Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 23

[Говорящий 2]
Now I will teach you about the inner lineage. This is about the original lineage. The original lineage is when you were born, you were born in the Summer of the Western Regions, and you were born in the Summer of the Northern Regions.

You born in the Summer of the Western Regions. Your your ancestor was born in the Summer That's it. If you don't bear an ancestor, He said, I don't know how to do it, but if you do it, you will be able to do it, but if you don't do it, you won't be able to do it, but if you don't do it, you won't be able to do it, but if you don't do it, you won't be able to do it, but if you don't do it, you won't be able to do it, but if you don't do it, you won't be able to do it, but if you don't do it, you won't be able to do it, but if you don't do it, you won't be able to do it, but if you don't do it, you won't be able to do it, but if you don't do it, you won't be able to do it, but if you don't do it, you won't be able to do it, but if you don't do it, you won't be able to do it, but if you don't do it, you won t So, what I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as a good person, a good teacher, or a good teacher.

There is no such thing.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay, don't forget we are talking about two states of mind. To pick up from where we were this morning, we are talking about two states of mind posited in the Mind-only School, and we were coming up with an idea concentrating on the differences between the objects of these two states of mind. One had a certain object, one had another object.

How were the two objects characterized? The object of the first state of mind was described as something which doesn't exist ultimately and does exist nominally or deceptively, something which doesn't exist substantially and something which does exist merely labeled. That was the description of the first object, the object of the first state of mind.

Then we had a second state of mind, which was described as, its object was described as something which is substantial, something which is not just labeled, something which does exist ultimately, something which does not simply exist as a labeled thing. That was the way those two objects were described with those two states of mind. Now Geshe-la wants to go into the actual wording for those two objects.

Those two objects are not simply called something you can see. That's only part of the name for those objects. In each case, we have a little bit of extended phrasing in the Tibetan.

The first one is called, something you can see, that thing which has the name of something you can see. Something you can see, that thing which has the name of something you can see. Geshe-la was thinking about this one.

He was trying to imagine what the Mind-Only School is talking about when they talk about something you can see, something which is just given the name something you can see. He was thinking about it and he said, I think they're referring, since they say that they are referring to something which is not substantial, but rather something only labeled, they must be talking here about the fact that visual objects are what you call visual objects. The fact that visual objects are what are called, quote, visual objects, is actually what we're talking about here.

We're talking about a state of mind which is concentrating on the fact that visual objects are what are called visual objects, which is in itself a construct, a mental construct. So the object in the first case, because of that additional phrasing in the Tibetan, that thing which is given the name of visual object, etc., it must be talking about the very fact that this thing is what we call a, quote, visual object. So that's the object in the case of the first consciousness.

The object being something which is not substantial, which is only a construct, something which does not exist ultimately, but rather exists only nominally. What is the object in the second case, therefore? Geshe-la points out that we have some extra wording here also.

We have six lines from the bottom, and it says, it adds the expression, rinpoch judam meva. Judam meva means cannot be called. So here we have the object of the second state of mind is being called that thing which cannot be called simply something we call visual object, okay?

That thing which is beyond description as something we simply call visual object. Meaning, now we're talking about the real, the real blue. And now he'll go into the meaning of the object of the second one.

So he's finished the first one. He wants to point out that in the description of the second object, they've used the same phrasing with a small difference, four extra syllables, okay? Instead of saying that thing which is just called a visual object, now it says that thing which cannot be described as being just called a visual object, okay?

Now he's going to go into more detail on what that means. If you take these words on face value, if you take these descriptions of the two objects of these two states of mind on face value, there seems to be a big problem here. It seems to be, it doesn't, we can't conceptualize it very well.

It's kind of hard to think about and there's a doubt that could come into your mind whether this or not is something that the minority school wants to say. Okay, so is it something the minority school wants to say? And even if it is, it's kind of difficult to grasp.

So he wants to talk more about it.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay, so he wants to talk more about it.

[Говорящий 1]
Let's take an example. Now let's look around, let's see, what are we going to take as an example? Let's pick on this thermos bottle, okay?

Let's pick on this thermos bottle. Now don't forget that in the description of the object of the second state of mind, right, the second consciousness, this thermos bottle, or there's being described a thermos bottle which is beyond description, a thermos bottle which cannot be spoken of, okay? And so in the minority school, he says, first of all, in the minority school they're saying, the thermos bottle that I'm pointing to is not the thermos bottle that the minority school is talking about when they say, the thermos bottle which is beyond description, okay?

Now what do they mean? That's still we're going to clarify. But what Geshe-la means to say is, if you're like walking around, talking to normal people who have not studied Buddhist philosophy, they did not get into what the minority school means, just plain old guys, and you go up to them and say, hey, you know what?

This thermos bottle is beyond description, you know? Or if you come up to them and say, by the way, this is not the thermos bottle which is beyond description, okay? Then sounds like crazy talk.

So I mean, we've got to clarify what they mean when they say, this is or this isn't a thermos bottle which is beyond description.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes, that's right.

[Говорящий 1]
When the minority school says about this particular thermos bottle that we're pointing to right now, that this is not the thermos bottle which we can describe as indescribable, right? As beyond description. What do they mean when they say that?

Where is the thermos bottle which is indescribable, okay? It is inseparable from the consciousness which is perceiving it, okay? There's a consciousness which is perceiving the thermos bottle, and there is a thermos bottle which is beyond description, and that thermos bottle which is beyond description has an inseparable relationship with the eye consciousness, the visual consciousness which is perceiving that thermos bottle, okay?

So they would say that in the minority school, right? In the minority school only, right? In the minority school, this is not the real thermos bottle in a sense, okay?

This is not the real thermos bottle that you're seeing when you're perceiving a thermos bottle. What you're really seeing is something which has an inseparable relationship with the visual consciousness, okay? So in the minority school, they talk about a thermos bottle which is not out there, okay, which is not down there on the ground, but one which bears or enjoys an inseparable relationship with the eye consciousness, with the visual consciousness.

So you have to get familiar with that idea that in the minority school they're talking about a kind of thermos bottle that exists with that kind of relationship with the visual consciousness. So where is the thermos bottle that can't be described, right? Where does it lie?

Where is it located, okay? There is the collection of parts that we call a thermos bottle, and in the minority school they say that that thermos bottle which cannot be described does exist within those parts, okay? It does exist within that collection of parts.

Why do we say that that particular thermos bottle is indescribable? It cannot easily be described accurately by people who have not yet seen emptiness directly. So assuming that we were people who had not yet reached the level of a person who has seen emptiness directly, and we look at that thermos bottle, there is an indescribable to us, which we cannot describe, thermos bottle, there somewhere in its parts, according to the minority school.

But there is something, you know, when you look down at the ground and you see this thing there, okay, this big chunk of thing, you see this hunk of thing there, you know? You look away, you look down, and you see this hunk of a thing there, right? You do see something, right?

