Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 18

[Говорящий 1]
They would agree verbally that, yes, the stick is something that is an example of deceptive reality. But then on the other hand, on the left hand, literally, they would say, it is not, though, something which exists deceptively, it exists in truth. To exist in truth and to exist by definition in their school is the same thing.

So you have a big difference on the left-hand interpretation. Looking at it through the middle way window, you'd have to say that it's true that the thing doesn't exist, I'm sorry, that it is something which exists deceptively. But if you don't look at it through the middle way window and you look at it through the minority school, they would say, it's not something that exists deceptively, it is something which exists truly, exists in truth, which for them is the same as saying it exists by definition.

So you have to look at it through the minority school and you have to say, it's not something that exists deceptively, it is something which exists in truth, which for them is the same as saying it exists by definition. So you have to look at it through the minority school and you have to say, it's not something that exists deceptively, it is something which exists truly, which for them is the same as So you have to look at it through the minority school and you have to say, it's not something which exists deceptively, it is something which exists truly, which for them is the same as saying it exists by definition.

So you have to look at it through the minority school and you have to say, it's not something which exists deceptively, it is something which exists truly, which for them is the same something which exists deceptively, it is something which exists truly, which for them is the same as saying it exists by definition. So you have to look at it through the minority school and you have to say, it's not something which exists deceptively, it is something which exists truly, which for them is the same as So you have to look at it through the minority school and you have to say, it's not something So you have to look at it through the minority school and you have to say, it's not something which exists deceptively, it is something which exists truly, which for them is the same as So you have to look at it through the minority school and you have to say, it's not something which exists deceptively, it is something which exists truly, which for them is the same as saying it exists by definition.

What did you mean when you said that? And in the middle-weight school, rather than going to what our minds would naturally go to, which is, what did they mean when they said, what did they deny when they said it doesn't exist ultimately, what does that ultimately mean? Rather than going to that, the text goes, the middle-weight school's answer jumps directly to what it means for something to exist as ultimate reality, which in their school does exist.

And then when they got into what everything does exist deceptively, rather than going into the meaning of what the middle-weight school says, what did they deny when they said it does exist deceptively? They brought up deceptive reality, which both parties agreed to, and then they started to describe what it means to exist deceptively. I mean, I'm sorry, what the word deceptive and deceptive reality means.

Then they took out that deceptive and talked about what that deceptive means. Why have they done that? Why did they go that way?

It seems like Deccan Coppola is trying to point out some common ground. So, you know, both parties can accept the idea of ultimate reality. Both parties can accept the idea of ultimate reality.

So, Deccan Coppola says, the text is not going right off into these huge differences between the two schools where they start fighting over all these points. You know, that's not what we believe about. We believe that things don't exist ultimately, or they do exist ultimately, or they do exist by definition, or they don't exist by definition.

Rather than jumping right into a punch-out on all of these different points about where they differ, he's like concentrating on some kind of points of common ground, at least verbally, where one school says, yeah, there is a thing called ultimate reality, or there is a thing called deceptive reality. You see, because both schools accept those two concepts, ultimate reality and deceptive reality, now when Jatankarpa, now when the text goes on to describe, you know, by going on from the word ultimate in ultimate reality, by going on from the word deceptive in deceptive reality, you are necessarily going to be going on with some differences now. I mean, right after you explain what deceptive means, right after you explain what ultimate means, but at least you are starting off with some common ground and you are not going off straight into a free-for-all.

So, now having done that, now the free-for-all will begin. So, the answer by the Middle Way School has served to bring the mind-only school along a path which they can accept for a while, and now there will be a big parting of the ways after that. And now we can roll the film for them.

How do I call it? Anyway. Oh, but wait, I have one question.

This is rather difficult to express in English, but, you know, I have been getting around it by saying, an example of something which is deceptive reality, right? In Tibetan, they are actually the same wording, you know, you can say, tsultrim denpa yinpa, and kutu denpa, you know, is there a difference between the word deceptive, when you speak about deceptive reality, and the word deceptive, when you speak about, this is an example of something which typifies deceptive, this is one example of deceptive reality. Is there a difference between those deceptives?

And I think he is also asking, is there a general difference between the word deceptive and the word deceptive as used in deceptive reality? I mean, the general meaning of the word deceptive, and the meaning of the word deceptive in the phrase deceptive reality, or example of a thing which is deceptive. Is there a difference between them?

What's the difference? You say, this is an example of deceptive. Oh, that's nice.

Okay. Okay. The second one?

Yeah. So that's a nice distinction. But what I really wanted to get to was, in the middle way school, could you say deceptive reality exists or not?

Yo re. So, give me one example. Is an example, is an example of deceptive reality?

Oh boy, you're in trouble. Okay. Japadee...

You're getting more into the mistaken state of mind, which is the literal meaning of the deceptive in deceptive reality, you know. You're getting more into the mistaken mind. He's asking a more general question.

Can we say there's a distinction between things, a division between all existing things into ultimate reality and deceptive reality? Dakara yo re. I don't need a big pile of things which typify deceptive reality.

Just show me any one thing which typifies deceptive reality. Oh, I like it, I like it. Now, is it deceptive reality?

