is what it is to be empty in the mind-only school.

That extreme of what people said wasn't devoid of, that extreme of it possessing the ultimate object which is denied when we talk about emptiness. The fact that they don't have that and that they are nice, pretty, whole existing by definition things that you get out after that, that's what the mind-only school is talking about when they talk about emptiness. I'm sure you would have said that.

So what I've said, if you think about it, it can apply to everything I've said could apply to changing things and it's also equally true of the other thing that exists by definition which is emptiness itself according to the mind-only school. That's all I have to do today. Are you ready?

How is your cold everybody? He says, don't try to be too clean while you're here in Tehran.