So what are you actually seeing according to the minority school? You are seeing an appearance. You are seeing something within your own mind, something appearing in your own mind, and you are focusing on that apparent object, okay, that appearance of something, and you are thinking that that is a thermos bottle.

And that's actually the object as described for the first state of consciousness, okay? So what you think is the thermos bottle when you open your eyes and you look at that hunk of thing there, that blob there, and your mind says, thermos bottle, what you are actually focusing on is a, he doesn't want to quite call it mental image, okay, but he wants to say, you are focusing on the appearance in your mind of a thermos bottle, and that happens to be the object of the first state of consciousness as it was described, something insubstantial, something labeled only, something that didn't exist ultimately, okay? Generally speaking, there is a real thermos bottle there in the parts, in the collection of the parts of the thermos bottle.

That particular thermos bottle for us is beyond description. At our level we cannot describe it properly. But then there is another thing that appears to us.

Because of our habit of seeing the thermos bottle and other objects as existing external to ourselves, okay? Remember that that was in this school a kind of mistaken impression that you can get. Our habit of thinking of that blob out there as existing external to ourselves plants certain seeds, mental seeds within our mind, and those seeds make us see something which is called, Geshe-la wants to call it, the fact or the appearance that the thermos is what is called the thermos, okay?

The appearance that the thermos is what is receiving the name thermos, okay? The idea or the concept that the thermos is what's getting the name thermos is actually what we're seeing, and we are not seeing the thermos. We're not seeing the real thermos.

In this school, if somebody comes up to you and says, are you perceiving the real thermos? You have to say no. They say, well, what are you perceiving?

And you're perceiving a thermos in the idea that the thermos is the thing called the thermos, so that's how you perceive the thermos. You're perceiving some kind of concept of the thermos rather than the thermos, and that's the way it is for us normal people who haven't seen emptiness directly yet. There is a real thermos out there based on the collection of the parts of the thermos in this mind-only school, but you're never seeing it.

You're always seeing a concept of the thermos, and that is the object of the first state of mind described on page 54.

[Говорящий 2]
So, to put it simply, the first state of mind is the object of the first state of mind.

[Говорящий 1]
In the mind-only school, given the mind-only school, we'd have to say that there are two thermoses in effect here. There are two thermoses. There's the thermos which can appear to us at our level, and that's the idea of the thermos really.

So, in this school, that's the thermos that we are seeing. When you look at a thermos bottle, you can look at this blob, and you think you see a thermos. What you are really seeing is your concept of the thermos.

That's one of the thermoses that is there. Then there's a second thermos there, which does not appear to you, which truly is existing there in the collection of parts of the thermos. So, really, in the mind-only school, you'd have to say, there are two thermoses going on here.

There's the one that you think you see, and then there's the one that's there, at this level, at our level. What's your name? My name is...

My name is Sribha Sayad. Yes, Sribha Sayad. What?

What? What? What?

What? Yes, yes. Yes, yes.

Venerable Lama, Geshe-la wanted to go off into... ...the effect of certain diseases on your perception, OK? Mistakes of perception that are caused by certain other influences.

And in Tibetan medicine, there are three basic elements that determine your health. The balance of these three elements. One is called blood, I'm sorry, wind.

One is called bile, and one is called phlegm. And these three humors in Tibetan medicine are responsible, the balance of them or the imbalance of them is responsible for your health. It's said that in the case of a disease where you have too much of the wind humor or too much of the wind element, that you begin seeing white things as blue.

And he said, does Western science say that? I said, no. And he said, well, let's go on to another one.

Which one do they accept? I said, well, they accept the thing about bile. So he said, let's go to that one.

So in Tibetan scripture, it says that if the humor of bile becomes overly predominant in your body, then you begin to get like a jaundice condition. You know, your eyes turn yellow, the whites of your eyes turn yellow. Hepatitis or jaundice.

And then actually your perceptions start to change. So if you take a person who's got a really strong case of jaundice or hepatitis, they start to see pure white colors like a sheet of white paper. They start to see it tinted yellow slightly because of the predominance of bile element in their body.

So Geshe-la says, you know, let's take that example. Let's take an example of a person like that. The actual piece of paper is white.

What they think they're seeing or the paper as it appears to them is yellow. And there's two kinds of people that you could divide. You could say there'd be one kind of person who had a bad case of jaundice and knew that it was affecting their perceptions.

And you could say there was another person who had a bad case of jaundice and wasn't aware that it was affecting their perceptions. So the guy who wasn't aware would swear that that rectangle was yellow. He'd say, that's yellow.

He would not recognize the fact that it's appearing one way and there's another piece of paper out there that's white that he cannot see right now. But if you take a person who knows he's got jaundice, a bad case of jaundice, and he knows the effect of a bad case of jaundice on him, he knows that there's a rectangle which is appearing to him as yellow and he knows behind that there's another rectangle which is actually white. And so he's sensitive to the fact that there's an apparent object and there's another object behind it.

So really there's two objects going on. There's two pieces of paper going on, right? One yellow, appearing yellow, and one which is white.

Same thing with a thermos bottle. There's a thermos bottle going on and there's the appearance of a thermos bottle going on. And in the mind-only school you're focusing on the appearance of the thermos bottle and not on the thermos bottle.

Generally speaking, you might hear my example say, Ah, come on, Geshe-la, that's different. This guy's really sick and he thinks he's seeing something yellow, but there's really no yellow there. And yeah, I can admit there's no yellow there, but we have to admit there is the appearance of yellow there, don't we?

You can't say there's no object appearing yellow to him or there's no appearance of yellowness to him. There is an appearance of yellowness to him. Does the piece of paper have yellowness from its own side?

No. But it is appearing to him as yellow. So we have to admit that there is an object appearing yellow, there's an appearance of yellowness, and there's the object which is not yellow.

So there really are two objects going on here, and you have to agree to that, that they both do exist. A yellow appearance does exist, and a white piece of paper does exist. Geshe-la's other example for something which is white, which I forgot to translate, and in Tibetan in general, is yogurt.

Yogurt is always given as the example of a white thing. So he says, suppose a guy's got this bad jaundice, this bad hepatitis attack, and he's got a cup of yogurt that he's looking at, and he'll see it is yellow, right? There'll be an appearance of yellowness to him, and there'll be some yogurt there which is white, right?

And then if you come and ask me, well, when he eats the yogurt, is he eating white yogurt or yellow yogurt? The answer is, of course he's eating white yogurt. What does he think he's eating?

If you go up to him and say, are you eating white yogurt or yellow yogurt? He'll say, I'm eating yellow yogurt. But in reality, what he's eating is white yogurt.

So he doesn't recognize the fact that what he's eating is white yogurt, and in fact he is eating white yogurt, but if you ask him what he's eating, he'll say yellow yogurt. It's a very similar case. And it's the same case with the thermos bottle, okay?