Is it an example of deceptive reality? I don't know. That's a long story.

Is it deceptive reality? Yes. Now, are you sure that you say it is deceptive reality?

Deceptive reality. In Tibet, it's difficult to make a decision between an example of deceptive reality and an example of deceptive reality. It's just a warning.

Maybe it's not necessary. In G.K. Nala, again, you could have done by six years, say I go there. In G.K. Nala, you could have done by a year, say I go there. That's a couple of years. You could have done by ten years, say I go there. In G.K. Nala. You know what?

[Говорящий 2]
That's it, that's it.

[Говорящий 1]
We can handle that. We can handle that. You can say one example of deceptive reality.

That's it. Ok. In G.K. Nala, you can do could have done by a year, say I go there. you can say one example of a deceptive reality don't worry about that okay now I'm going to ask you a question based on your notice this month so can we say that you've agreed that this thing is an example when you said I do believe that this stick is an example of deceptive reality you used the word deceptive right and deceptive reality can you tell me what you think that deceptive reality is? I'm directly my questions at one person because that's the way things go but really I'm directing it to all of you so you all have to think that he's asking you personally this question does the Congress here accept the opinion of the one designated so if Christie were to suffer well I guess it would keep you generally speaking can one person stuff themselves we go to money if it were the case that one person could stuff themselves and when they also get hungry it'd be a lot cheaper to see everybody here we go we can advance the if you say you're not the question I guess I will leave it there because I'm going to ask you a question based on your notice this month so can we say that the the divisions by which Jessica makes his presentation with regard to the abbreviated presentation and the divisions with regard to the other book bodhisattva levels are going to be basically the same it's the same structure by which are the same process by which he goes about his presentation so remember that first he's saying here's what it is to overrate something here's what it is to discount something here's what it means here's what the state of mind is like that overrate something here's what the state of mind is like that discounts the existence of something that truly does exist okay so then he first he's going to go into identifying what those two states of mind are then he'll go and identify the the wrongdoers by by school system right so he's going to go first and say okay who believes that first one overrating things overrating again I don't like the word too much but it's seeing something where there is nothing okay he's gonna he's gonna say now look you we all know it's those first two schools that are the overraters the other people that think there's something there and when it's not there which is the detail of school and the sutra school the two lower school so he's gonna say he's gonna start attacking those guys and say hey that we finished identifying what you're doing and now I want to tell you why it's wrong and he'll start explaining to these two schools why it is that what they're what they're thinking and the way in which they perceive things is wrong then secondly he'll go to the people who are under who are discounting right which is the modern middle way school and more specifically the consequence group within the middle way school he's going to say okay look you guys have this other problem that you are discounting things and that's how you're doing it that's what you think and that's what's wrong with what you think so that's going to be the same presentation he's going to go through those same basic two divisions identify what what those two states of mind are like and what they are grasping to and then attacking the particular viewpoints of the people who have those two states of mind and demonstrate to them why they're wrong it's the same sort of structure as he had when he went through the bodhisattva level I do yes sir yes sir yes sir yes sir yes sir yes technically the wording of the two categories is slightly different we're on page 44 we're on eight lines from the bottom and the second half of the of the line it's a stroke I'm a good change agent Latino Tommy so I'm a good means to to present or to set forth the the opponent's viewpoint now the main appointment opponent here that guess identifies at this point it's the consequence group within the middle way school okay so money make a passing geek so he's saying first we present their ideas and then they begin to have a questions and answers about the meaning of those ideas meaning that the the minor way school comes up to the middle way school and says you know what did you mean when you thought that you know when you were holding this viewpoint what did you have in mind you know what do you really think is the case you know and then the middle way school people get to say well what we think is this and this and this and they're giving their answer okay so that's the whole first section presenting the the consequence groups ideas and then the minority school people asking them you know well what the heck are you talking about and then the middle way school saying oh this is what we're talking about in the second great category here length of a choke couple means we're going to we're going to refute the people are giving the answers okay so meaning we're going to refute the middle ways the minority school is going to refute the middle ways present middle way schools presentation because they're going to those answers they're going to say are not sufficient so in a way they're going to respond to the answers and then and then thereby prove that the middle way people are wrong okay so those are the great sections here technically speaking so I guess my approach is going to be to go to the answers okay and then work his way back he says I think would be easier for you if I go to the answers first and then work our way back to the position of the middle way school and their presentation okay so so first I'll go to their to the to the to their defense of themselves and then that'll help you understand what their school is no one works backwards into that school so here we go with the actually he's going to go through an order so we're starting page 44 six lines from the