Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 24

[Говорящий 2]
In the past, when I was a monk, I didn't have the opportunity to study Buddhism. But now that I have the opportunity to study Buddhism, I want to learn more about it. But I don't know how to do it.

I don't have the ability to do it. I don't know how to do it. I don't know how to do it.

[Говорящий 1]
In the Middle Way school, when you're talking about three people sitting around a table, a deity, a human and a preta, looking at the same glass of liquid and seeing three different things. So he said, it's a very similar idea, but this is a different, a different concept in the Mai Ngo-ling school. This is a unique idea to the Mai Ngo-ling school, but it parallels that idea in the Middle Way school.

Some points are, some crucial points of the two examples are similar, but I'm not trying to say that they are in every way the same. He says, yesterday when we were in the middle of some issues, Dr. Chilton looked like he had a question to raise, or something occurred to him that he wanted to talk about, and then he wonders if you remember what it was that you'd like to talk about, or some kind of issue yesterday.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes, I remember.

[Говорящий 1]
He thinks it may have related to the second interpretation of what it means to exist ultimately, or as the ultimate. And he says, I think it occurred with regard to my question, which is kind of Koan-ish, which was, where is it that emptiness is like that? We were talking about totality or emptiness, and my question to you was, where is it that it was empty?

And then we kind of got off on, what does it mean when you say, where is emptiness, or in what locale is emptiness like that? And Geshe-la says, it might help you... He says, I judge that to have been your issue, something to do with that.

And he says, it might help you if you think of the ultimate here as ultimate reality, or ultimate truth, and then think about, to whom is it true, or who establishes it as true, you see what I mean? Think of ultimate in terms of ultimate reality or ultimate truth, and then think about, for whom is it true, or to whom is it true? And then you'll come up with that state of mind, which is the direct perception of emptiness, and that's where the emptiness is.

[Говорящий 2]
Questioner 2 He says, you have to climb the ladder on three rungs.

[Говорящий 1]
You have to go up step by step. You have to do this. This question, and the question I answered yesterday about it, has to be approached in a very gradual way, or in three discrete stages, in three discrete steps.

First question is, in the second interpretation of what it is to exist ultimately, you have to identify as ultimate, or ultimately, what is the ultimate you're talking about? You have to identify that as being ultimate reality or ultimate truth. So the first step is to identify what we're talking about.

We're talking about ultimate reality. We're talking about ultimate reality. Second one is, you have to identify what you're talking about when you say ultimate reality, and that is, you're talking about emptiness.

When they talk about existing ultimately, or existing as ultimate, it means existing as ultimate reality. Then you have to identify that ultimate reality as being emptiness. And then the third step is, you have to identify, to whom is it true?

To whom are we talking about? You're talking about emptiness? You're talking about emptiness?

I'm too short. You're talking about emptiness.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes, emptiness.

[Говорящий 1]
That's emptiness.

[Говорящий 2]
That's Suna emptiness.

[Говорящий 1]
Yes, yes.

[Говорящий 2]
That's emptiness. That's Suna emptiness. That's Suna emptiness.

[Говорящий 1]
I have to redo that. Sorry, I realized halfway through I got messed up. We're talking about three steps.

The first step is to identify what it is that we're talking about in the second interpretation when we say this exists as ultimate, or as ultimate lay. And we have to identify what it is we're talking about. We're talking about yongdru.

In the second case, we're talking about totality or emptiness. And then the second step there is to equate that to ultimate reality or ultimate truth. So you start out by saying, the first step on the three steps of the ladder is to say the object being talked about here is emptiness or yongdru, totality.

And then the second step is to identify that as equivalent to ultimate reality or ultimate truth. In the case of the first interpretation of this, it's not, right? So secondly, you identify as ultimate truth.

And when you identify it as ultimate truth or ultimate reality, then you have to say to whom or who establishes it as ultimate reality, who establishes it as ultimate truth, to whom or in what circumstances or in what place, in what locale, meaning to what state of mind is it ultimate reality or ultimate truth. Because trueness or truth is established by a state of mind. So as Roy got very close to the third, Roy stated the third one yesterday, but he wanted it to go through more clearly through these steps.

What does ultimate mean here? Emptiness. What is emptiness?

Ultimate truth or ultimate reality. What establishes it as being true or reality? Who is it?

To whom? Where is it, in a sense? Or where does it have to be to be identified as true or reality?

To the deep meditative state of an Arya who is perceiving emptiness directly. So that's the process he wanted to go through. And that's what he was trying to get at yesterday when he wanted to go through those steps.

[Говорящий 2]
.

[Говорящий 1]
To just put it simply, in the second interpretation of what it means to exist ultimately, that ultimate refers to ultimate reality or to emptiness itself. Totality. Very simply put, that's it.

If something is totality, it is what the second interpretation of ultimate is talking about. If something is not totality or emptiness, it is not what the second interpretation of ultimate is talking about. And that's all.

[Говорящий 2]
That's it.

[Говорящий 1]
Now there's that second step, you see. You say, what is emptiness? Emptiness is ultimate reality or ultimate truth.

And then the natural question is, to whom? Who can identify it as ultimate truth? Who can identify it as ultimate reality?

Who identifies its trueness? Who establishes its trueness? And then you get finally to the direct perception of emptiness.

That state of mind, the direct perception of emptiness, establishes it as being true or ultimate. Don't mix up those three steps. Try to keep them separate.

Emptiness, ultimate reality, and to whom ultimately real? And those are three... He wants to make those three very discrete steps.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Now we come to page fifty-six, second line. We're picking up where we left off yesterday. We're at the book by Maitreya called The Distinguishing Between the Middle and the Extremes, Madhyanta Vibhanga.

And it says there are two different objects of the purity, and they are spoken to be only one. So there are two different objects of the purity, and they are spoken to be only one. Now we just got through saying that in the second interpretation of what it means to exist ultimately, the ultimate here, or to exist as the ultimate, the ultimate here is referring to emptiness or totality.

So among the three different attributes of the mind-only school, you'd have to say that only one of them is what the second connotation of existing ultimately refers to, and that's totality or emptiness. It's only that one. It cannot be dependent things, and it cannot be constructs.

They cannot be what these words are. They cannot be what the second interpretation of existing ultimately refers to. And now Je Tsongkhapa's going to back it up.

Now he says, hey, because they are said in scripture to be only one. They're said in scripture that the ultimate is only one, meaning only one of the three groups, only one of the three attributes. So there he says, because Madhyanta Vibhanga says there are two different objects of the purity, and they are spoken to be only one.

So Geshe-la says this can be a little bit confusing, because it says two different, you see, and that can be confusing because you could take it to mean two of the three attributes of the mind-only school or the groups of the mind-only school are described here as being ultimate. You would think that, but that's not what it's saying. When it says two here, when it says the objects of the purity are two, of two different types, here they're talking about two different types of yongdru.