With the yogurt, we got a white yogurt which is sitting there in the bowl, and we got a yellow yogurt which is appearing to the guy, right? The appearance of a yellow yogurt, right? And the thermos is just the same.

We have a thermos bottle as it is appearing to us, and then we have the real thermos bottle behind it, which is what's described as indescribable to us. I mean, we can't grasp it right now. There's this rough image or appearance of a thermos bottle to us, and then there's this more subtle thing which we can't see right now, which is to us, to a normal person, beyond description, meaning we can't talk about it because we don't understand it.

There's a thermos bottle out there existing in the parts of the thermos bottle, the collection of the parts of the thermos bottle, and then there's this much rougher image of a thermos bottle, which is what we normally see. And it's a very similar example of these two thermos bottles and these two yogurts. In actuality, this question of two levels of thermos bottle or something like that is discussed in great detail later on in the text.

We're not going to make it there. So Geshe-la says, on this class, in this series of classes, so he says, I think it's very important that I talk about it. It is going to be a central point later for the Manjuli School.

They're going to have to be talking about this subject. We're not going to make it this time. So I thought it'd be nice if I gave you a little preview of what we're going to be talking about when we get to that.

... In the consequence group of the middle-way school, right? My name is Kripalsang Giga.

You can say that that rough thermos bottle that appears to you is the thermos bottle, okay? And that's all there is. You don't have to talk about some phantom thermos bottle behind a thermos bottle that is beyond our description or beyond our ability to perceive it or something like that.

In the Middle Way school, things are much simpler, you know? The rough image of the thermos bottle as you see it is the thermos bottle, okay? And there is no other thermos bottle laying behind it that's the real one that's beyond your ability to describe or to perceive, okay?

In the Middle Way school, Prasangika, things are a lot easier. I forgot to translate one more thing about the Middle Way school. And therefore they can say that it's an outer object, okay?

And therefore they can say, simply they can say, you know, the rough one that appears to you is the thermos bottle and that's why you can describe it as an external object, okay? Sorry. Now he says, by the way, when we were talking before about a version of the thermos bottle that was indivisibly related to the perception of the thermos bottle, the visual perception of the thermos bottle, which one do you think we were talking about?

The rough one that you think you see there or the subtle indescribable one? He says the subtle one, okay? And the indescribable one, okay?

It's that one which they would say is of one... is indivisibly related to the perception of the thermos bottle. Let me check it and make sure.

So, judamabhati... judamabhati... That's it, ngopati.

[Говорящий 2]
That's it, ngopati.

[Говорящий 1]
Oh boy, okay. There's a clarification. The rough one which is appearing to you, the rough image of the thermos bottle, is not, as I said correctly, okay, got it right, is not the one which is indivisibly related to your visual perception, okay?

That one, the rough one, the image one, is among the categories of changing things and unchanging things, it's in the category of unchanging things. It's in the category of constructs, okay? And it could never have been indivisibly related to your...

it is not indivisibly related to your visual consciousness. It's the other one, the one which is beyond description, the one which is a changing thing or a functional thing, the thermos bottle itself in a sense, which is the one which, according to the Mind-Only School, is indivisibly related to your visual consciousness, okay? That's all.

Understood. Got it. That's it.

[Говорящий 2]
Got it, got it, got it.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay, this is interesting. We've talked about dunches before, mental images of things. And he says, when we talk about the rough appearance of the thermos bottle to us, are we talking about a Dunchy?

Are we talking about a mental image? He says, it sounds like a mental image, doesn't it? The description of it is very similar to the general description of a mental image, but they are different things.

Don't forget here we are dealing with a sense perception. We are dealing with a visual perception of a thermos bottle. And the thing between us and the thermos bottle, this unchanging construct of the rough appearance of the thermos bottle to us, is relatively, he says, subtle to describe.

You don't go around looking at thermos bottles and suddenly catching yourself, oh, oh, oh, I was looking at this construct, you know what I mean? So relatively speaking, it's kind of hard to catch. It's more subtle than what we call a mental image.

Mental images, he says, do not relate to sense perceptions. When we talk about a mental image, we are talking about an image of the mind, or an image of the imagination. So what would be an example of an image of the imagination?

These are mental, right? These are not related to sense perceptions, okay? For example, there used to be four guys here in class who have taken off for other countries already, okay?

But we can look at the spots where they were and we can imagine what they used to look like when they were sitting here, right? You say, oh, Winston was here, you know, Winston looked like that, you know. And you can get some kind of a mental image of Winston in your mind.

That's relatively more gross, less subtle than this image, okay? So the image that's related to sense perceptions is relatively subtle. Difficult to catch yourself doing it, right?

Difficult to catch yourself perceiving it as the image. And then you have this other thing, which is actually, in a sense, grosser, and you can easily catch yourself doing it and say, you know, if I say, where's Winston? And you look over there and in your mind you have this mental picture of Winston, you know, and you're thinking, oh, he's not here, and you compare your mental picture to the empty space there, and you say, oh, he's not here, you know?

That's relatively much more gross. When I start talking about the real thermos bottle, I don't want you guys to get confused, you know? Don't go saying, go around telling people in America, oh, Geshe Tsudru Rinpoche says, and the minority school says there's no real thermos bottles, and don't go around and get a reputation as Buddhists who say that things that are, that aren't, and things that do exist, don't exist, or something like that.

That's not what the minority school is saying. When we talk about real thermos bottle or something like that, we're just trying to describe how you perceive the thermos bottle. We're not, like, accusing thermos bottles of not existing or anything like that.

Here we got this expression, which is beyond description, and now I hope you can distinguish between the two objects.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Don't forget that we were referring to the object of the first state of mind as being something that existed in labels, right? And that didn't exist substantially. And then we were talking about the second state of mind, and we said about it, it does exist substantially, and it doesn't exist merely as labels, okay?

And now Je Tsongkhapa is, you know, kindly going to draw a distinction before us between what it means to exist through labels and what it means to exist substantially. So, on that fourth line from the bottom on page 54, he begins his discussion of the difference between the two by giving you the two right there, dzetak meaning zeya, dantargya meaning substantial, and just something exists through labels, okay? That discussion by Je Tsongkhapa, description of it, is going to go up to page 55, line 3.

And to make his presentation, he's going to be quoting from the abbreviation of Arya Sangha, okay, from that text itself. Masamune.

[Говорящий 2]
Masamune.

[Говорящий 1]
I gave you a brief description yesterday of the difference between something existing substantially and existing merely through labels. And what we said was, when there's an object which has a nature that in order to perceive that object, you must first perceive some other objects. You know, there must be some kind of prerequisite perceptions that happen prior to perceiving that particular object.

When you must perceive other parts of it, for example, before you perceive that particular object, before you can perceive that particular object, we call that object an object which exists only in labels. An object, a labeled object, or an object that exists in labels. And then when we talk about an object which you can perceive all by itself in one moment, right?