bottom it says do a lay okay do a lay abbreviation from the abbreviated presentation of Arya Sangha he says now some people of the greater way okay referring to the middle way people okay he's criticizing them okay and then he says you know intent on on maintaining their error okay I mean from the middle way from the minority point of view you know they seem to be you know demanding to continue to commit their errors okay DGHA they make the following claim okay and and the word prayer on the third line from the bottom is very condemning in Tibetan you know they they make the following claim kunzotu ni means in a deceptive way tanche yu all objects exist so all objects they say do exist in a deceptive way remember that for a middle way school person says Geshe-la to think that things exist in a deceptive way is to think that all things exist through the process of projection or through the process of constructs okay so they believe that all all objects exist only as projections of the mind or only as constructs created by the mind so when they say everything exists in a deceptive way what they're thinking of what they have in mind mainly is that all of the things that you perceive are your projections or are the constructs of your mind but did not many times a middle but they go on to say these middle way people that in it ultimately speaking and Geshe-la says don't forget that ultimately speaking means existing in an ultimate way which means existing truly which means existing by definition so for them for the Manimika Prasangika for the consequence group this is all the same thing they say none of these things exist in an ultimate way none of these things exist truly none of these things exist by definition that's do they claim shesum so means that's the end of the quotation by from the abbreviation and will go on to an end and they call it he will go on and graph it for you okay no no no no no fourth line from the bottom when we describe the middle ways viewpoint when they say all things exist in a deceptive way and we say the middle way holds therefore that I mean what that means for a middle way person is that all things exist as as projections as constructs of the mind he says give us be careful not to mix the two systems at that juncture okay don't think that the mind only school is I'm sorry that the middle way school is saying everything is conduct you know everything is that group that the mind only school says is what they call construct he says don't confuse don't think I'm saying and don't think that detective saying that the middle way school believes in only one of the attributes of one of the groups asserted by the minority school don't forget these are totally different things you know they are saying the middle way school is saying all things are a construct but just just creations of your of your mind okay but don't think that there's don't think that they are thereby saying that all things are the kundal category accepted by the mind only school but don't don't mix the middle way idea and the mind only school yeah so Jessica is glossing for you that the words from compendium and when he says during the last line his glass goes from the third line from the bottom to the last line when he says just always says with that that verb in Tibetan means they are saying or they are stating so what this book is talking about is certain umapas okay certain Madhyamikans he's identified them right who assert Mara that you can say about all existing things that they do not exist ultimately but at the same time they do all exist nominally okay those Madhyamikans okay those middle way scholars thinkers who say that that nothing exists in an ultimate sense and that everything does exist in a nominal sense those are those are the people that that quotation is talking about that quotation is saying those people believe that and they are therefore making a distinction between what it means to exist and what it means not to exist okay things do exist nominally things don't exist ultimately and they are thereby making some kind of a distinction between the ideas of existence and non-existence those people that's who the quotation is talking about when they say some people of the middle way I'm sorry I blew that up some people of the greater way right sorry you know at the end of page 44 and the last line halfway through the line it okay this is a this is a continuation of the previous quotation from the abbreviation okay so now now you get the question being posed okay this is a continuation just a copper has burst in with his gloss now you get a continuation of the other text where it says now now what do you guys middleweight guys mean when you talk about ultimate you talked about ultimate sometimes you're talking about ultimate reality what do you mean when you say ultimate you know what for you does ultimate mean then when you talk about deceptive things exist deceptively can we focus on that word deceptively you know can you little way people tell us exactly what you mean when you say deceptive okay can you can you clarify the word deceptive and then that's the question is being posed as then now here comes the answer okay second line page 45 they get people not mean okay if you should ask that question counter duplicate then in that case I would give you the following answer who's I middle way people okay middle way person would answer the following when I talk about ultimate okay when I say that ultimately nothing exists and when I talk about the ultimate and when I talked about ultimate reality okay I'm talking about the general lack of a self nature to things I'm talking about the fact that there generally there doesn't exist any self nature of things and you can call it existence ultimately you can exist to call it existence truly you can call it existence by definition but when I talk about ultimate reality I'm talking about the general lack of a self, what you guys are talking about, a thing that exists by definition, I'm saying that the fact that that thing doesn't exist with anything, anywhere, is what I call the ultimate reality of things. So, I'm sorry, when I say things don't exist ultimately, what I'm denying is that things could exist by definition, especially in the way you guys are interpreting it. For me, existing by definition, existing truly, existing ultimately, all amounts of the same thing, and the lack of that, or the fact that that's not true about anything, is what I call ultimate reality.

