Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 19

[Говорящий 1]
You saw what the two monks up there did, and the whole thing about offering me this Big Patimandala, offering me, and then doing a lot of recitations, because it's not my system. They bought that system from America, and they're doing that to me, and my other students don't do that to me normally, and I don't want them to think that I took on this big job, that they have to do that, and that's just something those Americans up there, that they brought here, started doing, and I didn't try to stop it, but they're just doing their work. So, please don't tell all the monks up there that I took on this big job, and they don't have to give mandalas to me, and all that stuff.

Otherwise you might think that Vishnu is imposing extra labor on all of us.

[Говорящий 2]
Just kidding.

[Говорящий 1]
You saw I said, please don't write the palm. This is just a recap of what we did this morning, and don't want to see you, you know, not necessary to write it. You can write what comes after this.

I'm about to give you something fresh. But just to recap what happened this morning, there was a questioning going on, an answering going on, a mind-only school, if you remember, asked the Madhyamika people, Hey, what do you mean when you say, nothing exists by definition or ultimately, and everything does exist nominally, or also they just call it deceptively. You know, what do you mean when you say that?

And then Jethro Koppa was pointing out that in the reported answers of the Madhyamika, right, the answers that came out were, when we talk about ultimate, let's talk about ultimate reality, and we'll give you an idea of what we mean when we say ultimate reality. So actually, you know, the question was about, what do you mean when you say things exist ultimately, don't exist ultimately, and then you come back and start giving us this thing about ultimate reality, which is a different, which begs the question, it's a different question. And then when the mind-only school asked the Madhyamika people, you know, what do you mean when you say things don't exist ultimately, or do exist deceptively, what do you mean by deceptive?

And then the Madhyamika's answers didn't address that question. Instead they said, oh, you want to know what we think about deceptive reality? Especially about the word deceptive in the expression deceptive reality?

Well, here's what we think about that. And then Jethro Koppa says, based on the Madhyamika's answers, we have to reconstruct retroactively the mind-only school's question to say that the mind-only school's original question, when they said, what do you mean when you say nothing exists by definition, or when you say that nothing exists ultimately, or what do you mean when you say everything does exist nomally or deceptively, that those two questions must have meant, what do you mean when you say ultimate reality, what do you mean when you say deceptive reality, based on the way that the Madhyamika people answered it. So despite the appearance of the question, the real question must have been, based on the answer by the middle-weight school, you know, what does it mean for something to be ultimate reality, what does it mean for something to be deceptive reality, so we can reconstruct the question according to the answer given by the Madhyamika's, because they gave the correct answer, so we must have to reconstruct the question, and not just assume that the question is what our minds might naturally attach onto as the meaning of the question, as the import of the question. So that concludes Geshe-la's recap of what went on this morning, and now he says, now you can start writing.

Now I'm about to say something that you can write about. Get ready to write something. This morning Christy was writing pretty well, but now she's got her pen, so...

It's like she's not intent on writing much.

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

[Говорящий 1]
The point of rephrasing the question, or reconstructing the question, changing the one question from when the Madhyamika school said, I mean, when the question went to the Madhyamika school, it was, what do you mean when you say things don't exist ultimately, and changing that to mean, this is what we mean when we say, when we talk about ultimate reality, a whole different question, right? Describing an example, or a tenshi, or a classical example of what ultimate reality would be, and then when you get to, what did you guys mean when you said everything did exist nominally, or deceptively, switching that over to, oh, here's what deceptive reality refers to, and more specifically, here's what the deceptive in deceptive reality refers to. The whole point of rephrasing the question that way, or the whole point of seeing the question that's being asked that way, is that Jeta Kappa is saying, look, the mind-only school's intention here is not just to ask some general question.

They are going after the very gut, or the very essence of the Madhyamika viewpoint. They are not just asking some general, friendly questions about their viewpoint. They're not even asking some general question about what their general belief system is.

They are going after the very core, or crux, of the Madhyamika system. These two questions, phrased this way, represent an immediate and direct attempt to get to the core, or the crux, of Madhyamika philosophy. So now these questions, rather than being just a general question about what do you think existence is, what do you think non-existence is, these are aimed now, if you phrase them this way, at direct inquisition into the real meaning of the whole Madhyamika system, to the very core of the Madhyamika system.

[Говорящий 2]
Ok.

[Говорящий 1]
Especially for the benefit of somebody who might have just walked in for the first time, we're on page forty-five. We're on the eighth line from the top. It starts off with de la dir, and that's just to give you an idea of where we're going.

[Говорящий 2]
We go down page...

[Говорящий 1]
Everything we've just described is reflected in the actual text here, from page forty-five, eighth line, where it says de la, down to page forty-six, fourth line, where it ends in chido. So that whole chunk there, that whole chunk of the original text by Jetsun Karpa, is reflecting that statement that I just made, that description I just made about what the real intent of the question is.

[Говорящий 2]
Ok. Ok.

[Говорящий 1]
How do these two questions relate to the very crux of the Madhyamika system? How can you say that these two questions, as they are reconstructed, relate to the very crux of the Madhyamika system? First of all, don't forget that the whole major belief of Madhyamika is to say, especially Prasannika Raya, about a particular object, and then just says, well, you know, let's just take something like a water pitcher, ok?

Consider a water pitcher. The main thing that Madhyamika school wants to say about it is that it does not exist by definition. It does not exist ultimately.

Then what does it mean, or what does that imply? It implies that any state of mind that's viewing it as existing that way is a mistaken state of mind. So really, the state of mind normally that's viewing a pitcher, and the state of mind normally that's being mistaken about a pitcher, is what we call an erring perceptionist, or something like that.

So basically the most crucial point here is that when you say this pitcher doesn't exist by definition, or this pitcher doesn't exist ultimately, what you're saying is this pitcher doesn't exist in the way that the normal perception of the pitcher thinks it does exist. That normal perception is a mistaken perception. So it's not strange that they would answer the question, right, that was posed to them.

What was the question? In this case it's, what did you think it was meant to exist deceptively, or what did you think it was meant to exist normally, which is what the minorly school is asking the middle school. And then rather than answering directly, they shoot off on this tangent and say, oh, well there's this thing called deceptive reality, and the word deceptive in deceptive reality refers to a state of mind that misunderstands its object with regard to its ultimate nature.