You just see it and that's it. You don't have to perceive some other things before you can perceive it. Then that kind of object we call existing substantially.

That's called an object which exists substantially. So, as I told you yesterday, if we wanted to give an example of something that existed through labels, through that process of having to have one perception in order to have the perception of that object, we could posit a person. Didn't I say that yesterday?

Right? Got it? Is it written down in your notes there?

Okay, got to say something.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay, got it.

[Говорящий 1]
Now, what's an example of something that exists substantially according to this school's version? What did it mean to exist substantially? What is something that you don't have to have other perceptions in order to perceive it, right?

We can take mental things themselves. States of mind. You don't have to go through some gradual process of perceiving the parts of it or some other things before you can perceive it.

You just perceive them right away. When you think of thoughts, when you think thoughts, they're there. You don't have to have perceptions of parts or something like that or any other perceptions prior to it.

You just, all at once, you can have a thought. You can perceive states of mind that way. Okay, got it, got it.

[Говорящий 2]
Got it.

[Говорящий 1]
Got it, got it. A perfect example of this, remember that this school accepts a state of mind called apperception, which is the awareness of your own perceptions, okay? The simultaneous awareness of your own perceptions.

While you are seeing something, you are aware that you're seeing something at the same moment, which is not accepted by some other schools, but that's a long story. So, that would be an example. What is the object in this case?

It's a visual perception, perceiving blue, right? And what is the subject in this case? It's apperception or the ability of the mind to know itself simultaneously.

It's the awareness of seeing the blue. And when seeing the blue, when you're aware of seeing blue, it's not like first you have to go check in with some other objects, you know, oh, I better go first check this and check this and check this. I have to perceive this first and then this and this and this.

It's not like that. When you're aware that you are perceiving blue, it's just one big awareness all at once, okay? You're just immediately aware that you are seeing blue.

Okay, so your self-awareness that you are seeing blue, that blue, which that self-awareness is aware of, is an example of something that exists substantially, okay? Because to perceive that, you don't have to have a separate, you know, checking process or prerequisites or anything like that. You are perceiving blue, for example, and then your awareness that you're perceiving blue just happens, and there are no stages involved or anything like that.

That's a sign that that state of mind called visual consciousness of blue is itself something which in this school exists substantially.

[Говорящий 2]
You're saying that the blueness is not...

[Говорящий 1]
Not at all. Right, not at all. It's the state of mind.

Remember we said mental things can be described as existing substantially. Line five, page fifty-five. There's a description there, a literal description of what it is to exist through labels, okay?

Which is called thagyu in Tibetan, right? And it says here, that thing which is not such that to perceive it you need not depend on other things. The double negative, okay?

Then it says, comma, those things which to perceive them you must depend on perceiving other things first. Well, that's what we mean to be existing in labels. And those are things that we say exist nominally.

I'm sorry. Those are things that don't just exist nominally, okay? That's what it says here.

Which exist by definition. Make sense? Kazakh, person, person.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes, they exist by definition.

[Говорящий 1]
Things which... hang on. We'll take a shortcut, he says, okay?

Forget the wording of the text, okay? The point here is that the Mind-Only School is saying that something can exist by labels and yet still exist by definition. Okay?

That's the big point here. Something can exist through labels, exist nominally, I think it says here, okay? I'm sorry, not just exist label.

We'll talk about that. But can exist by definition. Now in the Madhyamika School, in the Middle Way School, it's totally the opposite, right?

It says everything exists through labels, okay? Nothing exists substantially, okay? And so to exist substantially...

I'm sorry, to exist... They would say that existing through labels and existing by definition could never be true of the same object at the same time. These are contradictory qualities.

You couldn't say that something was just a creation of your projections or existing through labels and at the same time say it existed by definition. In the Middle Way School, these two qualities are totally opposites. One thing could never be both, okay?

But in this school, interestingly, they're saying these things, like a person, exist through labels and simultaneously they exist by definition. For them, that's no problem. In their school, it's no problem.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
kāṃsāti kuṇṭhāra me? No. I'm sorry, nuna.

No way. It exists... He says you are confusing existing in labels with constructs.

You're confusing ṭhārya with kuṇṭhāra, okay? You're confusing ṭhārya, which means exist through labels, with kuṇṭhāra, which means construct. So what kind is it?

ṭhārya and kuṇṭhārya, what are they?

[Говорящий 2]
What? What? That's all right.

[Говорящий 1]
Don't forget what makes the thing ṭhārya. Don't forget what makes the thing... Don't forget what is required of the thing for us to call it existing through labels.

All it means is that in order to perceive it, you must perceive other things first. And don't forget that's all that existing through labels means. It's a code word for those objects in the world which to perceive, we must, as a prerequisite, perceive something else first.

[Говорящий 2]
That's not a problem.

[Говорящий 1]
So did you get existing through labels down right? ṭhārya. Got it down?

[Говорящий 2]
Nothing yet.

[Говорящий 1]
And the idea of construct is easy, okay? We talked about it many times. Something which does not exist from its own side through some unique way of being of its own, but rather is just a projection or just a creation of our mind, a construct of our mind.

And then Geshe-la himself slipped between the two words. So no problem, okay? ṭhārya and kundak, different things.

We didn't say that if you were one, you were necessarily the other. All we said was that in the mind-only school, these are not contradictory qualities, meaning you can find at least one thing in the world which is both, okay? Which is what?

What both? Which exists as a label thing, meaning that to perceive it, you must perceive other things first, and which exists by definition. So although in this school they would posit an example that there does exist such a thing which is both, and therefore those two qualities are not contradictory, we're not necessarily saying in this school that to be one is to automatically be the other, or that all of ones are all the other.

We okay here? We okay here? Did we make the division?

Okay. So to summarize, in the mind-only school you can be something which is existing through labels and still be something which exists by definition. In the middle-way school, once you are something that exists through labels, forget it, you can never be something that existed by definition.

The consequence group of the middle-way school says, hey, everything that exists in the universe exists as something labeled. Okay? That's what?

[Говорящий 2]
How? How?

[Говорящий 1]
How?

[Говорящий 2]
How? How? How?

How? How?

[Говорящий 1]
Okay. That's where I stumbled before, okay, because I was looking at the book and I said, now let's get to the book because the book has some major stuff that we've got to clear up. The book says...

By the way, Gesh-la notes that Je Tsongkhapa is raising these issues to clarify our thinking about what it means to exist in labels And to clarify our thinking about what it means to exist by definition, by saying that in the mind-only school, these two qualities are not contradictory, one thing can have both qualities. And there he's trying to help us understand what those two terms mean in the mind-only school. And then the mind-only school throws in one more thing.