Line three, page forty-five, where I tripped up, Geshe-la says, yeah, you're going to trip up there, because you know why? They're asking us, what do you mean when you say, they're asking middle-weight people, the minority school is asking middle-weight people, what do you mean when you say things don't exist ultimately? But then when the middle-weight people give their answer, they're saying, I describe ultimate existence as the lack of a self-existent thing, you see what I mean?

So, the sense of ultimate in the question is, what do you mean when you say things don't exist ultimately? And the answer is, what I mean when I talk about ultimate reality, which the middle-weight school accepts, which is emptiness, right, is I mean the general lack of a self-existent thing, or the lack of things existing by definition. Geshe-la says, you better stick a star there on your notes, we're going to have to revisit this, because ultimate has been used in one sense during the question, and has been flipped around during the answer.

So, you're going to have to put a mark there, we're probably going to have to, this is going to come back to Hansa, so you better put a mark there, we're going to have to go back and revisit that, that switch that took place right there between the question and the answer. And that's where I tripped up, actually, okay? Yeah, he says, make a note, make a star, okay?

It'll come later. So, he says, you better put a mark there, we're going to have to revisit that, okay? So, he says, make a note, make a star, okay?

It'll come later. So, he says, make a note, make a star, okay? It'll come later.

So, he says, make a note, make a star, okay? It'll come later. Now, a similar switch of identities happens between the question and the answer with regard to the word deceptive, right?

The question that the Minority School posed to the Middle Way School was, well, when you say, all things do exist deceptively, Middle Way School says, but all things do exist in a deceptive manner, okay? When they say deceptively, and then the Minority School said, you know, could you isolate that word deceptively and tell us what you mean by deceptive, okay? So, in his answer, in the answer of the Middle Way School, it seems that they are concentrating on giving the Minority School people the idea of what the word deceptive means.

So, they're almost focusing on the word deceptive rather than deceptive as a component of the expression deceptive, existing deceptively, okay? So, the Minority School asked them, what does it mean to exist deceptively? And in the answer, the Middle Way School is saying, I'll tell you what deception means, I'll tell you what deceptive means, okay?

What does deceptive mean? It means that state of mind, okay? Don't forget that in Madhyamika, and Geshe-la says, we've got to be careful not to flirt too close with Madhyamika door here, Middle Way door here, right?

We don't want to let out all the Madhyamika ideas and then overwhelm everything, you know? We're just going to go back and check in with the Middle Way School and say, okay, what do they think deceptive means? Remember that in the Middle Way School, deceptive, the word deceptive, describes a state of mind, okay?

It is a kind of state of, it is a state of mind. When you say deceptive in the Middle Way School, deceptive refers to a certain state of mind, a certain mistaken state of mind, a certain misconception that things which are in truth not existing by, through their own nature, do exist by their own nature, okay? So, in the Middle Way School, if you just restrict yourself to the word deceptive, what does deceptive mean?

And what does kunzot mean? And we're not so, especially in the component kunzot demba, meaning deceptive reality, okay? There's a, what does that mean?

It means that reality which is established by the state of mind, or which is perceived by the state of mind, which is making a certain kind of mistake. What kind of mistake? It is looking at things which in truth don't have any nature of their own, and it is thinking that they do have some nature of their own, and that's what deceptive means.

So, the Middle Way School really hasn't answered the question, right? The Minor School said, what do you mean when it says exist deceptively? And then the Middle Way School said, I'll tell you what I mean when I say deceptive.

It's a kind of state of mind where you think that things have their own nature, but they don't. So, Vipasyana, line 5, page 45, Vipasyana means, now it's still the Middle Way School is responding to the Minor School, they say, oh, why do we say that? Why do we say that's our description of what?

Of what it is to exist ultimately, or ultimate reality, right, actually, with his answer, and then what it is to be deceptive, or a deceptive state of mind. And he says, why do we say that? And then, why do we say that is the Middle Way School defending themselves still, still coming from the abbreviated presentation.

And then they say, well, it's like this, you thought, okay, this is how it is. When you have many, and then they list four different terms to back up what they say when they're describing that mistaken state of mind, okay, when they're describing why it is that it would be a mistake to hold these things to be existing by definition, okay. So, then they say, kundzop tu jepa means, it makes it, I'm just going to give you the literal words, okay, and then they mean something quite different.

kundzop tu jepa means they make it deceptively. dumpa means they label it. lumpa jepa means they assert it repeatedly, okay.

And then tanidhi jepa means they make it a term, okay. Now, what do those mean, okay? Those are four terms that the Middle Way School is giving to the Minority School to describe why it's a mistaken state of mind that would look at something and believe that it existed by definition, okay, which, according to the Minority School, is a good thing, right, for certain things, okay.

So, anyway, here we go. When they say kundzop tu jepa, it means that state of mind is looking at things that don't actually exist by definition and believes that they do exist by definition, okay. So, it's making up something, and that's why it's called deceived or deceptive, meaning things don't really exist by definition, but to this state of mind, which now, if you think about it, is becoming a weird thing, because this state of mind, according to the Minority School, to look at certain objects, right, and to say that these things exist by definition is actually a healthy thing, according to them. It's a correct identification. Certain objects do exist by definition, according to the Minority School.

According to the Middle Way School, all those states of mind are mistaken. So, they pull out this phrase called, they are deceived or they act deceptively, and it's describing a state of mind which is actually jen-zin, which is the ultimate mistake in the sutra teachings, right, to hold something existing truly, or through its own essence, or something like that. So, what amounts to jen-zin, or the habit of seeing things self-existently, to the Middle Way School, is actually a state of mind which, in the Minority School, can be healthy or correct sometimes, because it holds things which do exist by definition to exist by definition.

So, the first term used by the Middle Way School in their answer to show that that's a mistaken state of mind is, oh, it sees things deceptively, meaning it sees things as existing by definition when they don't actually exist by definition. Then it goes on to dogpa. Dogpa means to label or to apply something.

Here, label means don-dogpa. Don-dogpa meaning to overrate something. They think they see true existence, or I'd say existence by definition, where there is no existence by definition.