So it's not strange for them to take off on that tangent because their whole shtick is that things don't exist by definition, and if you think they exist by definition, it's only that it seems to appear to exist by definition to a mistaken state of mind. But if you really check, the ultimate test is when you go looking for the thing that was labeled, when you go looking for the thing that received the label or the imputation, you'll never find anything. And as you know, as an aside, my own aside, it means independent of your projections.

So if you go looking for a thing that is receiving the label, before you get the label, without the label, you never find the thing that gets the label. And that in their mind is what it means to be... If any state of mind doesn't think that, if any state of mind looks at the picture and thinks otherwise, that's what we call a deceived state of mind, and it is from that that we name deceptive reality, deceptive reality, and that's why the Middle Way School started talking about deceptive reality and didn't directly answer the question, didn't directly address the question that the Minority School asked them, which was, what does it mean for something to exist, deceptive reality? In this case, in the present discussion, we have to get both parties involved here. We have to let both parties say their thing, right?

We have to let the Minority School have to say their thing, and then the Middle Way School has to give their answer. It's not like before when we kept saying, shut the door to Madhyamika, don't think about Madhyamika, don't mix them up. Now the case is totally different.

You've got to let the Minority School representatives come and speak up, and then you have to let the Middle Way representatives come and speak up, and they have to have an interchange here. So that's not improper here that they're having an interchange. Generally speaking, for you and me, people like you and me, it's almost impossible to accept the viewpoint that's being expressed here by the Middle Way people.

The Middle Way people are coming and saying, how do you establish the existence of the base? How do you perceive a base? Well, we describe the relative or the deceptive existence of the base as meaning how it looks to a deceived state of mind, how it looks to a mistaken state of mind.

So here is the Middle Way School describing the very existence of something, or the base itself, in terms of it being deceptive reality, and deceptive reality meaning it is a level of reality at which the mind which is establishing its very existence is mistaken in a sense. So for you and me, the idea that the Middle Way School would come up and say, well, you know, it's on the basis of a mistaken state of mind that we can even perceive the water pitcher at our level, it doesn't feel comfortable. And that's because we haven't really grasped the subtle meanings of what the Middle Way School means when they say that.

We don't really have a very firm grasp of what they mean when they say that. Otherwise, if I just presented to you like that, you know, Geshe Thubten Rinpoche sits in this class and says, okay, for you to perceive this water pitcher, or the very deceptive existence of the water pitcher is described by how it appears through a deceived state of mind, you would think it's kind of weird. It would feel weird for you to describe things that way, but that's actually how they describe it.

And if you find it difficult to understand it, you know, how it could be established, you know, almost by a deceived state of mind, well, then you're right. Okay, it is difficult, and difficult for ourselves to get our minds around. It is, from that point of view, it's difficult.

It is difficult. If you get some school coming up and telling you, you know, the main existence of a water pitcher is derived from the way, it's from the general appearance, or the general way in which it appears through a deceived state of mind, right? If you go around saying stuff like that, then it becomes a very natural thing to raise the issue, what do you mean by a deceived state of mind?

If you say the whole existence of the water pitcher is posited on the way it looks through a deceived state of mind, then how are you describing, it's a very natural question now to go into, to say, what do you mean when you say a deceived state of mind? If that's a natural question, to go to somebody and say, well, what do you mean by a deceived state of mind? Then it becomes a very natural answer for the Middle Way to give, to say, hey, we'll answer you in terms of deceptive reality.

In particular, we'll answer you in terms of the meaning of the first word in the phrase deceptive reality, which is deceptive, by which we mean the deceived state of mind. So now you see that it's a very natural tangent that the Middle Way took off on to give the answer to the mind of a Muslim. And further, it's a very natural progression.

Once you've said, oh, well, here's what a deceived state of mind is, right? For someone to come up and say, oh, so you're denying that this thing has any existence on its own side, any natural existence, any existence by definition, right? You say, right.

So you're denying all of that, even though that deceptive state of mind, the way it appears to be a deceptive state of mind is what defines it almost, you're describing that as some kind of mistake, right? Some kind of misperception about which we must block something or say that existence by definition doesn't really exist, right? And the Madhyamika says, right, that's what we mean.

And then wouldn't it be a natural progression in such an exchange or a conversation with somebody, for someone to say, well, but isn't anything there? You know, is there anything true that we can say about the vase? You know, you say we can't say that, we can't say that, we can't say that.

And you say that, you know, just appearances and things like that. But is there anything that we can posit about the vase, the vase that we would feel comfortable about saying it is there? And then they say, oh yeah, there is something, ultimate reality.

You can say the vase is not ultimate reality, but the vase does have a quality, it does have ultimate reality, it has its own emptiness. And then from there you can take off and start talking about ultimate reality, you see, with this person. So it's a very natural progression in the natural thinking of a person for them to jump from the word deceptive or deceitful state of mind in the expression deceptive reality, and then the opponent thinking or the other person in the exchange thinking, well, but is there something there which does exist?

And you say, oh yeah, there is something that does exist about this picture that we can describe and say, oh, it really is there, and that's ultimate reality. So it's not strange in those terms, in that description of that progression of questioning, for the Madhyamika to go off on their other tangent, which was instead of describing what it means for something to exist ultimately, they jump off and start describing ultimate reality. And that's a very natural progression for them.

So do you now start to form a picture in your own mind of how the two questions posed by the Marmalade School start to relate to each other closely, and more particularly, why the Madhyamika School's response is not like disjunctive or crazy or just jumping off from nowhere. There's a logic to it. There's a logic to their madness, right?

There's a reason why they went off on the answer that way. Does it start to form a picture in your mind of there's a relation between the two questions, and more particularly, that there's a logic to the middle way, rather odd way of answering? If you say there seems to be some logic, which is the way I said, I told him, they say there seems to be some logic there.

Actually what I said was, they see the relationship and there seems to be some logic. If you're answering me, there seems to be some logic, then maybe you still have to examine it a bit. There is a logic here, you know.

There is a logical progression that has been found. There are millions of commentaries on this text. This text is famous for being hard.

This text is very difficult to understand and difficult to explain. There are hundreds of commentaries running around on this thing, but to get this kind of a direct explanation of it is very difficult. I mean, you better fix it in your head right now.

You better get it straight in your mind right now, because if you try to say, oh, later I'll go read some other commentary on this, you're not going to get it. So, make sure you fix it in your mind. There is a logic to the tangent that the middle way is open off of.

[Говорящий 2]
Roll the film forward, we'll keep going.