The mind-only school says, we have no problem with one object being simultaneously, A, an object that exists through labels, and B, an object which exists by definition, meaning it is not simply a projection, it is not simply a construct of the mind. So they throw in that extra phrase there to describe what it is to exist by definition. So to repeat it, mind-only school says, we don't have a problem with one thing existing through labels, yet still existing through definition, meaning for us, something which is not simply a nominal thing, something which is not simply a product of our imagination or a construct of our mind.

In the text, it's line six, line six on page fifty-five, tar ni yuwang gi ma shakpa, meaning not simply established by projection or by imagination, but rather something that exists by definition. Once you've come along, especially in the Buddhist debate, and said, hey, this quality is not contradictory to that quality, meaning there is at least one thing in the world which has both qualities, you better be ready to show what that thing is, right? The book only says, give me an example one, show me one thing that is both, exists through labels and still exists by definition, right?

And then the book says, a mental seed of the foundation consciousness, kun shi bak chak, a mental seed of the storehouse consciousness. And then I was trying to clarify with Geshe-la, because this kind of words can be very greasy, you know, slippery. So I said, does it mean mental seed in the storehouse consciousness, because all it says here is mental seed of the storehouse consciousness, right?

Which can be read as storehouse consciousness and mental seed or something like that. And he says, you know what, to make it easy, forget the genitive here, and let's say the mental seed which exists in the storehouse consciousness, or atop in English, or in is okay in English, okay, in Tibetan, teng du, okay, that mental seed which has been planted, how's that, in the storehouse consciousness, that is one object which is simultaneously something labeled and something which exists by definition, according to the Mind-Only School. Why do I like the phrasing, the mental seed which exists in the foundation consciousness, okay? Why do I like to say mental seed...

Why do we say here mental seed that exists in the foundation consciousness? Why is it important to phrase it that way? Hey, when I say to you something like the mental seed which is in the foundation consciousness, what do you think of first?

Well, first you're focusing on, let me see, let me look, it's like saying, oh, the cup is on the table, so first you've got to go around and locate the table, right? And then you locate the table, and then you can locate the cup, right? So somebody says the mental seed which is in the foundation consciousness, first you go looking for foundation consciousness, and then you go looking around in it, and you find this, hey, there's a mental seed in the foundation consciousness.

Now what has happened just now? You have had to focus on another object in order to get to the mental seed, right? First a prerequisite perception, right?

First you had to go looking for what foundation consciousness was, and you, first you thought about foundation consciousness, and then you went looking for the thing that was in the foundation consciousness, and then you found the thing that was in the foundation consciousness. That's a sign that that mental seed object exists in two levels, because that's what existing two levels means, right? Okay.

Lesson eight. We're just trying to stick, by the way, to the wording of the book here. We could have posited our own che chen, our own example, right?

What would that have been? Person. Okay.

Huh, why? What's a person? Oh, person exists only in two levels, because you have to perceive other things first to perceive that person, and it doesn't exist by definition in this school.

Does exist by definition. Does. Yeah.

Exists by definition. That would have been an example we could have pulled out. We didn't pull out that example just because the book didn't pull out that example.

The book pulled out the example of mental seed in the storehouse consciousness, in the foundation consciousness. Lesson nine. Geshe-la says to our school teacher, which is Chris, okay, he says, by the way, the rule of this class, that you might as well let you know, is if you feel like you've got to go to the bathroom or any kind of uncomfortable, the bathroom's right there behind the electricity, and just relax.

He says, let your hair down, spread out if you have to spread out. He wants you to be comfortable, because that's the rules of his class, and since this is your first day, he wants you to be comfortable. So if you get the urge, then feel free to go, and be comfortable, and spread out, and just relax.

That's the rules of Geshe-la's class. You can be one of those people that goes to the bathroom and never comes back to the class, or you can be one of those people that goes to the bathroom and never comes back to the class. Either way.

[Говорящий 2]
Nothing.

[Говорящий 1]
Nothing. Nothing. Wanted just to check in with you and remind you that the expression existing through labels, tag yu, has no less than four different meanings in the Maitreya school, okay?

So, just to warn you, okay, that the expression existing through labels has four distinct meanings in the Mind-Only school alone, and has other ones elsewhere, okay? And he says, when we talked about that first state of mind before, remember? The first state of mind on page 54, and we said that its object existed through labels.

That tag yu, that existing through labels means, exists only as a projection or a construct of the mind, okay? That tag yu means something else, okay? That existing through labels, in the Mind-Only school, has a completely different connotation, meaning, existing only as a construct of the mind or projection of the mind, okay?

And then when we get to this tag yu, down here on page 55, when we're talking about that one, we're talking about something which, in order to perceive it, you must first perceive other things, okay? Those are two different meanings of that expression, existing through labels, so far. Did you think of some question in your mind just now?

[Говорящий 2]
When you said that before, I was thinking of the rough waterfalls.

[Говорящий 1]
The one that's described as... let me get this straight. The indescribable one, right, is substantial, exists substantially.

And the rough one that you think you see, the rough appearance of a thermos bottle, that is the one that's being described as existing by labels alone. And hey, by the way, isn't the question you just had in your mind evidence that it's difficult for us to describe it? Even if we describe it as indescribable or difficult to describe, you say, hey, there's proof of it, he had a question about it.

Okay, that's okay. Yeah, this indescribable was hard for you to describe, wasn't it?

[Говорящий 2]
That's it.

[Говорящий 1]
Don't forget that we are restricting ourselves when we talk about indescribable to the minority school. It's only the minority school that starts to talk about this phantom indescribable thermos bottle that you have to think about. In the middle-aged school, what?

Hey, the appearance of the thermos bottle is the thermos bottle, okay? I mean, that rough apparent thermos bottle is the thermos bottle. But in this school, there's this thermos bottle behind a thermos bottle that we can't really find easily and like that.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Don't forget that when we talk about two meanings of the expression ta yu-meaning, existing through labels, right? We just had a statement in the book that said, Hey, in the minority school, one object can be both existing through labels and existing by definition. There's no problem.

These two qualities are not contradictory, right? But if you describe the meaning of existing through labels the first way, which is just a projection of the mind or just a construct of the mind, Hey, then that and existing by definition are totally contradictory, okay? So be careful here.

Be careful to divide them here, okay? The first, existing through labels in the first meaning and existing by definition in the minority school are totally at odds, totally contradictory. Existing through labels and existing by definition in the second sense of the first one's meaning, those two things are not contradictory.

Don't get confused here, he says.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
When you say this thing ta yu, when you say something that exists through a labeling process or something like that, right? If you think about it, just from the wording of it, something that exists through a labeling process or something like that, you could maybe even come up with things that didn't exist that could be described as something that was there through a labeling process, right? So although it's not a real thing that exists through a labeling process, you could think of it in terms as looking to exist through a labeling process.

What's an example of that? The fact that any particular object is what is called that particular object, right? Does that fact exist by definition or not in the minority school?