So, in a way, it is a state of mind, again, talking about a mistaken state of mind, according to the Middle Way School, that looks at something and imputes, you can say impute for dogpa also, imputes the existence by definition to it when it doesn't have that kind of existence. So, that's what the impute means. Now we've gone through two of the four expressions used by the Middle Way School.

They get on to the third expression, which means to talk about it, really talk about it that way. Nirmajyotpa means to really talk about it that way. And this means that once you've made that mistake once, it tends to perpetuate itself.

You tend to do it over and over and over again. So, to talk about it that way here is a code word for meaning. Once you've made that mistake of thinking that something that doesn't exist by definition does exist by definition, you tend to do it over and over again.

You'll keep talking about things that way. Nirmajyotpa means, in the interim, you keep doing it repeatedly, repeatedly, over and over again, doing that same mistake. That's the third characterization of mistaken state of mind.

What mistaken state of mind? That thinks that things have definition, exist by definition, when they don't exist by definition. And then the third one, which means to make it a term, or to put it into terms, or to put it into phrasing.

Here it has nothing to do with that. What it means is that by continually thinking that things which don't exist by definition do exist by definition, you will start to put mental seeds, bhaktyaks, in your mind for thinking that way. So, the fourth characterization here, which the wording means you make it into a phrase, or you make it into a term.

Maybe it's like you make it into a mantra for yourself, you know what I mean? And you continue to think of it that way, and then it puts seeds in your mind for seeing things that way. So, it's talking about the process of, because you've done it continually, you're starting to put seeds in your mind for seeing it that way.

And those four ways are seeing things wrong, basically, and then labeling things that aren't there, or imputing things that aren't there, and then doing it over and over again, and then, because you do it over and over again, setting certain precedents in your mind, and putting certain seeds in your mind. That's the four ways in which the Middle Way school back up their assertion, the things they've asserted just now, and particularly that it's wrong to think that something which doesn't exist by definition does exist by definition. Yes, yes.

Geshe-la says, you know, we haven't really tied down, when they talked about here those three or four, you can call it four characterizations that the Middle Way school has just given. You might think it seems sort of disjunctive, you know, like where are they suddenly talking about a mistaken state of mind so much? We just got through explaining, the Middle Way school got through just answering what they meant when they said ultimate, what they meant when they said deceptive, and then suddenly Geshe-la or the text is taking off on these four different qualities that seem to be relating to a mistaken state of mind.

He says, this is a particular clarification by the mind-only school. They're trying to back up what they meant in the second half of the two that just came, right? They talked about ultimate, and then they talked about deceptive.

So really it's the Middle Way school trying to give backup or further support for their saying, description, for their description of what deceptive meant. Remember that they went off, they didn't so much talk about deceptive reality or anything like that, they went off on their little tangent of explaining what deceptive means as a state of mind. Deceptive meaning that state of mind which looks at things that don't have any nature of their own and thinks that they do have some nature of their own.

And then he says, and you know what, why do we say that? I'll tell you why we say that, because there's these four supports, so there's four, these are so unusual, the phrasing is so unusual that it has to be probably from Sanskrit or it has to be from the original text of the abbreviation meaning. Okay, I'll give you these other four, and then they go off into those four unusual phrasings that refer to a mistaken state of mind.

And Geshe-la wants to point out that it's not as disjunctive as it seems. They are, in particular, giving backup to support what they just spoke about when they talked about deceptive, this deceptive state of mind that thinks that things have a nature when they don't have a nature, and that's where this is all coming from. I'm sure you must have thought to yourself, where are they going off to now?

They start throwing in these four phrases, and this is a response to what I think must have occurred to some of you already, which is why are they suddenly talking about these four ideas or these four characterizations when they just got through talking about the meaning of ultimate meaning and deceptive? Well, it's a take-off, or it's a back-up for the idea of the deceptive state of mind. And then we have Je Tsongkapa giving a very brief statement on line 8 on page 45 where he says, shepa-ni, shepa-ni means, he has ended the quotation from the abbreviation, right?

He says, you know what this quotation is saying? Basically, it's just saying that it's presenting the position of the middle way school by having them respond and describe the two truths. Now, if you think about it, they're not technically describing the two truths.

In one sense, they're describing the ultimate in the expression ultimate reality, right? That's okay. But then when they get to deceptive reality, they're only describing the state of mind which is deceptive or deceived, right?

And they're only talking about that state of mind. But anyway, in a general sense, to put it briefly, says Je Tsongkapa, the middle way school is responding by describing the two truths, the two realities. He says, I think I told him to make two marks.

I thought he only told us to make one. Did he say two? He says he must have told you to make one around ultimate reality also.

Like me yesterday. I must have forgot one and she's reminding me. We're about to make the second mark.

The second mark that you should make on your notes is pretty, it would occur to you naturally, I think. It's that, you know, in the original question, in their response to the original question, the middle way school said, oh, nothing exists ultimately, but everything does exist deceptively, okay? So really what the minor way school wants to know about is, what do you mean when you say everything does exist deceptively?

When you phrase it that way, everything does exist deceptively, you're concentrating on something that does exist. You're concentrating on explaining why things do exist, okay? You should have gone into explaining how it is that everything does exist deceptively, right?