[Говорящий 1]
Now, we've got a whole new category coming. We're on page 46, we're on the fourth line from the top. Category number two has two parts.

The first of the two parts is this. A demonstration that there are inconsistencies in the position of the other, in the belief that the other is more important than the other. The others, in this case, are the consequence group of the mind-only school, the mind-only Prasangika.

And, again, this is a response by the mind-only school. Prasangika had their chance to give their answers, and they gave two answers, right? And now the mind-only school is going to come and say, oh, man, you know, you tried to give those three answers, they don't make any sense at all.

You have all these contradictions, you know, so they're not going to be satisfied. This is the mind-only school, what do you call it, rebuttal to this attempted answer by the niga school. So they're going to say, we don't like your answer, and your answer has all these inconsistencies in it.

That's going to be the first part. The second part here is the mind-only school will be counter-attacked by the middle-weight school. The middle-weight school will say, well, if our positions have those inconsistencies and contradictions in them, then so does yours.

And they're going to start pointing out the mind-only school inconsistencies and contradictions. And then the mind-only school in the same section will say, no, no, we don't have the same inconsistencies that you do. Those contradictions and those inconsistencies do not apply to us.

So, the second section is called, you know, eliminating any thought in which that Madhyamaka school tries to say in the mind-only school that you have the same inconsistencies or similar inconsistencies and contradictions in your own belief. So, how do we start? So, how do we start out?

We're on the seventh line from the top of page 46. And they're going to say, well, now to start out with, we're going to, us meaning the mind-only school, we are going to refute your presentation of what it is for a thing to be consult, right? Consult means deceptive, right?

And remember the mind, the middle-weight school gave their response by saying, here's what the deceptive in the expression deceptive reality refers to. They attempted to describe or to define what the deceptive in the expression deceptive reality refers to. Now you're going to get the mind-only school saying, your attempted identification of what deceptive means in the phrase deceptive reality is wrong, and here's why.

And then they're going to pull out some ammunition from Arya Sandra's briefer presentation. They're going to start quoting Arya Sandra's abbreviation.

[Говорящий 2]
That quotation is going to stretch from that eighth line from the top of page 46 down to the next and last line of page 46 where it says, literally it means the perception of the essence, the very essence.

[Говорящий 1]
What it means here is the tendency to think that something has a nature of its own when it doesn't have a nature of its own. So it's talking about the tendency to see things as truly existing, which is the big enemy of all buddhism. So talking about here, focusing on a nature means thinking that things have their own nature when they don't have their own nature.

That Lumbajapa here, which normally means some kind of good expression or a fine expression, here means the habit of stoppa. Stoppa means constructing, making constructs, the constructing state of mind. So they have a question that they're going to ask these mighty meek and good.

When you talked about the habit of seeing things as truly existing or self-existent and that state of mind, are you talking about something which is a constructing state of mind, which makes constructs about things, and which has come about through its own causes and conditions? Are you talking about something like that? Or, Duttam, are you trying to say that, Witte?

No, it's different. Lumbajapa, it is both a constructing state of mind and Kuntzottamsik means just itself a construction of the mind, as opposed to coming from its own causes and conditions. So, they're giving the mighty meek and good guys two choices.

They're saying, OK, this den-den, this state of mind that believes things exist, self-existent and they are truly. Are you saying that it's some kind of imputing or labeling or constructing state of mind that does come from its own causes and conditions? Or are you saying it's that state of mind which is just itself a made-up thing, and just itself a simple construct?

Which one do you want to say it is? It's a question by the minority school to the middle-weight school in response to how they describe deceptive and deceptive reality.

[Говорящий 2]
It's a question by the minority school to the middle-weight school in response to how they describe deceptive and deceptive reality.

[Говорящий 1]
Now, if you give the first answer, OK, if you describe den-den, which is the state of mind in which the tendency to think things really exist or truly exist, if you describe it as being a rumba japa, meaning a fine expression, which here is a code word for the constructing state of mind, right, sopa, and if you further describe it as something which has come about through its own causes and conditions, you middle-weight people, then don't go telling us it's only a construct itself. Don't go around telling us it's just a construct of the mind or something like that. And don't go around telling us that it doesn't exist by definition, or it doesn't exist in reality, or it doesn't exist truly or something like that.

The minute you have agreed that the tendency to see things as truly existing is itself, A, a constructing state of mind or a labelled state of mind, but, B, it has come from its own causes and conditions, right, then don't go around telling us it doesn't exist by definition. And you can't say it's just a construct of the mind. You keep going around saying everything is just a projection, everything is just a construct of the mind.

But now that you've agreed that the tendency to see things as self-existent itself is, A, a constructing or a labelling state of mind, and then, B, it comes from its own causes and conditions, please don't come and tell us that it doesn't have any existence by definition. Come on. You want to say it's the second thing, A and B.

What are the two parts of the second thing? Is the tendency to see things as truly existing, A, a labeling state of mind or a constructing state of mind, and then, B, is it just made up by the mind? Is it not something that comes from its own causes and conditions?

Remember they gave them two choices. They blew them away on the first choice. Now they're going to blow them away on the second choice.

Okay, let's say that you middle-aged school people say that what the tendency to see things as truly existing really consists of is a constructing or an imagining state of mind, A, and then, B, it is itself only a construction, implying that it does not have its own causes and conditions. If you said that there could be a state of mind like that, then, in effect, what you're saying is that the tendency to see things as truly existing does not itself even exist. Because if you're going to go and say it's just a construct of the mind, implying that it doesn't have its causes and conditions, which, by the way, the middle way would never agree to say that that's what it means, but, anyway, then what, in fact, you're saying is that it doesn't come from its causes and conditions.

If a state of mind didn't come from its causes and conditions, it could never exist. So, then what you're saying is that the tendency to see things as truly existing itself could never exist. And then, you know what?

You get into that same old problem that you always have with middle-aged people, because then that state of mind wouldn't have anything to be holding on to. So, you could never even talk about a truly existing thing or a not truly existing thing, because if the state of mind that thought it truly existed when it didn't truly exist didn't exist, then how could you even talk about those things? So, now you've got yourself into a corner where there doesn't even exist the idea of something existing truly, because the state of mind that thinks that doesn't exist either, because it's just, A, an imagination, and B, it itself is an imaginary thing, implying that it can't come from its causes and conditions.