They're talking about two different types of totality or two different types of emptiness. What are the two different types of emptiness that can appear to the purity, meaning the path of purity, meaning the direct perception of emptiness? One is the lack of self-nature, the subtle lack of self-nature to a person, and one is the subtle lack of self-nature to things, meaning the parts of a person in this case.

So when the book by Maitreya says the object of purity is of two types, they're talking about the subtle lack of self-existence to a person and the subtle lack of self-existence to things. And then it goes on to say, and that's only one, and that can be only one. That is said to be only one, but one.

And that one means only one of the three groups. You see what I mean? So then he says, and that's only one, meaning only one of the three groups can be identified as ultimate in the sense of existing ultimately in the second interpretation of that phrase.

And that only refers to yong drup or totality or emptiness.

[Говорящий 2]
You got it.

[Говорящий 1]
There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether or not both of those two kinds of a lack of self-nature are yong drup, are totality. And there seems to be some difference between the Serenveti books and the Serenveti books. I said, which one is it?

He says, I don't know. Different people say different things. They quote different parts of the book and they try to establish.

We'll get onto it later. Whether or not in actuality we can describe both kinds of a subtle lack of a self-nature as being totality or not in this school, given this school. That's it.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
You know, there's different places where you can find different references that support the idea that totality only refers to the subtle lack of self-nature of things and not to the subtle lack of self-nature of persons. And then Geshe-la says, there are two such references. I've been looking around for both of them.

I can only find one. I'll tell you the one I found. It's page 23, the very, very last syllables.

It says, when the text, meaning the sutra on the intent of the sutras, talks about dharmas or objects, dot, dot, dot, what it's talking about is totality. And what it's saying is that totality only refers to the lack of self-nature to things. Those words, from the sutra on the intent of the sutras, are meant to state, are meant to say, that totality only refers to the lack of self-nature of things.

That's one of the two classical references that are used by those parties who say, oh, it only refers to emptiness, or totality in the minority school only refers to the lack of self-nature of things. Okay. Line three, page 56, where we just went, where it said, you know, the object of the purity is two, is of two different types.

That's where the Sarajevas go and say, hey, no, it's both kinds of a lack of self-nature, because it says right there in the Madhyamaka Vibhanga, you know, that there are two different types, meaning totality or emptiness in the minority school refers to both the subtle lack of self-nature of things and the subtle lack of self-nature of persons.

[Говорящий 2]
Right, right.

[Говорящий 1]
Once you say that there can be a lack of self-nature of the person, which is yong drup or totality, then you would have to say that there can be a lack of self-nature of a person, which could be emptiness itself. Then you'd have to say that there are two types of emptiness, right? The lack of self-nature of things and the lack of self-nature of persons.

And in the same manner, there are two different types of totality. That totality, which is the subtle lack of self-nature of objects, and the totality, which is the subtle lack of self-nature of persons.

[Говорящий 2]
He's going to tell you about his students. So you would have to tell him. You could have to tell him.

[Говорящий 1]
That's right.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay, so you'd have to tell him.

[Говорящий 1]
So you'd have to tell him. And then the commentary comes. Now as we said yesterday, whenever in this book, normally when you get to quote the commentary of Distinguishing Between the Middle and the Extremes, it's going to be the one by Master Vasubandhu.

And here he says, now this one that we're talking about, this one and only that we're talking about, meaning one and only one of the three groups, which can be described as ultimate in the second interpretation of what it is to exist as ultimate, right? So in that second interpretation, that only one, which can be described as, which is yongdu, right? Emptiness, which is the only one which can be described as ultimate in the second sense of the term, among the three groups, right?

Only one among the three groups. And then it says, it can be divided in, the other two are not, cannot be described here as the ultimate in the second sense of the term, because they do not qualify as one of the objects of the two, it says here, of the two knowledges of purity, okay? The other two groups, meaning dependent things and constructs, cannot be described as ultimate in the second sense of the term, because they do not qualify as objects of the two knowledges of purity, okay?

And then I ask Geshe-la, you know, why are they talking about two knowledges of purity? And Geshe-la says, hey, look, we're talking about that direct perception of emptiness which is focusing on the lack of self-nature of objects, and that direct perception of emptiness which is focusing on the lack of self-nature of persons, okay? And that's why here you can say, the other two groups in the mind-only school don't qualify as ultimate here, because they are not one of the two objects of those respective two states of mind which are perceiving emptiness directly, okay?

Now, Je Tsongkhapa himself says, what are they talking about when they say the objects of the two different kinds of knowledges of purity, right? And he himself wants to know, you know, what is that thing? That's his next statement, okay?

We're on page 56, we're on the sixth line from the bottom, and Je Tsongkhapa himself says, hey, do you want to know what those two knowledges of purity refers to? He says, they are those two which purify you or make you pure of the two kinds of obstacles, okay? They purify your being of the two kinds of obstacles.

And Geshe-la clarifies by saying, look, what are the two kinds of obstacles you guys know? First are called the obstacles of the mental afflictions, which are obstacles to achieving nirvana, and then the obstacles of knowledge, okay, which means until you get rid of those you cannot become omniscient. So you eliminate those in two stages, okay?

With one set of perceptions of emptiness, through a particular direct perception of emptiness, you are enabled, it enables you to eliminate in yourself those obstacles which relate to mental afflictions. And then through perceiving another kind of emptiness, through a different kind of perception of emptiness, you purify yourself of those obstacles to omniscience, which prevent you from becoming an omniscient being. And there you get the sense of pure, okay?

That's why they call it the path of purity, because they allow you or they enable you to purify yourself of these two obstacles. And then Geshe-la goes on to make a very interesting statement that it's the direct perception of the lack of self-nature of a person which allows you to eliminate the first set of obstacles, okay, which allows you to eliminate the obstacles that relate to mental afflictions, and therefore obstacles to achieving only nirvana, okay? And then the direct perception of the lack of self-nature of things, which happens later, enables you to eliminate those obstacles which prevent you from becoming omniscient, okay?

So he says, by Jetsamkabba, by saying that these two knowledges of purity refer to those two states of mind that enable you to eliminate the two obstacles respectively, he's clearly stating, by implication, right, that we're talking about the direct perception of the subtle lack of self-nature to a person, and then to the direct perception of the subtle lack of self-nature to things, respectively. And therefore he clarifies for you what Geshe-la just clarified for you.

[Говорящий 2]
That's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it,

[Говорящий 1]
that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that's it, that was the ultimate mental affliction.