That's sort of like a positive statement. It's like, things do exist. This does exist.

They do have this kind of nature, this kind of nice deceptive nature, and that's how they do exist. You should have gone into explaining that. What did you do?

You went straight for the idea of deceptive reality, which is named after the state of mind which is deceived, right? That's how deceptive reality gets its name, okay? It actually should have been called the reality of the mind that's deceived, right?

Meaning, that state of mind which sees things, that sees a nature of things where there is no nature of things, is deceived, okay? So, he says, instead of going off on that positive, nice, this is how things do exist, you took off on this state of mind, and then you went off into these four characterizations of that state of mind, explaining why it was screwy, you know, explaining why it was wrong, okay? So, you know, there should be a mark there also.

Actually, it's kind of a begging of the question. We have to go back to that. Yes, sir.

________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ So it's interesting, when you go back to that 8th line from the top on page 45, it says that when the mind-only school asks the middle-way school, what do you mean when you say things don't exist ultimately, right?

Our minds might tend to focus immediately on the idea, what is missing? You see, dvindambar mepa means, does not exist ultimately. So then our minds will immediately start to focus on, what does it mean not to exist ultimately?

What is the kind of ultimate existence that they are denying here? Okay, we get into this, our mind, if someone asks, what do you mean when you say things don't exist ultimately? Our mind would immediately go to some kind of ultimate existence that's not there.

And we would be waiting for someone to make a response that concentrates on what's not there, or what doesn't exist. But really, says Je Tsongkapa, I think from the answer that the middle-way school gives to the question, it must be that the mind-only school's question is focusing on a different issue, okay? They're not asking that, that's not what the question is focusing on.

Rather, the mind-only school is saying, could you give us a tansri? Tansri means a classical example of what it means to exist, of ultimate reality, okay? So a different question.

I mean, judging from the middle-way school's response to the mind-only school's question, it must be that the mind-only school's question means, could you give us a classical example, or could you lay out for us what you mean when you say something exists, when you say something is ultimate truth, right? And that's a big difference from saying something doesn't exist ultimately, okay? So he said, judging from the middle-way school's answer to the question, they must have taken the question to mean, or the question must mean, therefore, okay, working backwards, retroactively, the question must have meant, can you give us an example of what it means to exist as ultimate reality?

Right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right. So go back to where we made the mark, right, about how do we know that the middle-way school is not responding in that way, okay? And on the sixth line from the bottom, page 45, it says, shindunā means, otherwise, okay?

Meaning, if the middle-way school had taken the question to mean, could you concentrate on answering us about what it is that you think is not there? Okay, when you say, doesn't exist ultimately, right? If they had responded, if they had taken it differently, if they, if the question, if the middle-way school had understood the mind-only school's question differently, meaning, if they had thought that the mind-only school wanted them to talk about what it was that wasn't there, okay?

Meaning the gācā, okay? Meaning that thing which emptiness denies, okay? Then they would have concentrated on the gācā.

They would have gone into this long description of a self-existent thing. They would have gone into this long description of an ultimately existing thing. They would have gone into a description of the subtle version of that thing which emptiness denies, the gācā, okay?

Whereas they didn't, okay? Meaning, māramīrjate means, they didn't, they didn't go into that, okay? If they had given that kind of answer, then we would have known that the question was concentrating on what wasn't there, ultimately.

And then they would have given an answer, you know, describing the gācā, describing the subtle, the subtle lack, the subtle, the subtle gācā, meaning the thing, the lack of self-nature to objects. They would have gone into some long description about that. Apparently, the question didn't talk about that, or else they would have answered it that way.

Rather, they answered with some kind of blanket description of emptiness itself. They went on and said, Jeta says, you know, they didn't really concentrate on, on emptiness itself. They didn't talk so much about emptiness in terms of, in terms of the gācā, okay?

They didn't so much get into emptiness as a negative, right? They didn't so much go into the meaning of what's not there. Rather, they went into this long explanation of what it means to exist, ultimately, okay?

They went into, rather, their description of ultimate, which is almost kind of a, very similar to the idea of a yoja, for totality. They went on to describe what it is that things do have. They went on to describe the ultimate nature that things do have, rather than concentrating on what's not there, ultimately.

So they, judging from the Middle Way school's answer, given that, otherwise means, otherwise they would have talked about the gācā. Since they didn't talk about the gācā, but rather they went on talking about what, what it is to exist, ultimately, what, what ultimate reality is for them. They went on to, to, almost into a positive sense, to describe what ultimate reality is.

That's a sign that the question that the mind-only school was asking was not focusing on what's not there. The question was focusing on, can you give us an example of what you mean when you say ultimate reality? And that's what they went ahead and did.

That is, that is, that is. But Dhritarashtra says, you know, if you and I think about it, what is the natural reaction of people like you and me to the, to the original answer of the Middle Way school? You know, the Middle Way school's original statement was, nothing exists ultimately, everything does exist nominally or deceptively, right?

So what, what do you guys answer me, okay? This is like a question. If someone comes up to you and says, hey look, nothing exists ultimately, doesn't your mind automatically begin to question, what does it mean when you say ultimate?