So, according to the mind-only school, if the middle-aged school came up and agreed that the tendency to see things as truly existing itself was only an imaginary thing or a construct, then it wouldn't have its own causes and conditions. And then what could we say about it? It didn't matter to us.

Oh, yes. Supposedly middle-aged position, which isn't their position, right? They would never say that the tendency to see things as it truly doesn't have its causes and conditions.

But what would the implication be if they did accept that? Well, then they'd have to say that about everything else, you know, that this didn't come from its conditions, this didn't come from its conditions, this didn't come from its conditions, and then what would they be saying? They'd be saying, in the middle of the time, that cocaine never existed, cocaine never existed.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, be careful, be careful. Shenwang. Only Shenwang.

Only Shenwang which has causes and conditions, which would have to be non-existent. Now, there are other things which do exist that really don't come from causes and conditions. But, more particularly, they would be, in effect, saying that Shenwang, meaning dependency or cause-thing, didn't exist at all.

So, if you think about it, what is the linchpin of the Mind-Only School's presentation of things? You know, what is it which all other things revolve upon or revolve around? What is it?

It's Shenwang. It's changing things. It's things that have causes.

Because it's on the basis of changing things that we can describe constructs, and it's the absence of certain types of constructs which is there, emptiness. So, if you take away the whole linchpin of their whole system, which is changing things, then you've shattered their whole system and everything becomes crazy or non-existent. So, you must retain the foundation or the basis.

And that's why it's such a serious thing when the Mind-Only School accuses the Middle Way School. It says, therefore, you are wiping out the whole basis. Remember, basis.

It actually can mean the basis which is labeled, or the basis of the invitation, or the basis on which we make constructs. The absence of certain constructs also being the basis in which we establish emptiness itself in the Mind-Only School. So, you Middle Way School guys are wiping out the whole foundation of everything.

And that's why it says in the text, third line from the bottom, page forty-six, which means, well, then, that's why we keep telling you, you Middle Way people, you're wiping out the very foundation. End of the third line from the bottom, page forty-six. From the last line on page forty-six, from the beginning of the line, you will now get Jetam Karpa's take on the quotation from the abbreviation of Master Sangha.

Now, those of you who are taking good notes, if you start taking notes on what we're about to say, it might seem to be some kind of repetition or redundancy, because Geshe-la has already gone through and glossed the meaning of the words from Master Sangha's abbreviation. So, just make a note in your notes that if it sounds a little redundant here, it's because Geshe-la already explained the quotation, and now you're going to have Jetam Karpa giving his explanation of the quotation. Jetam Karpa's take on the quotation from the abbreviation of Master Sangha occupies the entire chunk from the last line of page forty-six to the seventh line from the bottom on page forty-seven, where it says Chudo.

That whole chunk of text there is going to be Jetam Karpa describing just about what we've just described. Come back to page forty-six, last line, OK? Which is where Jetam Karpa begins his description of the abbreviation.

[Говорящий 2]
Jetam Karpa's take on the quotation from the abbreviation of Master Sangha occupies the entire chunk from the last line of page forty-six to the seventh line from the bottom on page forty-seven, where it says Chudo. That whole chunk of text there is going to be Jetam Karpa describing just about what we've just described. Come back to page forty-six, last line, OK?

Which is where Jetam Karpa begins his description of the abbreviation. Jetam Karpa's take on the quotation from the abbreviation of Master Sangha occupies the entire chunk from the last line of page forty-six to the seventh line from the bottom on page forty-seven, where it says Chudo. That whole chunk of text there is going to be Jetam Karpa describing just about what we've just described.

Come back to page forty-six, last line, OK?

[Говорящий 1]
Page forty-six, last line. Jetam Karpa is now breaking in to the flow and saying, OK, you want to know what that means, that quotation from the abbreviation? We're talking about the state of mind, and that state of mind is what we're going to be talking about.

That state of mind is what the quotation is really talking about. Then it says some very difficult phrasing on top of page forty-seven, first line, Nangyil Rinpoche means the inner expression, OK? Again, it's the word expression being used as a code word, OK?

This is not referring to bhakta. Inner expression refers to mental states. These mental states, if you remember, this is where the tendency to hold things as existing truly comes from.

First there has to be a mental seed from it, for it, from your past life. And so this is a, now he's describing that tendency to think things truly exist, wherein one thinks that things have a nature of their own when they don't have a nature of their own, which is coming from mental seeds from before, from doing the same thing before, actually.

[Говорящий 2]
What did he say?

[Говорящий 1]
So now from the first line and second line of page forty-seven, you have it now taking the form of a question, OK? So, based on the idea that this tendency to see things as truly existing comes from mental seeds which existed before, are you now saying, Mr. Madhyamika, you know, are you saying now that things, this state of mind, derives from a similar state of mind in the past? Does it derive from a cause which had a similar characteristic to it that happened in the past, in which case you're saying it does come from its causes and conditions?

I guess I want to point out that now they're asking the second half of the question. Remember the first half of the question was, oh, do you think it's a thing that comes from its causes and conditions? They gave Madhyamika a chance to say yes or no.

Then they said, or do you think it's a thing that doesn't come from its causes and conditions, OK? And then Geshe-la wants you to make sure right now that you fix the problem of the text. Third line, page forty-seven.

Last syllable should be yāgi su yīn nā yīn. It should be yīn, meaning that he wanted to make sure you got that. Now he's going to continue with their second question.

Oh. And then the second question being expressed, page forty-seven, end of the second line, through to the third line. Or are you saying that this tendency to see things as existing truly is just some kind of mental construct, some kind of imaginary object or something like that?

Which do you choose, Mr. Madhyamika?

[Говорящий 2]
No, no. There you are, my dear.

[Говорящий 1]
There's another problem with the text here. And again, you don't change it. You just mark it.

OK, this one you just mark and you write it off as a third line. In the middle of the third line, there is a genetic particle, which is an āgika-yīn, right? Connected to je-pa, je-pe, right?

So in the middle of line three, there's a genetic particle, which is an āgika-yīn, right? If you retain this genitive particle there, which is like an apostrophe S in English, right? The whole meaning of the sentence gets changed and it becomes a difficult sentence and doesn't make much sense.

A lot of the texts, the Omdo editions, where you see it, they will not have this genitive particle there. And just a general aside of my own, the various editions of Jethro Coppola's works are wildly different. You get many particles like this that are hanging around, that are different between different versions of the printing.

So he says, Geshe-la says, if you take that one out, it's a lot more comfortable. Because then what you're saying is, Kuntzaba means that thing which is deceived, Lumbar Jepa, true expression, right? Expression meaning here, again, a code word for the tendency to see things as truly existing.

Very difficult. A code word for the tendency to see things as truly existing, which here and in the text is called, you know, expression, or true expression, or funny expression, or something like that. If you are saying, oh Mr. Martin Mika, that that deceptive state of mind which holds things to be truly existing is itself an imaginary object, right?

Is itself just something which is a projection or a concept of the mind. See, that's how the sentence comes out if you drop the apostrophe s there, okay? And if you don't drop it there, you're in trouble.

Geshe-la says other editions don't have that there. You might want to make a, our custom is to make a mark under it, and then off to the side and make your note about it. Now we're on to the fourth line, page 47.

If you, Martin Mika, take the first choice as we presented it, which is what? Say that that state of mind comes from its own causes, or more specifically, it comes from a previous, from the seed of a previous state of mind that was similar, okay? So if you are saying, in effect, that this tendency to hold things as truly existing comes from a similar state of mind or a similar, a cause which is concordant with it, right?

If you say that, then don't go around saying it doesn't exist, right? The root text of the abbreviation at this point, which is the four lines from the bottom of page 46, says no more than, don't go around saying it doesn't exist, okay? And then Jetsun Kapi is trying to clarify for you what that means, and that he does towards the end of line four on page 47, meaning, don't go around saying it's something that doesn't exist ultimately, okay?

Because actually, the Middle Way School didn't say, they didn't go around saying that they didn't exist, right? That that state of mind didn't exist. All the Middle Way School said was, it doesn't exist ultimately.

But the Mind Only School says, okay, look, if you're going to say that this state of mind that holds things as truly existing is a thing that grows from a seed which is produced from a similar state of mind in the past, then don't you go around saying it doesn't exist ultimately, okay? And where they say, don't go around saying it doesn't exist ultimately is line five, page 47.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
And the next few lines, Jetsun Kapi gives his rationalization for saying, hey, look, they're not just saying to the Middle Way School, come on, don't go saying nothing exists, right? It doesn't just mean that. What they're trying to say, the Mind Only School, in the abbreviation, is saying to the Middle Way School, don't go around saying nothing exists ultimately, right?

And they must be saying that for two reasons, okay? The first reason is that the whole argument between the Mind Only School and the Middle Way School is not some argument about whether things exist or not. I mean, generally speaking, a Mind Only School guy and a Middle Way School guy are going to agree, you know, this thing exists, this thing doesn't exist, you know, this exists, this exists.

It's not a question. The confrontation here is not between two people who have different ideas about whether something exists or not. The question is, do things exist ultimately or not?

One school is saying, of course they exist ultimately, and the other school is saying certain things exist ultimately, and the other school is saying nothing in the universe exists ultimately, okay? So, obviously, when it says, don't go around saying things don't exist, what the Mind Only School means is, don't go around saying things don't exist ultimately. That's the first reason why Jessica Cox feels it's necessary here to tell you, hey, look, they're talking about ultimately here, not just about, don't go around saying things don't exist.

The second point is that, where are we taking off from, you know, what was it that someone said that triggered this fight, you know? Well, it was when the Middle Way School people came along and said, by the way, nothing exists ultimately, right? So, if that's the take-off point, if the take-off point is by, if the whole argument started by somebody saying, nothing exists ultimately, then when the opponent comes up and says, stop saying things don't exist, what they mean is, stop saying things don't exist ultimately.

Those are two reasons why the phrase, stop saying things don't exist, must mean here, stop saying things don't exist ultimately.

[Говорящий 2]
So, that's the first point. The second point is that, you know, when you say, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, what you mean is, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, right? So, when you say, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, what you mean is, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, right?

So, when you say, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, what you mean is, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, right? So, when you say, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, what you mean is, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, right? So, when you say, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, what you mean is, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, right?

So, when you say, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, what you mean is, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, right? So, when you say, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, what you mean is, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, right?

[Говорящий 1]
So, when you say, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, what you mean is, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, right? So, when you say, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, what you mean is, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, right? So, when you say, stop saying things don't exist ultimately, what you mean is, stop saying So, when you say, stop saying from line 9, from the bottom of page 47 Well, I'll tell you why All the foundation of our whole system would collapse because and then it's going on to give more reasoning So, the mind-only school is showing you the domino effect of your beliefs If you believe this, then this is what would happen The whole basis for everything being asserted or making constructs about everything, which is shenwa dependent things, would collapse because means if the tendency itself to see things as truly existing, which is one kind of changing thing If you started to say about that that it was only a construct or a projection then you'd have to say that about all other changing things in the world also and then the whole basis upon which we say things are constructs the whole basis of emptiness the whole basis of everything else would collapse So, you can't say that If something breaks down with regard to the tendency to see things as truly existing they would also have to break down for all other changing things

[Говорящий 2]
Leningrad Leningrad

[Говорящий 1]
We're now on the seventh line from the bottom of page 47 So, the mind-only school in their own minds have successfully denied that what the middle way school people said how they identified the meaning of the word deceptive in the phrase deceptive reality They've already blown that away So, you know, there has to be wrong, you guys Middle way guys, you don't have that right You didn't get that right Now, they're going to go on to blow away the second half which is where the middle way school said Here's what it means ultimate existence, ultimate reality Here's what ultimate means in the expression ultimate reality Don't forget that for a middle way person it means nothing exists by definition nothing exists ultimately They take ultimate reality to mean nothing exists ultimately nothing exists truly nothing exists by definition Now, you know that the mind-only school has to go after that So, here's where in the abbreviated presentation of Arya Sangha you're going to get the middle way school's attack on the middle way school's presentation of what ultimate means in the expression ultimate reality Remember, they gave an example of what ultimate reality was and in that way they described ultimate reality So, they're going to now attack that and Jessica Karp is going to start out with a direct quotation from the abbreviation of Arya Sangha

[Говорящий 2]
Okay Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

[Говорящий 1]
So now we have a taunt almost by the Mino-Lithuanian collocators saying, Okay, tērāndebā, tērāndebā, tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tē tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērāndebā tērā Line 5 from the bottom, page 47. The answer of the middle way school, right, the question posed to them was Why do you think that the thing it thinks it sees isn't there?

And then the middle way school comes along and says Chījī-lakṣu-mūḍhaṁ, you major. Because it's a mistaken state of mind. That's why the thing it thinks is there isn't there.

That's why the thing it thinks is there doesn't exist. Because it's a mistaken state of mind. So by definition, what it thinks is wrong isn't there.

So that's what it means when we say the thing it thinks it sees isn't there. Because it's a mistaken state of mind, we told you that. That's what it is, it's a mistaken state of mind.

And then the mind only school comes right back and says Oh, oh, are you saying then that it exists or it doesn't exist? Are you saying then that that mistaken state of mind exists or it doesn't exist? Now do they mean exists or doesn't exist or do they mean something more?

They mean something more meaning Does it exist in an ultimate way or doesn't it exist in an ultimate way? Again, they're not just going to come up to the middle way school and say Oh, do you think that state of mind exists or doesn't exist? What they mean is, do you think...

Now, next question for you middle way guys. Do you think that that thing exists ultimately or doesn't exist ultimately? Or you could say in their school, exists truly or doesn't exist truly?

Or exists by definition or doesn't exist by definition? All the same thing for the middle way, for the mind only school. Now they're throwing a question back to the middle way.

Oh, do you think that mistaken state of mind exists ultimately, truly, by definition or not?

[Говорящий 2]
Do you think that it exists or doesn't exist? It doesn't exist. Hey Mapati.

I did not tell the Mahayanists to go in. I did not tell the Mahayunists to go in. I don't care.

[Говорящий 1]
Further answer by the mind only school. Second line below 47. and starting with Kelte.

Oh, so, let's see. Did you guys, did you middle-aged guys, middle-aged school guys, was it that you wanted to say it did exist or it didn't exist? What is it?

What is the example we're talking about? The tendency to see things as truly existing. So they ask the question, do you think it exists or it doesn't exist?

You know, what do you middle-aged guys think? And Geshe-la reminds us that, of course, they're not just asking, does it exist or it doesn't exist. They're asking, does it exist ultimately or it doesn't exist ultimately?

Now, if you say it doesn't exist ultimately, Kelte yuna, which is down in the last line of 47, well, then what you must be saying is that when you went around describing, oh, the emptiness of this thing is the fact that it doesn't exist ultimately or by definition or truly. And that's the meaning of emptiness for these things and these things and these things and these things and everybody else, everything else in the universe, right? You middle-aged guys already said that when we talk about the emptiness of things, we're talking about the fact that they are devoid of any quality of existing ultimately.

They don't have that quality. So your whole presentation of what it means for every object in the universe to be empty doesn't mean anything now that you've accepted that the tendency to see things as truly existing itself as a state of mind exists ultimately. So you guys, your whole school collapses if you start to agree that the tendency to hold things as being true is itself something which exists ultimately.

You can't answer that. Because then you can't go around to every single thing in the universe and say, the opposite of it existing ultimately is its emptiness. The absence of it existing ultimately is its emptiness.

And go around to every single object and say, this is what its emptiness is. This is what its yongdu is. This is what its emptiness is.

You can't go around saying that anymore. So you can't be accepting that that state of mind is something that exists ultimately.

[Говорящий 2]
I just want to make a quick question.

[Говорящий 1]
So you can understand the logic of the minority school's objection, right? They're saying, you know, if you took any particular object in the world, even if it were the tendency to see things as truly existing, and you said that that one thing exists ultimately, meaning that it doesn't, it's not such that it doesn't exist by definition, right? As you guys, as long as you can say that about that one object, which is that one state of mind, then wouldn't you have to say it about all other objects?

Is it fair? Is it justice to take all the objects in the world and say, oh, this is true about the tendency to see things as truly existing, and then it's not true about all the other objects in the universe, especially all the other changing objects? Is it, is it like fair for the middle way school to say, oh, oh, this one is different, you know?

This one exists ultimately, but nothing else exists ultimately. Could you describe the emptiness of one object, meaning the tendency to see things as truly existing itself, could you describe its emptiness as its lack of having anything which exists, of having any quality existing by definition? And, and could you describe it and say, that's not true about this one object, and then go around and say, oh, but it's true about these other objects, you know?

You can't blame the mind-only school for their, for demanding consistency of the middle way school people, you know? You can't go around saying that this one object, its emptiness is described differently than the emptiness of all the others objects. No, you can't, you can't say, you middle way school people, that the tendency to see things as truly existing is itself something that exists ultimately.

Otherwise, it breaks down with everything else. Do you think it's fair to take out that object and, and, and... Having said all of that, if the mind, if the middle way school went and said about the state of mind that thinks that things truly exist, if they said, oh, well, but that thing, if you can't say about that thing that it doesn't exist by definition, it does exist by definition, right?

Having said that, could the middle way school come along and say, oh, and by the way, the primary, or, or, here's a good example, or here's a primary example of what ultimate reality means, right? That's where we got, that's where they're starting out. You know, could they come along and say, hey guys, here's what ultimate reality means, having just made this exception?

So, it's a real sweet argument in the mind way school.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Now they go up to the second part. Page 48, first line. That thing may not even mean, well, let's suppose you change your tune, and now you say that the tendency to hold things as truly existing itself doesn't exist.

Now, do they mean simply doesn't exist here? No. They mean, if you say that the tendency to hold things as existing truly doesn't exist ultimately, right, then what happens?

Well, mind way school says to middle way school, if you say that that tendency to hold things as existing truly doesn't exist ultimately, then what you're saying is it doesn't exist. Okay? It's equivalent to saying it doesn't exist.

Okay? And if you say that the tendency to hold things as truly existing itself doesn't exist, then when we go about describing ultimate reality, we have a problem. Why?

Because when we go around describing ultimate reality, we go around saying the ultimate reality of things is their emptiness. Emptiness means they are devoid of a self-existent thing, or a thing that exists by definition. Well, who said it existed, who thought it existed by definition in the first place?

Oh, there's this tendency to hold things as existing truly. Okay? So, then the guy says, well, wait a minute, you just said that didn't exist.

Okay? So, you middle way people cannot describe ultimate reality. You can't even speak about an example or a classical example of ultimate reality, because you're going to get in trouble through the back door.

Right? Because when you describe what it means for something to be ultimate reality, you have to say it's the emptiness of things. Emptiness of what, pray tell?

Oh, the fact that they don't exist by definition. Who said they existed by definition? Oh, there's this tendency to think of them as existing by definition even though they don't.

Oh, and what tendency would that be? Oh, that's the tendency to hold things as truly existing. Oh, the one you said didn't exist ultimately, right?

Yeah. The one you said didn't exist, because if something doesn't exist at all, it can't even exist at all. And then middle way school people are stuck.

Okay? So, this is the minor way school's way of getting to the middle way school and showing them why they're wrong if they would say, oh, that tendency to exist, to say that, the tendency to think that things exist truly is itself not something which exists ultimately.

[Говорящий 2]
Oh, that's true.

[Говорящий 1]
This whole thing that I just presented is found, or is actually stated in the book, starting with the third line of page 48 and continuing to the sixth line from the bottom of page 48. That whole chunk of text there is where Jetsun Kappa, in effect, says what I just said, that the abbreviation was saying. Okay?

So, now again we're going to get something that might seem a little redundant. Now you get Jetsun Kappa explaining the wording of the abbreviation in the way that I just finished explaining it. So, in your notes, don't get confused.

You know, later when you read them over again and say, you know, Geshe took the original same thing twice. Now it's actually Jetsun Kappa's own, in his own words, explaining what Geshe-la just explained. Now we'll go up and start explaining Jetsun Kappa's explanation.

Line three, page 48. Now the meaning of those words from the abbreviation is the following. Chudida la, chudida la, these things, okay, these things.

Geshe-la says you can take it as shenwangs, as dependent things, and you can just as well take it as emptiness or totality, as it's expressed in the little Mainomi system. These things, which any fool could look at and see they exist by definition. Okay, so the Mainomi school is, you know, like saying, come on, you know, anyone, you just have to open your eyes and you can see that these things exist by definition.

And to go around and say that those things don't exist by definition, well then, then he's going to go off. So, you know, the Mainomi school is starting off kind of hot and saying, you know, open your eyes, anybody can see these things exist by definition. And the Manimikans, line five, page 48, respond and say, hey, what kind of objection is that, you know, that doesn't touch me.

That doesn't even touch me. Why? It's a mistaken state of mind.

You know, what you say, to open your eyes and look at anything, you can see that it exists by definition, you know. Yeah, you do, and it's wrong, and that's a mistaken state of mind. So, yeah, that doesn't touch me, man.

Doesn't hurt me any. You know, that doesn't even touch me, you know. That argument doesn't bring him to me.

[Говорящий 2]
That doesn't even touch me. So, you know, that doesn't touch me, you know.

[Говорящий 1]
So then the Mainomi school said, don't forget the Minomi school said, that doesn't touch me because that's their mind's mistake. So now the Mainomi school is going to go back to their old refrain, basically. They're going to say, oh, oh, oh, you said it's a mistaken state of mind, right?

Pray tell, does it exist by definition or not? Remember, they're going back to their old argument. You know, us Mainomi guys already explained to you that if you answer us, oh, that mistaken state of mind does exist by definition, then there would have to be one thing in the world about which we could say it does exist by definition, right?

So then, I'm sorry, yeah, if you said it does exist by definition, then there would be one thing in the world that you would have to say when you describe its emptiness, meaning when you describe the emptiness of that mistaken state of mind, you couldn't no longer say it is the fact that it is not something which exists by definition. It's voidness, or the fact that it's devoid of any quality of existing by definition, right? You couldn't say that anymore about this particular state of mind if you say it does exist by definition.

And then your whole idea of emptiness gets blown away. You know, this is not what definition of emptiness means about this one thing. Oh, but here's what emptiness means about everything else.

And then you couldn't go along and start giving us classical examples of what it means to be ultimate reality. Because with this one example, your idea of what ultimate reality is was just blown away. So you can't say it does exist by definition, this supposedly mistaken mind that you're talking about.

And suppose now that you did say that it didn't exist by definition, right? Then we get into that same old problem. We already explained it to you, we already went through it with you middle-weight guys, that if the mistaken state of mind itself were not something that existed by definition, then we couldn't say that it existed at all.

Then the mistake that we're supposedly making wouldn't be existing at all, and then there wouldn't be any mistaken state of mind anyway. Okay, so either way you're caught, middle-weight people. Yes, I want to make a confirmation process right now, okay?

We've been through an explanation of the quotation from the abbreviation already. And then we got Jethro Koppa's take on that same wording from the abbreviation. So if you took your personal notes, and you took our explanation on the left, and ran down the left column with that explanation that we did, when we got to the actual quotation from the abbreviation, and then you took Jethro's, and the way we explained Jethro Koppa's explanation of the same word, and ran them down parallel down your notes, would they match up or not?

We just want to do a reconfirmation process here. I just want to check that, you know. So before we go on to the next phrasing of the text, I just want to compare those two versions that you have there, and make sure that they concord with each other.

In your own mind, does it concord? Is it okay? I just wanted to make sure it was the same in your own mind, because if it wasn't the same in your own mind, there'd be a problem.

But now that you say it is the same, you can go ahead. If someone's theoretical example were just saying, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, those two are the same, without really understanding that they were exactly the same, then there might be a problem. But I'm sure that's not the case.

In the next few lines, Jetta Kappa says, You know, by the way, I'm talking about Irun T ritual for us, Eight lines in the bottom on page forty-eight. That starts out So basically, what Jetta Kappa's saying is that we don't have to go into a long analysis here about how to establish whether the thing is existing ultimately or not ultimately or... You don't have to go through the whole process of the analysis here, because you can understand it easily.

Why? You've been through this analysis before. Where?

Page 46. On the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10th line from the bottom, and 9th line, 8th line, 9th and 10th lines from the bottom, down to about the 4th line from the bottom. They went through this thing already of talking about that is the tendency to see things as truly existing something which comes from its causes, or is it something which is just a figment of the imagination, like a fabrication or a projection?

Because if it is, if it is something that comes from its causes, then you can't say that it doesn't exist by definition, because it does exist by definition. And then you can't start describing its deceptive nature in terms of that. Remember that on page 46, the minorly school was objecting to what?

They were trying to prove that the middle way school's presentation of the meaning of the word deceptive in the phrase deceptive reality was incorrect or inaccurate. And then they started to say, well, what did you mean when you said deceptive? They said, oh, deceased state of mind.

Oh, oh, and that deceased state of mind, pray tell, does that come from its causes and conditions, or is it just something which is itself a projection? And then no matter which way the middle way school answers, they get into some kind of trouble. Jethro Topher says, the same pattern holds here when the minorly school attacks the middle way school about how they characterize an example of what it would be to be ultimate reality, right?

So, having done that, when they were talking about the meaning of the word deceptive in deceptive reality, having gone through that whole analysis with what? With reference to the state of mind which sees things as truly existing, that mistaken state of mind. Having finished all that already, in the case of their description, the middle way school's description of the word deceptive in deceptive reality, there's no need, says Jethro Topher, for me to, you know, it's easy for you to understand now the minorly school's argument with reference to the second case, which is the meaning of ultimate or ultimate reality.

I don't have to go into that now, because we've finished all this. That's easy to get. Easy to get is on page 48, sixth line from the bottom.

It's easy for me, it's easy for you guys to get it, and that's why I'm only giving you the briefest explanation here. I did say something about it. I didn't go into any long spiel about it.

Could you go back to page 46, please? If we went into a long analysis of it, like we did before, with the word deceptive in deceptive reality, and we started asking questions and examining and arguing back and forth, you know, what would we come out with? We'd come out with the same thing anyway.

What? What's that? We'd come out with saying, the state of mind that thinks that things exist truly doesn't exist at all.

And then that misperception that it has doesn't exist at all either, and then there's all those problems with that not existing, you know. And so Jethro Topher says, anyway, it's going to end up at the same point, isn't it? You're going to be saying that that tendency to see things as truly doesn't exist, therefore the thing that it's thinking about doesn't exist, therefore there doesn't exist anything about which you could say is empty, no Shenlongs, then that maya-self, and then all of these problems with, you know, Jethro Topher says, we've been through that.

Even if we go through it again, all this questioning process, we're going to end up at the same destination. So that's why I just made a brief presentation. We'll start to talk about the meaning of ultimate reality.

[Говорящий 2]
The meaning of ultimate reality is that you can see things as they are. And for one another. And for mothers all over the world, You feel things as they are.

You feel things as they are. All over the world, One mother will give birth as she wishes. And another woman with a child to take care of, Will give birth as she wishes.

What good is that? People in the world Will they have food like this the next prayer."

[Говорящий 1]
And he said, you know, I've never seen a man like this. What did the Middle Way School say didn't exist by definition? What was it that the Middle Way School said didn't exist ultimately?

They said, in their own words, right, no object in the universe exists ultimately. No object in the universe exists by definition. They made a blanket statement disregarding these fancy divisions of the Middle Way School.

They said, oh, you have to divide things into dependent things, into things which are constructs, and into things which are emptiness or totality, to use their words. Okay? So, you notice that the Middle Way School, when they began blasting away and saying, nothing exists by definition, they didn't even bother to break it down into those three groups.

They just said, nothing exists by definition. Everything in the universe is such that it does not exist by definition. Now, why is it that when the Mind-Only School wanted to counterattack, you know, if you think about it, they only brought up one of those things.

They only brought up dependent objects. Okay? They only brought up dependent objects.

In the form of the state of mind that holds things to exist truly. Okay? They didn't even bring up all dependent objects.

They just bring up a representative of all dependent things, meaning the state of mind that thinks that things exist truly when they don't exist truly. So, why is it, says Jethro Koppa, that they have not made their grievances, okay, or their complaints with regard to the other two attributes, or the other two groups of things, meaning constructs and totality or meaning emptiness in the Mind-Only School. Why is it that they've only chosen to counterattack the Middle Way School with regard to changing things or dependent things, and they haven't said anything about, they haven't made any attempt to prove why the Middle Way School must be wrong with the other two groups as well, when the Middle Way School started out by making a blanket statement that applied to all three.

Why is that? Now, there's an answer to that question, okay? Why are people concentrating on Xinhua, on dependent things?

The answer is this. Both parties being experienced debaters, both parties being sophisticated thinkers, both parties being experienced in the art of disputation are going after the most important thing. It's as if it were a lawsuit, and there were other issues involved as well, but they're going to go after the main thing, because both parties realize that the battle is going to be won or lost with regard to dependent things.

Dependent things are the linchpin of the ideas of the mind-only school as far as establishing what is emptiness and what isn't emptiness, right? And even the middle-aged school understands the implication. If they can demonstrate to the mind-only school that dependent things don't exist ultimately, don't exist by definition, then the others will be easy, you know?

Then they go on and say that it's true of all the other categories of existing things, even according to the mind-only school. It would be a piece of cake, okay? So both parties being experienced debaters, seasoned warriors, they realize where the boundary is.

They realize that this is where the real battle has to be fought. It's with regard to changing objects. That's why the mind-only school is only facing their questions in terms of changing objects, and among those a certain representative as being typical of changing objects, which is the very state of mind which thinks that things truly exist, okay?

That state of mind. If they can prove something to the middle way about that particular state of mind, then in their mind they have proven it about all other changing things, and that's the linchpin. Both parties understand this is where the battle is going to be won or lost.

We call it kei-chu and kei-shi. The object which is with, which is with. The object which is either not going to have or which is going to have a certain quality which we're going to debate about.

If we take it, yon-do-bu-chu-chen means that object which possesses the characteristic of what? Of having a yon-du, of having an emptiness that pertains to it or not. Emptiness needs something to be empty.

If you think about it, it's shen-wang, it's dependent things that provide the object which we examine when we decide whether or not something is empty. Whether or not it has a quality is the first reason to take that. Secondly, it is intimately involved with the process of labeling in the sense of either a verbal label or a mental label.

So, in one sense, if I was flirting with the idea that the labels themselves are shen-wangs, aren't they? The labeling word, whether you say labels consist of verbalization or whether you say labels consist of ways of thinking about things, they are both intimately concerned with changing things or dependent things. Thirdly, we know that it's changing things that receive the label.

It's about changing things that you say, oh, this is that, or this is that. It's changing things which provide the basis for something to get a label. It's also changing things about which normally you can have a misperception.

You know, it's on that basis that you're saying, oh, that exists truly or that doesn't exist truly. These are the different flavors in which changing things are crucial or are the crucial points. So, Kebas, last two syllables on page 48, if they're going to pick something, if they're going to pick some primary object to have their fight over, if they're going to pick a battlefield in which they're either going to win or lose, it's going to be shen-wangs.

It's going to be dependent things because they both realize that this is a crucial thing. For all those reasons, shen-wangs or dependent things are the crucial things in a debate over whether things exist ultimately or not. And that's the meaning of the first line of page 49.

Today we'll stop there.