It does not exist by definition. Now pretend that it did exist by definition, okay? Pretend that there existed a fact that a thing is called itself that existed by definition, right?

That would be something you'd have to make up with your mind because it doesn't really exist, okay? And in that sense, that also is an object of labels. In a certain sense, you could say that that nonexistent object, which happens to be what emptiness is empty of in this school, okay?

That exists by labels also. So although it is not what we classically call those things which exist through labels, you could describe it as existing through a label. Although it's not an existing thing, okay?

I mean, in a certain sense, you could say, oh, that is a construct of my imagination, okay? That is something my mind is making up. And in that sense, you could say it exists through labels.

Yeah, yeah, that's the gaccha. That's the gaccha. In this school, the fact that something is what it's called doesn't exist by definition.

If that did exist by definition, it would be what emptiness is empty of. Don't forget that the principle existing by labels that we're talking about is the one which means, in order to perceive that object, you must first, as a prerequisite, have other perceptions of other things first. And that's the main meaning of existing through labels.

But on the other hand, even though that's the main meaning of existing through labels, don't think that all the words, all the things that are described as existing through labels all mean the same thing. Don't think that every time they use the word, the phrase, existing through labels, they're making this big mishmash, Irish stew of all these... Don't go trying to make all those phrases mean the same thing, because they are not going to, and they don't.

Although that's the main meaning, there are many other flavors of meaning to this phrase. And don't make the mistake of thinking that they all have to be the same, or they're all going to be the same, because they're not. Lesson, lesson.

Then the, let me see, three, six, nine lines from the bottom, page fifty-five. Je Tsongkapa makes another statement though, right? He says, although that particular tāgya, right?

The one where you have to perceive somebody else first to perceive that thing, right? That particular flavor of a thing that exists through labels and the quality of existing by definition are not contradictory. One thing can be both.

But... Okay, here's the but. Line nine from the bottom, he says, miṁdaṁ tope tāpe tāgya yena Meaning, if you're talking about existing through labels in the sense of being something that's just constructed by the mind, or something that's just a projection of the mind, well then, that is completely contradictory to existing by definition.

That version of tāgya, that flavor of tāgya, that connotation of the phrase, existing through labels, is completely contradictory to existing through definition in this school. Okay? It's okay?

Problem? No? Okay.

Now we've finally reached where we were last night, after a whole day, okay? Line seven from the bottom, page fifty-five, jōtsu nyita means the second way of explaining what that means. What means?

What it is to exist ultimately, and what it means to exist deceptively. Okay? Then we finally got back to that part, okay?

Now after all that, we are back to where we started out from, which is the second way of interpreting what it is to exist ultimately and what it is to exist deceptively. Remember? There was the first version of what it is to exist ultimately, and then the second version of what it is to exist ultimately.

And then there was the first version of what it is to exist deceptively, and then there was the second version of what it is to exist deceptively. We've finished these two. We've still got to get to these two, okay?

And I said, I taught you all that last night. I'm sure you remember.

[Говорящий 2]
And then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then I did this, then

[Говорящий 1]
Now, the second way of explaining the terms, or the phrases, to exist ultimately, or to exist deceptively, for that we're going to go to Maitreya's book called Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes, okay?

Distinguishing the Difference between the Middle and the Extremes, Madhyanta Vibhanga, okay? So, in that book it says, we can describe ultimate. First, it's going to talk about what it means, when we say existing ultimately, what the ultimate part explains when we say existing ultimately.

And then it says there are three kinds of ultimate. There's the ultimate object, there's the ultimate attainment, and there's the ultimate practice. Okay, so ultimate has three different meanings.

What is the ultimate object? And in Tibetan this is almost a pun, because then you have to say dun dun dampa, meaning the object of ultimate object, or something like that. The word ultimate incorporates that word also, so it sounds kind of cool in Tibetan.

Dun dun dampa means the ultimate object. That's emptiness itself, ultimate reality. What is the ultimate attainment?

In this present context, we're talking about nirvana. Reaching the state of a faux destroyer, or reaching nirvana, is the ultimate attainment. And then it says ultimate practice, meaning what is the ultimate practice?

It is the perception of emptiness. It's the practice of perceiving emptiness. So, you've got ultimate object being emptiness, ultimate goal being enemy destroyer or nirvana, and then the ultimate practice, which is perceiving emptiness.

Okay, we have three meanings of the word ultimate here. It says madhyanta, vipanga. Okay?

[Говорящий 2]
then you will see that there are people like that. If you don't have them, you will get hurt.

[Говорящий 1]
You will get hurt.

[Говорящий 2]
Some people will get hurt, but it is not every day that they get hurt. So in India, it is the same thing.

[Говорящий 1]
In India it is like that. if you don't know the truth, you can't get hurt. But in India, you can't get hurt.

You can't get hurt. Yes, you can't get hurt. Then DANG, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all, that's all we got a little question about the quotation it might be spelled wrong but we're gonna he's gonna check it in the meantime I'll translate what he said okay so we've got three different kinds of ultimate described here ultimate object ultimate ultimate goal writer ultimate achievement and the ultimate practice Right? The book wants to...

Je Tsongkapa in his gloss... Is that Je Tsongkapa or commentary? Oh, the commentary to it says...

Okay, the commentary to that book says, By the way, when we talk about the second sense of existing ultimately, we are talking about the first of the three. Okay? And Geshe-la wants to make very sure that you don't think that he's saying, or Je Tsongkapa's saying, that the second way of interpreting ultimate in the expression, exist ultimately, is all three of those.

It's not. It's only the first of the three. Okay?

So when we describe ultimate in the second sense of the word ultimate, or existing ultimately, we're talking about only the first one. And in Tibetan, that's that one where you have the pun. Right?

The ultimate object. The ultimate... Ultimate...

You can't describe it in English. Okay? Dun dun dampa means...

Ultimate has the word dun in it. And object is the word dun here. So, dun dun dampa where Geshe-la says, where we repeat in the Tibetan, the word dun, okay?

That's the one that we're talking about. When we say the second interpretation of the meaning to exist ultimately, okay? And the book wants to be sure that you say that.

Why do they call it the ultimate object? Because it is the object of the mind, the state of mind in which you perceive emptiness. Okay?

So that's why it's called emptiness. Rather than saying ultimate reality or something like that here, it says the ultimate object, meaning the ultimate object in the sense, in the sense that this is the object of the ultimate state of mind, which is the direct perception of emptiness. Okay?

The direct perception of emptiness. So that's why it's called, in this case, the ultimate object. Ultimate object meaning ultimate reality is the meaning here of the word ultimate in the expression existing as ultimate in its second sense, in its second context.

Okay? So that's... He wants to make sure you understand that.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

It is a printing error. Sixth line from the bottom, at the very last syllable of the line, it should be D-A-M, okay? DUM, and not DUNG.

Yes, sir.

[Говорящий 2]
This one?

[Говорящий 1]
Not again. This one? Not again.

Okay. Yin-Yin. Nobody Yin-Yin.

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

No, sir.

[Говорящий 2]
No, sir. No, sir.

[Говорящий 1]
No, sir. When they talk about the commentary to the... distinguishing the middle from the extremes, okay?

When they talk about the commentary, Geshe-la wants to point out that in this particular book, Chang-En Lekshi Nimmo, The Essence of Eloquence on the Art of Interpretation, okay? Most often they'll be talking about Master Vasubandhu's commentary, okay? So they won't identify the author all the time.

They'll just say, in THE commentary to distinguishing the middle from the extremes, then you have to think, oh, Master Vasubandhu's commentary. And then later he'll say, in the explanation, DAL TSE, of the dividing the middle from the extremes, when you hear that, you have to think, oh, that's the one by Master Sthiramati, okay? Lodhitambo, okay?

So when you hear those two code words, you know, for the most part, they're going to refer to those two authors. And he says, that's not true in general. I'm not saying in general.

Every time you come across the expression, the commentary to dividing the middle from the extremes, that it's talking about this particular commentary. But in this particular book by Je Tsongkapa, when he talks about THE commentary, he's talking about Master Vasubandhu's. When he talks about THE explanation, he's talking about Master Sthiramati's.

Although Sthiramati's explanation isn't mentioned here, it comes a lot later.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Oh, this is going to be hard in English, okay? We're on the fourth line from the bottom on page fifty-five. So, the commentary, right?

Now we know who is, right? Master Vasubandhu's commentary to the text by Maitreya, really, written down by Master Sangha, right? It says...

By the way, when we talk about ultimate here, in the expression existing as ultimate or existing ultimately, we are talking about the first one, okay? The first one was as an object, okay? And in Tibetan, don't forget that it means...

it breaks down to object, object, ultimate, right? Object, object, highest. The word ultimate in Tibetan is composed of two parts, dun, tam, okay?

Dun means meaning or object, and tam means highest, okay? So, dun, tam, highest meaning is the Tibetan word for ultimate. So, there's another meaning of dun that means object, okay?

So now, there's a pun in Tibetan, dun, dun, tam, right? Which means the ultimate object, meaning that object of highest meaning, okay? That object of highest meaning.

Now, he's going to play with the Tibetan words, okay? Jataka is going to play with the Tibetan words. He's saying, what are we talking about when we talk about the meaning of highest meaning or the object of highest meaning, right, ultimate object?

The object of highest meaning refers to emptiness itself, okay? Why do we call it the object of highest meaning? What does ultimate mean?

What does highest meaning mean? Well, the highest state of mind in the world is the direct perception of emptiness, okay? That's the highest state of mind in the world.

And so, that's the meaning of the word highest, okay? Here it says, yeshe, meaning wisdom. And Geshe-la points out that here the word wisdom means path, okay?

The highest path in the world. And don't forget that path in Buddhism means state of mind or spiritual realization, okay? So the highest spiritual realization in the world is the direct perception of emptiness.

And the dun here means the object of that state of mind, okay? So, you can describe the word ultimate as meaning the object of the highest state of mind. Object, highest, okay?

Highest meaning. And in Tibetan that's a pun, okay? So, that dun, which is the object of the dampa state of mind, okay, is dundampa, ultimate.

And that's the meaning of the word ultimate in the expression exists as ultimate in its second context, in its second connotation, sorry, okay? And that's how he's explaining the meaning exists ultimately means exists as the object of the ultimate state of mind. Okay, that's all.

That's all. Lanyin yin. Lanyin.

[Говорящий 2]
Lanyin. Lanyin. Lanyin.

Lanyin.

[Говорящий 1]
Lanyin. Lanyin. Lanyin.

Lanyin. Lanyin. Lanyin.

So, I'm going to ask you a question, okay? Ready? Emptiness itself can be described as ultimate reality.

It can sometimes sometimes being nicknamed, you know, sort of, the ultimate, right? So, when we say something exists ultimately, what are we talking about?

[Говорящий 2]
Just the genitive.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
Just the genitive?

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. In the second interpretation, I covered you, okay? When you say, exists as the ultimate thing, what does the word exists refer to?

[Говорящий 2]
Appears to the mind.

[Говорящий 1]
We say, you know, exists on top of the table, okay? It is on top of the table, okay? Exists on top of the table.

And then you know what we're talking about. We're talking about where it exists, okay? When you say, exists as ultimate, or exists ultimately, where does it exist ultimately?

Huh? No, you do... You're getting real hot.

Hot, hot. You're getting closer and closer, but you're still a little bit away from it. Where does it exist?

In Tibetan U.S. South, the place where it is. Huh? Mickey number seven on the U.S. South. That's a little weird. Ha, ha, ha.

[Говорящий 2]
Come on, you guys, have some fun here.

[Говорящий 1]
Let's give us a place where it is. Where does it exist ultimately? Where is it that the ultimate exists?

When you say, it exists ultimately, where are you saying it exists ultimately?

[Говорящий 2]
In the mind.

[Говорящий 1]
Don't forget the meaning of ultimate here. In the second sense of the meaning ultimate.

[Говорящий 2]
it how about what's their mind is it they can establish that Tony wants at the

[Говорящий 1]
top a shaper like yours Tony wants it to topple I use top top along to the topping or like you're not then then and then dump our you're said to come to everybody was madding about it when I said it now you don't remember what you're madding about last night that was last night

[Говорящий 2]
I'd say this it is

[Говорящий 1]
yes I said it could give me the internet number did it okay don't forget that about what I'm asking okay for example if I say do you have some glasses do glasses exist in this room you say yeah your glasses do exist in this room I say where they exist where is it that they exist you say oh they're existing on the table okay there you have the distinction between what it is which is existing and where it is that that thing in which exists is okay so I'm trying to get out where is it that that thing that exists is if you say as as Anthony correctly identified you know what is it that we're talking about existing ultimately here it is emptiness itself now where is it that that emptiness exists that's what I'm asking like the table you know where is it that the glasses are it's on the table don't when you stand in Casa Cala you say it's on top of the table it's on top I can't deny that emptiness exists everywhere okay everything has its own emptiness in that in that sense you're right don't forget that where we're coming from we're coming from somebody saying about emptiness that here is something that exists ultimately here is something that exists as the ultimate okay from that point of view and from that angle where is it that they say

[Говорящий 2]
emptiness exist don't she can't eat on my CEO when you ask that question you

[Говорящий 1]
know what what objects emptiness are you talking about this is come on get back to what the angle we're talking about you know you guys aren't thinking of the angle that we're talking about when you say it does exist as the ultimate here in this case in this context in this what we've been talking about here what we've been reading about here where they're trying to get out what are they talking about date open more than dumb to you I said he wasn't he was getting close but he didn't get there right now you're just giving me the same thing over again he like that's exactly what Roy said a