What is the kind of ultimate that you're denying? You see, wouldn't your mind naturally go after, well what do you mean when you say ultimate in the sense that something could be denied? Isn't, you know, isn't that where your mind would naturally go, people like you and me?

And Jatakapa goes on to say, well okay, maybe that's the case, people like you and me might automatically think that. But judging from the answer which the Middle Way school really has given, or the further clarification that they make, right? Judging from the further answer that they give, the subsequent question to them must have been, could you give us an example of what you mean when you mean ultimate reality?

Rather than, can you tell us what you're talking about isn't there when you talk about a lack of ultimate existence, okay? So, and Jatakapa is saying, look, if you don't interpret the question that way, then the answer turns out screwy. And we can't have screwy things going on.

So the question must have been, you know, he's reconstructing the question from the answer. The answer was, oh, here's what we mean when we mean ultimate reality, you know? So he's saying, therefore you must take the question as having been addressed with regard to, can you give us an example of what ultimate reality refers to?

Rather than, can you tell us what you mean isn't there when you say it doesn't have ultimate existence? And now the same thing happens with regard to the second part of the question, you know? We have said, but everything does exist in a nominal way, meaning, but everything does exist in a deceptive way.

And so, you know, for you and I, it might seem like the natural place to go from there would be, what do you mean when you say deceptive, right? When you say everything does exist in a deceptive way or a nominal way, then the way the question should have gone was, well, what do middle-weight guys mean when you say exist deceptively? What does deceptively mean, in that case?

Rather than answering that directly, the middle-weight people say, oh, you know, when we say deceptive reality, we're talking about to whom is reality deceptive? The state of mind to whom reality is deceptive, meaning the deceased state of mind. Well, we'll tell you what the deceased state of mind is.

It's a state of mind that thinks there's a real nature there when there is no real nature there. That's what the deceased state of mind is. So instead of answering it in the way that you might naturally think that they should answer it, oh, here's what it means to exist deceptively, they actually go off onto a tangent—it seems like a tangent to us, right—of saying, oh, here's what the deceased state of mind is like, because it's to that state of mind that this thing called deceptive reality appears, okay?

And that's how the middle-weight school answers. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. We're on to the second mark you've made on your notes, okay?

The question posed to the middle-weight school is, you know, what do you mean when you say, but all things do exist deceptively? And you would have thought that the middle-weight school would have gone on a long description of how the mind does actually establish things as existing, albeit deceptively. But when you think of it in those terms, of how the mind does establish what we call nominal things or deceptive things as existing, then you're dealing with what we call a dhūntan state of mind.

Dhūntan means a state of mind which corresponds to what it's looking at, the state of mind is taking it a certain way and the way it really is a certain way, and they are in correspondence, so they match each other. We call it sometimes a matching state of mind. The way things are, what it's looking at, the nature of what it's looking at, and the way in which it's taking that to be match each other, so we're looking at the correct state of mind.

So if the Madhyamika people, if the Middle East people, had concentrated on explaining why this state of mind sees that things do exist, because they do exist. You can't say they don't exist. So it's a state of mind in that case which is concordant, which is matching the reality, in which case it's not a mistaken state of mind.

You see what I mean? If they had taken off and concentrated on why it's perceiving the existence of things which are deceptive, then you would have said, it's perceiving that they exist. That's a correct state of mind.

So rather than answering that way, and judging from the Middle East answer, they're going to twist it around a different way, so that they can concentrate on the mistaken state of mind. The question has come a certain way. They could have answered it in terms of, oh, this is the state of mind which sees that these things exist.

But that would have been describing a correct state of mind, because it establishes the existence of things. That's sema, right? That's prominence.

It's establishing the existence of things. But rather than that, they choose to go off and describe, oh, I'll tell you what, there's this thing called deceptive reality. And the deceptive in deceptive reality refers to the deceived state of mind which is fooled by those things.

That mind thinks that there's some sort of self-nature there, when there is no self-nature there. Now you're talking about a state of mind which is mistaken. This is actually dendron.

This is actually the big enemy of Buddhism. This is the tendency to see something as self-existent, when it is not self-existent. So the Middle Way School, Jethro Koppa says, judging from their answer, are choosing to take the question to mean, what do you mean when you say deceptive in deceptive reality?

And they say, oh, here's what we mean when we say deceptive reality. It's that reality which is established to the state of mind which is deceived. And that state of mind is a mistake.

That state of mind is the tendency to see things as self-existent. And then they're sort of implicitly criticizing the Middle Way School, which does believe in the conclusions of that state of mind. That state of mind says, oh, things exist by definition.

And so they're trying to, in a cool way, they're going around and getting at the mind-only schools from the back, and they're saying, oh, everybody knows that this is a mistaken state of mind. Anybody can see that. To think that it has some nature of its own when it doesn't have some nature of its own, that's a deceived state of mind.

That's a wrong state of mind. That is the tendency to see things as self-existent, which is our common enemy. So judging jatakapasthas from the way they answer the question, they're shifting the focus from a correct state of mind, which is establishing the existence of the things around us, to a deceived state of mind, answering the question that way, in order to get to an additional point.