So you'd have to say that in the higher half of the Middle Way school, that they would say that it's the direct perception of the lack-of-self nature of objects or things, which enables you to eliminate the obstacles called mental affliction obstacles, or obstacles to achieving nirvana. Because they take that state of mind... to be...

they take the tendency to see things as self-existent...to be the ultimate mental affliction. In the consequence group of the middle way school, the Manimika Prasangika, they were divided like this. They'd say, look, apart from a difference in the basis or the foundations of where you see the emptiness, meaning in one case you're focusing on a person, and in the other case you're focusing on other things, okay, apart from those differences in the object which you are thinking about, what you understand about them both is the same thing.

What? That they don't exist by definition. That they don't exist truly.

So apart from a difference in what you're focusing on, those two states of mind, the direct perception of the subtle lack of self-nature of a person and the direct perception of the subtle lack of self-nature of objects, they have the same content. They're both thinking about their respective objects, hey, this thing doesn't exist by definition. So the Manimika Prasangika would say those both act as a state of mind which enables you to prevent the mental affliction obstacles.

So that's their thinking on it. Apart from the basis which has the emptiness, right, that when you perceive that emptiness you're perceiving the same, the content of the mind is the same. They are both the opposite, respective opposites, of one state of mind which believes that a person could exist by definition, and another state of mind that believes that things could exist by definition.

They are described as opposite by content. They are looking at things the opposite way, which means they're both looking at different objects but in the same way. So Manimika Prasangika says that both of those direct perceptions of emptiness, both of those understandings of emptiness, act to enable you to eliminate the mental affliction obstacles.

[Говорящий 2]
So that's Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika. So Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika. Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika, Manimika Prasangika.

[Говорящий 1]
Jetsun Kapa raises an issue and then answers it himself. He says, somebody might come along and say this, and then here's my answer to them if they do say it. By the way, Geshe-la, I'm translating as Jetsun Kapa.

He's using the phrase, the incomparable gentle voice Manjushri protector, Jetsun Kapa. I just want you to know that. Every time he says Jetsun Kapa, he goes through that whole phrase.

Anyway, he says, Jetsun Kapa raises a potential issue and then addresses the potential issue himself. What is the potential issue? He says, don't forget that yesterday we talked about apperception, or the ability of the mind to know itself.

There are about three different flavors of it, he says. In Tibetan it's called rang rik, which means self-knowledge, knowing yourself. He says, the first interpretation of what knowing yourself means, or self-awareness, let's say, is that out here is the perception of, you got to look at this one, okay?

Out here is the visual perception of blue, for example. Then behind it is somebody watching you seeing blue. There's a state of mind watching yourself seeing blue.

That's one version of what it means to be self-aware, self-awareness. The other version of this, the other flavor of this, is that that awareness knows itself. The emphasis is on this, that one awareness is also knowing itself at the same time.

So it's not so much one here and one behind. It's like this one is knowing itself as it sees, you see what I mean? And that's the second flavor of the meaning of self-awareness.

And then I think he mentioned a third flavor, meaning in general to know the very thing itself, meaning emptiness or something like that, that some people might refer to rang rik, knowing itself as knowing emptiness itself or something like that, but he didn't stress that. Then he said, let's go on to that second interpretation of what it means to have self-awareness, which is that any particular state of mind would also be knowing itself at the same time, meaning being aware of itself. So the awareness of blue would also be aware of the awareness of blue, and not just of blue.

So the perception of blue is not only perceiving blue, it's also aware of the perceiving of blue at the same time. Now, Je Tsongkapa, somebody might come and raise the following issue. Didn't you say that there were these two kinds of states of mind that could perceive emptiness?

You know, one seeing the emptiness of objects and one seeing the emptiness of persons, right? Didn't you say that? Yeah, yeah, I did.

And so you said that what we're talking about when we talk about ultimate in the second sense of the term is totality in two different flavors, right? He said, right. So you're talking about two different states of mind that see emptiness, right?

He says, right. He says, do those two states of mind involve rang rik in this school? Do they have self-awareness in this school?

He says, yeah, they do. Oh, then they're not only perceiving emptiness, they're also perceiving themselves perceiving emptiness, right? And the guy says, yeah.

You have to say yeah. He says, well then, those perceptions themselves become the object of the path of purity, right? He says, right.

So those perceptions themselves become ultimate in the second sense of the term, right? He has to say right. And so he says, so here you've got a shen wang, right, a state of mind becoming yong dum, becoming totality or emptiness.

Wouldn't this be a problem? If you define ultimate as ultimate reality or totality, and then you describe it as that object which the path of purity focuses on or sees, then wouldn't you have to say that mind itself, the perception of emptiness itself, being the object of the self-awareness that you're having during your perception of emptiness, well, doesn't that qualify then as... aren't you saying that that mind itself then is ultimate reality?

Okay. That state of mind itself. So Je Tsongkapa says somebody might raise this issue.

Basange.

[Говорящий 2]
Hm. Nani nani nani. Nani nani.

[Говорящий 1]
Basange. Hm. Geshe-la wants to clarify a few things.

He says, yeah, I was talking about three different flavors of self-awareness, okay? So you kind of get three different flavors of self-awareness here. And I didn't mean literally that one mind was sitting behind the other and watching the one mind, but it helps you to visualize it that way or to think of it that way.

Now, what does it mean literally when we say self-awareness? Self-awareness. Is the perception of blue perceiving itself?

And he says, no. Actually, it's a different state of mind, you see? There is an awareness of the awareness of blue, and then there's a separate state of mind called the awareness of blue.

So there's the awareness of blue and the awareness of the awareness of blue. But they are so intimately related. If you lost one, you would lose the other, right?

They have what we call an inseparable relationship. They're so intimately related, and they're related even to the point of what we call ngo-chik, meaning if you lost one, you would necessarily lose the other, okay? Then we can almost say that it is perceiving itself, and that's what the self and self-awareness is.

This is not really itself, right? The perception of the perception of blue is not really literally the perception of blue. So technically, literally, you can't say it's perceiving itself, okay?

But they're so close, and they're so intimately related. That you can call it self-awareness, okay?

[Говорящий 2]
That's right.

[Говорящий 1]
That's right.

[Говорящий 2]
Right.

[Говорящий 1]
The basis of the trouble here, the reason why this issue could easily arise, is in a Tibetan phrase that's used to describe the direct perception of emptiness. And that's a phrase called so-so-drag-me-pa'i yeshe, meaning the wisdom which knows itself individually. The wisdom that knows itself...

Wisdoms which know themselves individually. Okay? Wisdoms which know themselves individually.

Now some thinkers take the individually... Everybody takes the... What's he saying?

Some thinkers take the individually to mean that each of them would see themselves individually. Okay? Each of them would see themselves individually, meaning each perception of emptiness that you ever had would also see itself individually, meaning self-awareness, okay?

But some other thinkers have taken the itself individually meaning it itself perceives individually the emptinesses which pertain to every object. So big difference here, okay? When you say individually perceive itself, some people think it means each one of them sees themselves as a self-awareness or a self-perception, meaning that the direct perception of emptiness is also perceiving the direct perception of emptiness, okay?

And then other thinkers have said, no, no, no, that's not what individually itself means at all. It itself is perceiving one by one each different kind of emptiness that pertains to each different kind of objects. Don't get confused here, okay?

Those are two different ways of interpreting... Interpreting the phrase perceives emptiness itself individually, okay? And so different thinkers have had different takes on it, and probably the issue is arising from one of the takes on this phrase.

[Говорящий 2]
Question... question...

[Говорящий 1]
Now it's time to answer the question, right? Jetsun Kapa has raised a question. Somebody has come along and raised a question.

And probably you guys have been sitting there dying to get the answer, and we've been off on this tangent. So here we go, back to the answer to the question.

[Говорящий 2]
You don't know the answer? You didn't find it, huh?

[Говорящий 1]
Je Tsongkapa is answering on the 8th line from the bottom on page 56, and he says, Look, I admit, you know, maybe it's true that the direct perception of emptiness in this school would have a quality of self-awareness. Okay? Okay.

In this school it would have a quality of self-awareness, meaning that the direct perception of emptiness would also be perceiving itself, would also be aware of itself. But Je Tsongkapa says, Look, when we were talking about the meaning of ultimate, when we described the phrase existing as the ultimate or existing ultimately, we weren't talking about every single object that the direct perception of emptiness is involved with. Okay?

We were talking more specifically about very special objects of the path of purity. You know, maybe the path of purity has other objects also. But when we talk about ultimate, we were talking about emptiness.

You know, we weren't talking about... We didn't describe ultimate as every single object that the direct perception of emptiness perceives or is involved with. We were referring to a very specific object, and that was the emptiness.

So when we say, like, individually perceiving itself or something like that, that individual... And we side with the people who say that that individual has more the sense of the different emptinesses. Okay?

We're not talking about... We're not emphasizing the self-aware part of that perception. We're emphasizing the fact that it perceives emptiness.

So you have to know that when they say ultimate, they are referring only to that object which is emptiness, and they're not referring to every single thing that that mind might be aware of or might be thinking about or something like that, and that might be pertaining to that state of mind. These thinkers who say what we've just said would admit that the direct perception of emptiness is also aware of itself.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
So these thinkers would say, look, nobody can deny that there are two objects here, okay? We're not denying that the direct perception of awareness is aware of the direct perception of awareness. And we do agree that there are two separate objects going on here.

But don't forget how we describe these objects. We call them the object of the path of purity. The object of the path of purity.

Object of a path. Path meaning in Buddhism, spiritual realizations. And when we're talking about spiritual realizations, and spiritual realizations that are going to get you to these high goals, we're not talking about the perception of yourself as being a path.

For the mind to perceive itself is not a spiritual path. That's no big deal. According to the Mind-Only School, all these states of mind are perceiving themselves.

That doesn't qualify it as the path of purity or the object of the path of purity, because path implies a spiritual realization. So we're talking about not just any old object of the path of purity. We're talking about that object which makes it a path, which is emptiness.

So when we say object of the path of purity, we have to be talking only about emptiness, totality. We're not talking about every other object that might be involved with that perception that wouldn't make it a path.

[Говорящий 2]
So when we're talking about the path of purity, we're not talking about the object of the path of purity. We're talking about the mind. So when we're talking about the path of purity, we're not talking about the object of the path of purity.

We're talking about the mind. That's what we're talking about. That's what we're talking about.

That's right. That's right.

[Говорящий 1]
Thinkers of this ilk, thinkers of this type, would give the following kind of example. They say, look, you guys over in America, you got this guy, president of the United States of America. You got Mr. President. You got this guy named Mr. President. And he sits in that Oval Office and he performs the functions. He does the activities.

He does the work of the President of the United States of America. And that's why you can call him the President of the United States of America because he's sitting in that chair and he's performing those functions. So it wasn't like before he got elected president, he was even then a human being.

He was a guy. He didn't have to get to be president to be a guy. He was a guy before that.

So then the guy got elected president. After that he sat in that chair, started to perform those functions. And only then you start talking about him as Mr. President. So there's a guy who's been around for a while and now he's the guy who's Mr. President. And so then you have a big meeting here and you want to have a big international conference and you want the President of the United States to come. And you invite this guy named Mr. President to come. Now, you invite him by virtue of his being president. You don't invite him by virtue of his being a guy. It's not like you're not inviting him due to his quality of being a guy.

You're inviting him due to his quality of being Mr. President. Now, does he still have a quality of being a guy? But what is the quality that everybody's focusing on when they say, please come to our international conference?

It's the quality of being Mr. President. And this is the same thing. Okay, there are other objects that this direct perception emptiness is involved with.

Yeah, it is aware of itself. But that's not what we're focusing on when we talk about the path of purity. No, we're focusing on it as being something that, on its characteristic of being the direct perception of emptiness.

That's the point here. There's other characteristics that it has, but that's not the one we're focusing on when we talk about the path of purity. Same example.

The thinkers of the second group would give an example like this. That's right. So to tie up the example for you, here you have the direct perception of emptiness.

Over here you have itself as its object. The direct perception of emptiness is aware of the direct perception of emptiness. But it's also perceiving emptiness directly.

So over here you've got emptiness, over here you've got the direct perception of emptiness as an object of itself, and over here you've got the direct perception of emptiness as a subject. So over here you've got the guy, the characteristic of being a guy, and over here you've got the characteristic of being Mr. President. Now which one is it we're interested in?

You know, we're holding an international conference. Which one are we going to invite? On the basis of which one are we going to invite this guy?

It's this one. Come on, we're talking about the object of the path of purity. We're talking about emptiness.

It's this one that we're focusing on, it's not this one. It's not the fact, it's not that perception as its own object that we're interested in. We're talking path of purity here, we're talking about something that gets you to a high spiritual state.

We're talking about the emptiness here. We're talking about his characteristic of being Mr. President. Over here.

Now we get on that second group that said, come on, you know, you don't have to do all these gymnastics about what the expression knowing itself individually means, you know. You don't have to go through all this stuff and say, oh, don't forget that Rang Rik, right, knowing itself, perceives itself also, you know. They said, come on, you're just misinterpreting the name of this mental state, which is called, you know, that knowledge of itself individually, right.

The knowledge of itself individually. It's not talking about self-awareness, okay. Knowledge of itself, knowledge of itself individually just means that that state of knowledge itself is perceiving individually all these different kinds of emptiness, okay.

And you know, the name itself doesn't in any way refer to self-awareness. It's just saying that knowledge itself knows all these objects individually. It's not saying this self-knowledge knows things individually, okay.

It's not like that. That's not at all what it's talking about. And so the second group of thinkers would say, you know, you don't have to do all this gymnastics to talk about the object which it is seeing, but it's not the main one, and the object which it is seeing, which is the main one.

You don't have to go through that. You've just misunderstood the name of the thing. You've misunderstood the name of the state of mind itself.

The ram, in Sanskrit language, the yeshe, it doesn't refer to self-awareness. It just means it itself perceives all these different kinds of emptiness. So you don't have to go through all this stuff, okay.

Lhasa. Geshe-la corrects me on one point, okay, or he clarifies a certain point. I said about the second group of thinkers that they think that the word ram, meaning self, means those states of mind themselves perceive all those individual objects.

He says, let's clarify it, that that word itself, self, means it sees those objects themselves, okay. Not that it itself sees those objects individually, but rather that it sees those objects themselves individually. And Geshe-la says, you know, I don't know how it is in English.

I don't know about the word self, or themselves, or itself, or yourself, but in Tibetan, you can use ngarang, means my self, and you can say korang, meaning themselves, you know, and you can say selves, selves, and selves either way. And then I said, yeah, it's about the same in English, right. So he said, you can think about the first group of thinkers as thinking that the word self refers to myself, meaning the mind perceives itself or myself, I, being that state of mind, perceive myself, meaning that state of mind, okay.

You can think of the first self as that, you know. And then in the second sense of self, you can think of it is perceiving those objects themselves out there, and that's how you can take the word self. And that, those two ways of interpreting the word self give you a very clear idea of how the two groups of thinkers think about, are treating this question.

It's how they, it revolves around the question of what do you mean when you say self, okay. In the expression, those knowledges which perceive, now it gets difficult, right. The knowledges of self individually, right.

The self, the knowledges of self individually, how's that, it's nothing like that, okay.

[Говорящий 2]
Now it gets a little tricky in English, okay. So, in English, it's like, you know, it's like, you know, it's like, you know, it's And the second interpretation of what it meant to exist ultimately was described.

[Говорящий 1]
One set of guys come up and says, anything which is the object of the path of purity is ultimate, the ultimate. So one group can come along and say that. One group can properly come along and say, if something is the object of the path of purity, it is necessarily and always the ultimate.

Then you got this other group has to come along and say, they can't say that. They have to come along and say, if something is the object of the path of purity, it is not necessarily the ultimate. It could be the ultimate, it doesn't have to be the ultimate.

You say, oh, give me an example, which one are you talking about? Which one do you have a problem with? What is it that, what are you having in mind when you say, it's not necessarily the case?

What exception are you thinking of? And they say, hey, there are objects of the path of purity which are not the ultimate. And you say, what?

And they say, oh, it's that perception itself, when the perception is having self-perception, because it's also being aware of itself, it's also perceiving itself. And that's not the ultimate, that's a mental thing, that's a state of mind. And then Jetsun Kappa says, when you get to a position of where you're talking to these guys who just said that, then ask them, well, what do you think the words path of purity are focusing on?

Any old path? I mean, any old object? I mean, when you talk about path, you're talking about spiritual realization.

So do you think when we talk about the object of the path of purity, we're just talking about any old object of the path of purity? We're talking about the object that makes it a path, or a spiritual realization, and that's emptiness. So Jetsun Kappa is saying, that's how you have to answer that group of people.

Was that a decent summarization of the point? The group that comes along and says, yeah, yeah, yeah, we admit that it has two objects that it perceives. We admit that it perceives itself also.

And so we admit that in a sense it has two different objects. It has itself as its object, and it has emptiness as its object. But really among those two objects, only one of them is extraordinary and special and wonderful, and that's the emptiness.

The people who say it that way, the people who interpret these lines that way, the people who present the position that way are the Seraje scholars. That's the popular position of the Seraje scholars. Don't tell anybody, okay?

Now you have to follow this position. Then there are the thinkers from Serame, and the thinkers, for example, from the Los Salin College of Debu Monastery, and they side with the other group. And they say, look, look, look, this is not talking about our perception here.

When it says itself, it means themselves, meaning it sees those emptinesses themselves. It's not at all talking about a state of apperception here. So the Serame textbooks and the Los Salin College textbooks kind of side with the other group there.

And not only those two colleges, but also the Gomong College of Debu, and most of those Amdo guys, they also side with us.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay,

[Говорящий 1]
Page 56, right in the middle, eight lines from the bottom. But how did Je Tsongkapa answer? Okay, don't forget that Je Tsongkapa answered, he said, you know, which object do you think would, which object do you think is prominent or most important when we call something the direct perception of emptiness or the path of purity?

Now, which of the objects do you think it is that we're talking about when we say it's the object of path of purity? Now, when you talk about the path of purity, based upon which object do you think we give it that high name, you know, meaning that there are more than one object, meaning that Je Tsongkapa didn't come along and say, hey, hey, hey, there's only one object here. You know, who's talking about a perception of yourself as an object, you know?

Who's talking about yourself as an object that you yourself perceive? We didn't mention that he did not answer like that, okay? Rather, he said, well, you know, which object do you think it was based upon, which, based on which object do you think we call this thing the path of purity, the object of path of purity?

Now, if you focus on that line, you kind of have to go towards the Serengeti interpretation here because it seems closer. Otherwise, Je Tsongkapa would have answered and said, hey, they're not talking about objects like that. You know, they're not talking about yourself as an object of your direct perception of emptiness or anything like that.

He didn't say that. He said, now, you have to figure out which object it is that you're talking about. When you say which object, you're implying multiple objects.

When you're implying multiple objects, you start getting real close to the Serengeti interpretation. You have to admit.

[Говорящий 2]
You know, That's all.

[Говорящий 1]
That's all. I'll give you an example. I don't want to waste time.

Am I wasting time? I said no. He said okay, we're not wasting time.

Okay, let's give an example, an illustration, all right? Suppose you call a meeting of the monks, you know, special monks, you know, like qualified monks, you know, you're having a meeting of special monks who there's a special purpose for and you're having this meeting, okay? And then you say everybody who's qualified has to come, you know, everybody that has, you know, these qualifications has to come to the meeting.

So some guy, you know, puts together a dummy, a mannequin, you know, like he sews a cloth together and puts hay in it or something and brings along this guy, holds his arm around this guy and drags him to the meeting, you know, and then what will the other people say? They'll say, come on, are you crazy? This is not even a guy, you know?

This is just a dummy, you know? We don't need this guy in the meeting, okay? We don't need this dummy in the meeting, okay?

What are you doing? Are you crazy, you know? That's one example, okay?

Then suppose some guy goes to, you know, camp number three or something and meets some lay person there who has nothing to do with the monastery and says, oh, we're having a meeting today, you know, come with me, you know, come along with us, you can come to the meeting. So then he walks into this meeting of specially qualified monks with this lay person who doesn't know anything that's going on, you know, and what's everybody going to say? He's like, what are you doing here, you know, and he says, hey, I'm a guy, you know, I thought this was a meeting of anybody who's a guy, he says, hey, we have to admit you're a guy, you know, you're a person, you know, but we call this meeting for monks of certain qualifications and not just anybody who's a guy, not just anybody who's a person, okay?

So that's a very, very similar example here. So which answer did Je Tsongkapa give here? It's like he's saying, you know, okay, you know, the guy got brought from the camp, you know, the lay person who's not even a monk, no qualifications anyway, and he got brought to the meeting, you know, and Je Tsongkapa's like the guy running the meeting and he's saying, you know, what are you doing here, and the guy says, hey, I'm a person, you know, you're having a meeting, and he says, yeah, well, we're having a meeting, but it's special people with monks, you know, monks, and, okay, I have to admit you're a person, but, you know, among all the people who are persons, you're not the one we intended to come to this meeting, okay? That would be, since he answered, that's how Je Tsongkapa would answer. He did not answer by saying, hey, you're not even a person, you know, get out of here, you know, you're a dummy, you know, he didn't say, get that dummy out of here, he's not even a person, you know, he didn't answer that way, he didn't say that's not even an object, right?

Rather, he said, among all those people called humans or persons, meaning among all those objects of the path of purity called objects of the path of purity, you know, we intended this one to be here, we didn't intend that one to be here, okay? Based on his answer, based on that answer, you'd have to say that it looks like the Sege interpretation is a little closer than ours. Then the next phrase, which is the seventh line from the bottom on page fifty-six, de na means, therefore, in this system, right, even though something may not qualify as ultimate, as being an ultimate and as being an uncaused or an unproduced thing, as we've mentioned it here, right, still, it could be described in this school, it could qualify in this school as something ultimate in the sense of not being just a production of your mind, as something which does come, exist from its own side to its own unique way of being. What Jentso Kappa is saying is that something in this school could fail to be ultimate in the second sense of the term, yet still be called ultimate because it would still qualify as ultimate in the first interpretation of the term, okay?

So that's, Jentso Kappa is wrapping up like that, he's like saying, don't forget that in this school, even if something doesn't qualify as ultimate in the second sense of the term, meaning, you know, some kind of unproduced thing which is ultimate, still it could qualify as ultimate in being something which does exist from its own side through some very nature of its own, not just normally, and still it could be called ultimate in this school, okay, given that there are those two takes on the meaning ultimate.

So therefore, if somebody came along and said, hey, I'm thinking of an ultimate thing, I'm thinking of a thing that exists ultimately, okay, first of all. Secondly, I'm going to tell you something, it's not one of those ultimate things that is an unproduced thing, meaning what? No.

What is the ultimate which is an unproduced thing? Yeah, yondu. So I'm thinking of an ultimate, I'm not thinking of that one, okay?

I'm thinking of one that doesn't exist just nominally, okay, but it is something that we can describe in the minority school as existing ultimate. What am I thinking of? Shambhala.

Okay, I'm thinking of dependent things, okay? And they can be legally, properly described in this school as ultimate in the first sense of the term, still. And it says, excuse me, in this, it says no contradiction in this system, no problem in this system.

Now, what are they talking about when they say no problem? What are they referring back to when they say, hey, there's no problem?

[Говорящий 2]
They were fine.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, they're referring back to the middle way school making the accusation that how can you talk about a thing that's ultimate, okay, and it's still a changing thing? How can you say that? How can you talk about a thing which is produced and still talk about a thing which is ultimate, okay?

That phrase in Tibetan, mingyal, which means, hey, there's no problem here, there's no contradiction here, is a reference back to the original complaint of somebody, right, we said probably middle way school or somebody saying, hey, look, all those mind-only texts say that you can't be ultimate and still be a changing thing. You know, they say, wait, wait, wait, no problem. Why?

Because there's two interpretations of what we mean when we say ultimate, okay? So no problem, you middle way guys, or whoever it is that's complaining, okay? Did you have an issue or a question?

Yeah, yeah, if we had to clean up, if we had, when we do our mop-up, we'll get to that exact thing, exactly what you said is in the mop-up operation, okay? When we mop-up, we'll clear the good name of the mind-only school from these terrible accusations that were made in the ones that you refer, in those texts that you refer.

[Говорящий 2]
When we do our mop-up, we'll clear the good name of the mind-only school from these terrible So, we are going to start with Namaste. Namaste.

[Говорящий 1]
Namaste.

[Говорящий 2]
Namaste.

[Говорящий 1]
Namaste.

[Говорящий 2]
Namaste.

[Говорящий 1]
Now Je Tsongkapa is pulling out another, opening another can of worms, okay? Okay, we got a quotation from a book called Yeshe Nimbukunle Drupa, which Geshe-la identifies as a book by Aryadeva, a great scholar of the Middle Way. And it says, that book's name is called The Companion of the Essence of Knowledge or something like that, The Companion of the Essence of Wisdom, okay?

So in that book, Aryadeva says, describes sundan dzimbaletu and namshe, meaning a state of mind which is free of subject and object, okay? A state of mind which is free of subject and object. And there are two interpretations of what it means to be free of subject and object, okay?

An aspect of subject and an aspect of object, okay? In one sense, as you remember in the mind-only school, they say that a subject mind and the object which it's holding come from one seed and are therefore not of any separate substance, okay? Remember that?

They're said to be not of any separate substance, why? Because they come from the same karmic seed. So in that sense, a state of mind can be free of subject and object, okay?

In another sense, in the mind-only school, we can describe certain states of mind as being free of subject and object because they are free of externally existing objects. They don't hold to externally existing objects, because in this school they don't exist, right? So then you can say that subjects are free of externally existing objects.

So in that sense, certain states of mind are free of subject and object. So there's two different takes on what it means in Master Aryadeva's quotation when he says, states of mind which are free of subject and object. Now what does he say about the subject and objects?

He goes on to say, dhamme dundeyu means, they exist ultimately. And then he says in the last line, in the last line here, he says, niljancha bhisum dudat means, and that's what they say in the Yogacara system. Remember Yogacara is a synonym for mind-only school.

So here you got Aryadeva saying that these states of mind, described as they are according to the mind-only school, do exist ultimately. And he says that's what the mind-only school believes, all right? Do we have a problem here or not?

Je Tsongkapa gives a very simple answer in last line, page 56. hey that's talking about ultimate in the first interpretation of the word that's all they just said you know Jessica says hey they're just talking about ultimate in the first sense of the word in the first interpretation of the word page 57 opening lines okay Gisela says in an in a sense or in one in a sense you could say that the following lines are personal advice to us from Judson copper you know he's like saying okay look guys I got something to tell you between you and me okay I got some advice on all these points you know listen to this and you won't have any trouble okay people are talking here who's talking on one side you got the middleweight people on the other side you got the mind only people here it says yoga char same thing says Gisela okay my no I don't know we're gonna call him in English we'll figure out a word okay you got any ideas no later okay so anyway the yoga char which is equal to the mind only say it's another name for my no making on some one side we got middle way on the other side we got yoga char what are they fighting about first of all they're taking as their object Shenlong's right things which are dependent things which comes from their causes and conditions and they are arguing about whether they exist or not no okay they're not that the fight is not over exist and not exist in the sense of existing or not existing the fight is over do they exist ultimately or don't exist ultimately you know that the question is this the fight is over that and in fact you have to clarify that ultimately further right because it means different things are they arguing about dependent things existing or not existing ultimately in the second sense of the term are they arguing about whether or not dependent things are ultimate reality or not ultimate reality no they're not okay it says you got to get it clear you have to divide ultimate existing ultimately has two different connotations you have to be aware you have to stay aware that what they're arguing about is whether or not these dependent objects exist ultimately in the first sense of the word okay in the first connotation in the word that's where the fight is about keep that in mind and you won't have any problems fail to keep that in mind and you'll get a lot of problems okay okay quiz time what do you guys think you know can the mind only school come along and say that dependent things do exist ultimately in the second sense of the term if they did say that what would they be saying in effect is sensitive to this point you know that if they did say that they'd end up saying that everything around this is ultimate reality therefore he's saying you must distinguish between these two meanings of ultimate and you must be sensitive to the fact that what we're fighting over is the first meaning of ultimate you know does it exist as simply a construct of the mind or not does it exist from it so in it through its own unique way of being or not okay that's the that's where the fight is it's not over whether or not it's ultimate reality okay page 57 line 4 just encompasses the master the the master twins the twin masters okay referring to master song and master Vasubandhu who were half brothers okay it says in most of their texts okay in most of the books that they wrote when they talk about the ultimate they are talking about ultimate reality which is the latter sense of the term but Geshe-la points out that the word most implies that it's not a cabba right it's not necessarily the case that every time they mentioned the ultimate they're talking about ultimate reality okay so you have to be sensitive to that most of the time when these two half brothers are talking about the ultimate they're talking about ultimate reality but not all the time page 57 it says but the first two natures how is it that they exist deceptively now now how is it that the first two natures exist deceptively when they talk about the first two natures they're talking about the first two attributes of the mind only school meaning constructs and dependent things okay so then it says they are something that exists deceptively in the second sense of the term okay in the second sense of the term okay as deceptive things right deceptive reality right that's the as something which is not emptiness itself okay that's okay right so this is now how is it that they exist deceptively in the second sense of the term says Geshe-la okay we quote again the abbreviation of our Arya Sangha and it starts out and says now gyutsans and nandoks gyutsam normally means reason okay remember once that we glossed it as those things which exhibit causation ten you okay and that means that's referring now to what dependent things shamans okay so the word gyutsan is a code word for dependent things and nandoks meaning the constructing state of mind now what

[Говорящий 2]
good does that belong to constructs no the constructing state of mind be careful

[Говорящий 1]
still belongs to shamans it's just a it's just a particular kind of shamans so so the the abbreviation of Arya Sangha is saying all of those things which are dependent and among them that thing called the constructive state of mind or you know that imagining state of mind here's the reason why they are something that exists deceptively okay well first of all they they're in first of all because of involvement with mental affliction secondly because of motivation and thirdly in the sense that they are the object of labels now what does that mean we gotta see okay in the sense of being involved with mental affliction in the sense of being involved in motivation and in the sense of being the object of of the labeling process now what is what are those referred to we're

[Говорящий 2]
going to get later I mean that's nice on you it's almost it actually there's only

[Говорящий 1]
there's only two parts of the last one I made it three it's only two okay one is if they motivate afflicted things they're involved with motivation of afflicted things so put those two together okay they're involved with the motivation and afflicted things a be they are the they are the basis of labeling on the basis of some kind of name okay so those two so I made a mistake so make those three into two the first two belong to one they are that which motivates mental afflicted things a and then B they are the basis or the

[Говорящий 2]
basis of some kind of name okay so put those two together and then B they are the basis of some kind of name okay so put those two together and then C they are the basis of some kind of name okay so put those two together and then D they are the basis of some kind of name okay so put those two together and then C they are the basis of some kind of name okay so put those two together and then C they

[Говорящий 1]
are the basis of some kind of name okay so put those two together and then D they are the basis of some kind of name okay so put those two together and then C they are the basis of some kind of name okay so put those two together and then D they are the

[Говорящий 2]
basis of some kind of name okay so put those two together and then C they are the basis of some kind of name okay so put those two together and then D they are the basis of some kind of name okay so put those two together and then C they are the basis of some kind of name okay

[Говорящий 1]
so these are kinda cool all right..how do we describe, in the second sense of the term, in the second interpretation of the term, something that exists ultimately right..how do we describe it remember that we described it as the ultimate object to the path of purity, right? That thing which the direct perception of emptiness is focusing upon. That makes it yong drup or totality or emptiness, okay?

That makes it, that means out of the three groups of the Mind-Only School, out of the three attributes, you can only call emptiness or totality, that thing which the path of purity or the direct perception of emptiness focuses upon, okay? Don't forget why we call it the object of the path of purity, and where the purity comes in here. It comes in here.

If you focus upon that thing, your obstacles will be purified, okay? You will be purified of your obstacles. That's where path of purity comes from.

That's where the purity in the path of purity comes from. In a sense, you could describe emptiness as that object which, if you can perceive it directly, you will begin to purify all of your obstacles, purify yourself of all your obstacles, okay? And that's a description of what it is to be ultimate or to exist ultimately in the second sense of the phrase, in the second interpretation of the phrase.

Now, what if you wanted to describe what it meant for something to exist deceptively, then? What if you wanted to describe the opposite? And then he says, hey, just take that description of what it is to exist ultimately and reverse it.

Just reverse it, okay? Now what do you come up with? That object upon which, if you focus upon it, motivates or triggers all the mentally afflicted stuff, okay?

That would be a good description for the opposite. If you wanted to describe those things which existed deceptively, you could just flip around that other description and say, those things which, when you focus upon them, they trigger or motivate mentally afflicted stuff, okay? And that's exactly the description of the other two groups.

What are the other two groups? Constructs and dependent things, genwans and kundaksas. So, those can be described as existing deceptively, insofar as, when you focus upon them, as opposed to focusing on emptiness, they don't purify you of your obstacles.

They actually tend to engender in you mentally afflicted stuff, okay? And that's a way of describing them. That's what the first of those two phrases means, right?

We had one that said, they motivate mentally afflicted stuff, and then we said they are the object or the basis for labeling. So, that would finish the first of those two. And it's based on that need to reverse, to get to the opposite, that they said here, they trigger mentally afflicted stuff.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

An issue should have arisen in your mind. When we started to describe those other two groups, meaning dependent things and constructs as being things which only trigger mental affliction or something like that. There should have arisen some doubt in your mind, you know, Hey, not every changing thing is all that bad, you know.

I mean, it's not like every changing thing in the universe is bad. The Buddha himself, you know, a fully enlightened being, has lots of changing things in them, you know. And those are not like triggering mental afflictions or creating mental afflictions all the time or something like that, okay?

And Geshe-la says, don't forget way, way, way back at the beginning of the text when they said the reason we have to classify dependent things as mostly being on the afflicted side of things is that most of them relate to mentally afflicted things, not all of them, okay? And that was why we had some characterizations such as they are peace from the beginning, you know, they are of a nature of being beyond all grief. And then they said we can't use these words to describe the group called dependent things because they're not.

Why? Because most of them are not, okay? And don't forget that that distinction was made before.

We couldn't apply those two beautiful expressions to dependent things because most of them related to mentally afflicted stuff, meaning not all of them relate to mentally afflicted stuff. And so it's with that in mind that here, those two groups, and specifically the group of dependent things, is referred to that stuff which triggers mentally afflicted things, okay? And I'll prove it to you.

Go back to page twenty-two, line two, you know, and there they're talking about, hey, why is it that those latter two expressions, which are peace from the beginning and, you know, of a nature of being nirvana or transcending beyond grief, why was it that this text itself said that those could not be applied to dependent things? Well, because most dependent things are involved with mental affliction, okay? So most dependent things have some kind of connection with mental affliction.

And that's what they have in mind when they say here, when they describe dependent things as triggering mental afflictions or something that causes mental afflictions to arise, that motivates mental afflictions. And that's why you have to take this second reference as meaning most of them trigger mental affliction, okay? And this is my own idea, okay?

I mean, I'm just trying to think about what does that mean, you know? Okay, thanks, Geshe-la. Here we have to describe in more detail what it means to trigger a mental affliction, okay?

What it means here when they say engender mental afflictions or cause mental afflictions to come up or trigger, you know, why do we have to say most here? Well, you know, there are, in enlightened beings, there are changing parts of them, like their physical appearance, okay, which is, you know, if you're a person with certain incredible mental afflictions, whether it's desire, jealousy, hatred, all the way up to the tendency to see a self-nature of a person or something like that, when you focus on the Buddha, it's possible that you could have a mental affliction.

It could trigger a mental affliction, okay? So why do we have to say almost all? You see, in this idea, if you think of it this way, anything could trigger a mental affliction.

I mean, meaning that if you looked at it, you could have a mental affliction, you could come down with a mental affliction, okay? So why is it that we have to say mostly? You have to be sensitive to the fact that the phrase here, triggering mental afflictions or inspiring mental afflictions, is something that is used in the sense of causing mental afflictions to get worse and worse and worse and bigger and bigger and bigger, okay?

And you can't look upon a Buddha that long. You know, I mean, it's not like a normal object that would typically cause a typical mental state of mind to get worse and worse and worse and worse, okay? It's possible that you could look at an enlightened being and have some mental affliction, and you know, due to your past karma or due to your own mental state or something like that.

But if you constantly focused on this thing, you know, would it cause your mental afflictions to gradually worsen, worse and worse and worse and worse, typically? No. That's not the case.

That's why Geshe-la says we have to say here, it's only the majority of changing things that could be called triggerers of mental afflictions, meaning triggering and causing to greatly increase in a gradually worsening way, okay?

[Говорящий 2]
I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I

[Говорящий 1]
get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it. Let me give you an example, you know. The Buddha had a half-brother named Devadatta, and whenever Devadatta was not in the direct presence of the Buddha, he would start thinking about how bad the Buddha was, and start getting angry and start getting jealous and start disliking him intensely.

But then when he got into the direct presence of the Buddha, you know, he was so overwhelmed. Every time he got in his presence, you know, he was so overwhelmed by the presence that all that hatred would melt away, and just like, you know, say hi, you know, like that. So that's an example of that distinction.

So we've got two reasons why those first two groups of the mind-only school, the first two attributes, can be referred to as existing deceptively, right? And the first reason we went through already. We just reversed the description of what it is to exist ultimately, right?

Existing ultimately means to be one of those objects, meaning totality or emptiness, which if you focus upon it, then gradually your obstacles are purified, okay? That by virtue of being the object of the path of purity, something qualifies as existing ultimately in the second meaning of the term, okay, in the second interpretation of the term. So what would it mean to exist deceptively by the same virtue?

Just reverse it. That object or those objects which, when you focus upon them, they tend to trigger and cause to worsen your mental afflictions, okay? So we finished really the first reason for calling those two groups something that exists deceptively, okay?

Now we go on to the second one, which starts five lines in the bottom. It says, that very nature, meaning that very nature here is a code word in the mind-only school for one of their attributes, okay? It's been since the beginning.

That nature, or that very nature, which is of the nature of being labeled through thoughts and words, right? You can label something, you can call something something, either through a verbalization or through a thought. You know, you can think of it in a certain way and that is a labeling, or you can speak of it in a certain way and that is a labeling.

Now what is the one nature or attribute of the mind-only school which is the labeling or the construction of those two kinds of labels? That's kuntaks, okay? Those are constructs, okay?

So first he's talking, mentioning constructs, and then he says, that thing which provides the basis for labels, right? Remember that was the second reason for something to be existing deceptively. The first one was that it caused, it inspired mental afflictions, and the second one it said, it is the basis of labeling.

Now what do we mean when we say basis of labeling? Shenmongs, or dependent things, are the basis of labeling in two different senses. They are what A, constructs apply to, whether those constructs are verbally constructed or mentally constructed, okay?

That's the first way in which they are the label. And then secondly, they themselves provide directly the label to receive the name, okay? To receive the thought, okay?

So what is, the construct is something that depends on the name and the thought. Constructing the construct depends on the name and the thought, but then the Shenmong itself, the changing thing itself, is what receives those names and what receives those constructs. They are the basis of both the constructs and they are the basis of the names as well, okay?

Of the names and the thoughts, okay? So in those two senses, the second reason applies. Shenmongs, or dependent things, can be described as, now they say, existing nominally.

So that's very sweet. I guess here you would have your locus classicus, you know, you'd have your classical description of what it is to exist deceptively, and now you've got, this is really a classical description of what it means to exist nominally. Nominally meaning, to be the basis upon, the basis towards which names and thoughts and constructs are applied, okay?

And that's the second reason why those two groups, or those two attributes of the minority school can be described as existing deceptively, and then by implication, existing nominally. We're going to get to, there's a little bit more to leave, like there's one more sentence that we got to come to next when we get back, and we'll take it and we'll glue it up to this conversation we just had, okay? So remember that when we get back.

There's going to be one, a few, line or a line and a half more that we're going to have to pull up into this current discussion when we get back. Okay.