[Говорящий 2]
few minutes ago so you know come on don't go back to that yeah he says we

[Говорящий 1]
can buy it that way okay the reason we can say that something exists as the ultimate right is that it exists to the ultimate state of mind okay so it was really Roy okay so we can say that something exists in this context in this case something exists as ultimate don't forget the quotation from Arya Sangha right something is this as ultimate insofar as it exists as ultimate to the ultimate state of mind okay that's all okay that's what didn't dumb dumb means here that's what didn't dumb means here right then we went to that object of the ultimate that was the meaning of the quotation we just went over okay that's Arya Sangha's quotation right fourth line from the bottom page 55 didn't it say the object of the highest state of mind okay the object of the highest path we said right that state of mind can be described as a path because path in in Tibetan or in Buddhism means state of spiritual realization so that object which exists to the ultimate state of mind is what we call the ultimate okay yeah yeah exist yeah exist to the ultimate state of mind meaning is that object which is located guess not kept saying by the ultimate state of mind not in in not in per se war war means to that state of mind which presents itself to that state of mind okay it's a very difficult word in Tibet now yeah he wants to guess awesome wants to say then which means object right he was they needed neither means the object which that state of mind establishes or the object which that state of mind locates okay is is ultimate and that's what makes it ultimate because the word ultimate in Tibetan means the object of the highest okay meaning the highest state of mind meaning the direct

[Говорящий 2]
possession of emptiness okay nothing so dr.

[Говорящий 1]
Tim you know when I asked you where is emptiness and you said everywhere right no no no no in this context okay when we say it exists as the ultimate object and what are we talking about I could only put on don't dumb don't dump a u.s. then it didn't dump a you can't you want to change in the service okay yeah yeah you got it right it is the object of the ultimate state of mind but what is the object of the ultimate state of mind what is the ultimate object how many years how many days do you that you can dig a you can use in it how many years I made a mistake in translation okay what is the subject which holds that object number longer make the pattern is number number number is number good good you know I like it okay you said the path of purity which we know is a code word for the direct perception emptiness so yeah yeah right right right right right you got it okay don't we have to say that if you describe it as the object of the path of purity the ultimate object of the path of purity and and and then you have to say path of purity meaning direct perception emptiness then you can describe this object as that object which is perceived by the direct perception emptiness I like it so we can summarize by saying when people come up to you on the street and you know where is it that the thing that is said to exist ultimately in the second interpretation of what it means to exist ultimately where is it that that ultimate exists and you know because people are going to go up to you and say where is the eyeglasses the eyeglasses on the table people are going to come to you and say where where is this situation he's sitting in his house okay you know where is it that the ultimate in its connotation in the second

[Говорящий 2]
connotation the second interpretation of where is it that that ultimate is yes

[Говорящий 1]
you dumping more nice you honest yeah good good good because it would be a

[Говорящий 2]
mm-hmm

[Говорящий 1]
therefore I want you to be sensitive to this to this this distinction between the thing which is there and the place where the thing which is there is okay so I want you to be clear on that what one refers to the object which exists the other exists to you know like the the place where it's sitting or something that we're not talking about a literal place where it's sitting now right right now but yeah I want you to be clear in your mind when we say a thing exists you have to have clear in your mind not only the thing which is said to exist but the locale where it is said to exist okay which in this case is to the ultimate state of mind nothing nothing so page 55 third line from the bottom Jetsugapa himself uses this very useful distinction between what is there and where it is that what what is there is located where it is that what is there is located okay he uses that distinction very effectively here in explaining to you the literal meaning of the word don't dumb don't dumb because he says in the third line from the bottom company the highest is that deep state of meditative wisdom which is immaculate meaning direct perception of emptiness somebody's stuff no no okay sorry so ultimate or highest the Dhamma in Dundampa right in the word ultimate the half of it refers to that highest state of mind meaning the deep meditative wisdom which is immaculate meaning the direct perception of emptiness okay and and to be that things the object that dump us did right is what it is to be and then it says the word object you okay is what it means to be the ultimate the ultimate object or you could say ultimate in Tibetan is that object done is the object of the ultimate state of is the elder of is the highest state of mind Dhamma so you can call it dump a gun meaning you're not which is the Tibetan word for ultimate okay so that's how it's coming here so last line of page 55 having described what it is that is ultimate having described what the word ultimate means hey can we put our finger now and say hey this is what they're talking about last line page 55 yeah we'll tell you what we're talking about that maybe do it okay emptiness itself that thing which is which is the absence of a self nature okay that thing which is the very nature of things that thing which is the absence of a self nature that thing which is the ultimate object of the path of purity now they've used that code word for a direct perception of emptiness that thing which is the object of the path of purity that emptiness oh that's what we're talking about in in the second interpretation of the expression to exist as the ultimate okay or ultimately is what ultimate means here nothing nothing nothing and and by the way I forgot to translate one thing he said by the way path of purity is again specifying the locale okay meaning it's ultimate in that it is the ultimate thing to the path of purity right and that was his last phrase on page 55 so that's again he said guess I said pointing out the locale now he goes on to page 56 first line in the Tibetan it says dear me this is a this is a special grammar particle in Tibetan which means now what could be that thing okay there who knee means what could be that thing well I'll tell you what longish in May it could not nothing it's not the other two kinds of a nature okay it's not the other two kinds of nature meaning what we're not talking about share wrongs and kuntaks okay what could be that ultimate thing what could exist as the ultimate what could be ultimate reality well I'll start out by saying I'll tell you something that could not be that thing and that's dependent things and constructs two of the attributes of the mind only score Oh key but rather it can only be one thing cheaper means it can only be one thing and one thing alone and that's totality okay that's emptiness in in the in the mind only school and that's what it can be that's what the tax is saying says Jetsun Kappa which means to be in English you say is for both it is on the table means it exists on the table it is this or it is not this is referring to a different kind of business which is it is that thing or it is not that thing and throughout this section when they keep saying yeah yeah yeah yeah meaning it exists as ultimate it exists as ultimate it exists ultimately they're saying it is the ultimate and that's I think where dr. tilt was having some you know we had a question about it we were talking just when you say this exists ultimately what you are saying in this second interpretation is that it exists as something ultimate and in effect what you're saying is it is the ultimate you see I mean so then you get the distinction in the threat in between the word exists and the word is okay so we go from exist ultimately to exist as the ultimate to it is ultimate reality okay it is the ultimate okay and that's and that's the second sense of ultimate here okay you have to think of it that way as a verb of identification and not so much as a verb of existence okay nothing we're going to go on tomorrow to the second line here where a song master Sangha's I'm sorry my trans text dividing the middle from the extremes is going to go on he's going to be quoting it as proof for his statement that out of the three attributes of the mind only school it is only totality or emptiness which can be described in this matter in the second interpretation okay