Q. He says if you feel hot, you can drop your fan a little bit. Is there this trick where you get it on your shoulder and lift it up?

[Говорящий 2]
A.

[Говорящий 1]
You can't concentrate. Q. How do you get it off?

Q. If you want to see where jatakapa actually said that it was hot, that's where jatakapa's own words say that it's hot. Q.

How do you get it off? A. You can't concentrate.

Q. How do you get it off? A.

You can't concentrate. Q. How do you get it off?

A. You can't concentrate. Q.

How do you get it off? A. You can't concentrate.

Q. How do you get it off? Q.

How do you get it off? A. You can't concentrate.

Q. How do you get it off? A.

You can't concentrate. Q. Is there any sign in the Mind Only School that says we are just egoists?

A.In the Mind Only School, they do talk about the tenet of the S doch Suspendus. In the Mind Only School as well, if you are focusing on something that does not exist truly, and then you believe that it did exist, really, the mistaken state of mind is believing, is exactly what the mind-only scroll thinks is correct. So, in one sense, in the middle way people describe the tendency to see things as existing, really, the object that that state thinks it sees, that the object that that state of mind thinks it sees, is exactly what the mind-only scroll is describing when they talk about something that doesn't exist.

And so, even though they use the same terms of seeing things as existing, truly, what they think that mistaken state of mind thinks it sees, right? What they think that mistaken state of mind thinks it sees is only a different person that they believe in. And so, the middle way scroll is taking off on an answer that will describe that.

In the abbreviation, you get this repeated reference to ngo-nyi-me. Ngo-nyi-me means doesn't have any nature of its own, doesn't have any nature of its own. And you keep getting that wording throughout the quotations that we've gotten from the abbreviations.

And what it's referring to is something that exists truly, right? When you say that something doesn't have any nature of its own, you're saying that something that exists truly doesn't exist, right? And that's what you have to take it as meaning in this case.

It means something that could exist truly is what it means when you say that thing doesn't have any nature of its own. It doesn't have any nature of having a nature that exists truly. And that's how you have to take those phrases.

Now, can I say ngo-nyi-me, which means doesn't exist, ngo-nyi-me. Okay, this is hard for me. Who's saying ngo-nyi-me?

Who's saying that they don't exist truly like that? He says, if you think about it, they're both talking about things not... The way he answered that was that the minority school is thinking that the lower you, self-nature, nature of its own in this case, does exist in the way that the middle-aged school takes that to mean.

So, middle-aged school, when they talk about that thing doesn't have a nature of its own, they're talking about that thing doesn't exist by definition. But when they describe nature of its own as meaning existing by definition, that existing by definition is accepted by the minority school as existing. So, what one school says is existing, doesn't exist truly, is something that the other school would have to say does exist truly, meaning existing by definition.

So, that's where you get it here. One school, in the Madhyamika Prasangika meaning of what it is to have a nature, you'd have to say that the minority school would say things do have that nature. And then the middle-aged school would say things don't have that nature.

And then, in the meaning of... In that sense, then the minority school would have to say things do exist truly, meaning existing by definition, in this case, in the way that the middle-aged school interprets the meaning of the word truly. And in the middle-aged school, in the meaning of the word truly, according to the middle-aged school, you'd have to say things don't exist truly.

Okay? Nothing. Not in English.

Before we advance... I'm trying to find a word for what he says. Don't pick it up.

You know, before we advance the film, okay? Before we go on to the next subject, okay? Geshe-la wanted to go back and read something in a little bit more detail.

Page 45, third line from the bottom. We're trying to get at the distinction between saying that things do exist deceptively, and then contrasting that with the word deceptive in deceptive reality. Okay?

So, those two senses of the word. And he wanted to be sensitive to the difference. One is to say that things do exist deceptively, and the other one is to talk about deceptive reality.

Okay? Let's concentrate on the first one, what it means for something to exist deceptively. When you talk about things existing, right?

When you say that this stick, or any object in front of me, does exist, then you're positing, in effect, the state of mind which is established in which it exists. Okay? And you're talking, by implication, you're talking about, when you say, this stick exists, you're talking about that thing which is understood to exist, right?

And he goes through this process. Stick exists. Stick is something which does exist.

Stick is something which is understood to be something which exists. So, when you go through that process, when you're talking about state of mind which understands that the stick exists. So, when you say that the stick exists, you're automatically sort of referring to a state of mind to whom the stick exists.

So, you've gone from exists, is something which exists, is something which is understood to exist, is something which is understood to exist by a certain state of mind, or which exists through a certain state of mind. So, I want you to be sensitive to the state of mind, or a pramana, or a correct perception, by virtue of which this thing can be sensitive. So, when we say that the stick exists, we're really talking, by implication, direct implication, about a state of mind which is established in which it exists.

And let's consider, when we say the stick does exist deceptively, or the stick does exist nominally, we're really, very directly implicating a state of mind through which the stick exists. And don't forget I'm talking middle-aged school, I'm not talking nominally. Write this particular sentence.

Otherwise, you'll start to make a mistake. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .