Углублённый курс ACI 04 — Искусство толкования, часть 1 (1998, Билакуппе, Индия), занятие 25

[Говорящий 1]
So to repeat where we were, we were trying to show why those two categories, or those two attributes of the minority school are described as existing and non-existing. Existing deceptively or existing nominally. And we finished talking about how they triggered mentally afflicted things first, and then secondly how they provided the basis for ascription or for labeling, whether it be through the mind, through words, or through constructs.

[Говорящий 2]
So we were trying to show why those two categories, or those two attributes of the minority school are existing and non-existing. So to repeat where we were, we were trying to show why those two categories, or those two attributes of the minority school are existing and non-existing. So to repeat where we were, we were trying to show why those two categories, or those two attributes of the minority school are existing and non-existing.

[Говорящий 1]
Je Tsongkapa is explaining why on the sixth line on page 57, that obviously we've been talking so far about shenwangs, right? When we talked about why they were called deceptive reality, why they were called existing nominally, we kept referring to the two groups, but obviously here so far they've been talking mostly about dependent things, shenwangs. Why?

On the sixth line from the top, page 57, they call them gyu ten dang. Gyu ten means, as we said before, that which exhibits causation, rather than its normal meaning, which means reason. So if you divide the word here, gyu ten, into two parts, it becomes that which exhibits causation, meaning dependent things.

So so far they've been talking mostly about dependent things. And then Je Tsongkapa explains that on 57, third line from the bottom, where he says, gyu ten ni, he finds it necessary to explain the word gyu ten because in normal Tibetan, gyu ten means something completely different. It means reason.

Okay, but here Je Tsongkapa is saying, ngönpo gyur bytsigyi nes gyurbyen, ngönpo la shero, means this word refers to those functioning things which become the locus or the place which are referred to with expression. Meaning here, expression here meaning labeling through ideas or labeling through words. Those two being labeling, which is done by a constructing state of mind.

And you can also say that shen wangs, or dependent things, are the recipient or the basis of labels which are constructs themselves. So it can refer to a dependent thing to which a construct is applied, or it could be a dependent thing to which words and thoughts are applied. Either case, you can call it the object or the basis of a scription or the basis of labeling.

And that was the second way in which it was characterized, as the basis of labeling.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay, so this is the second way in which it was characterized, as the basis of labeling. And the third way in which it was characterized, as the basis of labeling. And the fourth way in which it was characterized, as the basis of labeling.

And the fifth way in which it was characterized, as the basis of labeling. Okay, so this is the fifth way in which it was characterized, as the basis of labeling. And the sixth way in which it was characterized, as the basis of labeling.

And the seventh way in which it was characterized, as the basis of labeling. And the eighth way in which it was characterized, as the basis of labeling. And the ninth way in which it was characterized, as the basis of labeling.

And the tenth way in which it was characterized, as the basis of labeling. And the eleventh way in which it was characterized, as the basis of labeling. Yes, sir.

[Говорящий 1]
Page 57, second line from the bottom. Yes, sir. Page 57, second line from the bottom.

We now have a quotation from a book called, you can call it, We now have a quotation from a book called, you can call it, The Exposition of Reasoning. Okay? Reasoned Exposition.

How's that? Okay? So, Reasoned Exposition is a book by Master Vasubandhu again.

So, we're hearing from Master Vasubandhu again. And it says that it's trying to define what it is to be deceptive, to exist deceptively, and what it is to exist ultimately in the second meaning of the term. and what it is to exist ultimately in the second meaning of the term.

Don't forget that we are still in, we still are getting a lot of cases where people are referring to it in the second meaning of the term, meaning ultimate reality and deceptive reality. Okay? So, then here is Master Vasubandhu's explanation of what it is to be deceptive reality and what it is to be ultimate reality.

He starts out by saying, that thing which is the object of the mistaken state of mind of the world, right? That thing which is the object of the mistaken state of mind of the world is what we call deceptive reality. And then we go on to page 58.

That thing which is the object of that state of mind which is beyond the world, or which has gone beyond the world is described as ultimate reality. Now, what does it mean here to be a deceptive state of mind? Geshe-la describes it as, this is a new expression for us, thay ne chu je gyi rik pa means a kind of knowledge or a kind of understanding which is investigating what it is to be a nominal thing.

The state of mind which is investigating what it is to be nominal is described as a state of mind of the world and a state of mind which is mistaken. It is dealing with deceptive objects, okay? That's a code word, okay?

Investigating nominal things or investigating what it is to be nominal is what it is, is a code word in Buddhism for the state of mind that is perceiving what we call deceptive reality. So Master Vasubandhu says, you want to know what deceptive reality is? It's that thing which serves as the object of a mistaken state of mind of the world.

Meaning, Geshe-la glosses, a state of mind which is investigating the nature of nominal things. It's given that code name. And then the opposite which is the direct perception of emptiness.

The state of mind which is the direct perception of emptiness which here is called a state of mind which transcends the world, which is beyond the world. That state of mind, anything which provides an object for that is ultimate reality. So here again, in a new quotation from Master Vasubandhu, we have two descriptions of deceptive reality and ultimate reality which accord to the second definition or second description of those terms.

... Very, very simply, to put it succinctly, to just wrap it up in a very simple way, that thing which is referred to as ultimate in the second interpretation of that word or that term, is ultimate reality. If something is ultimate reality, then it is what the second way of explaining the word is referring to when it says ultimate.

If something is deceptive reality or deceptive truth, then it is what is being called deceptive in the second interpretation of the word deceptive. So that's all just to summarize. ...

[Говорящий 2]
... For example, if you want to drink a cup of tea, you have to open your mouth wide. That's the way it is.

When you are drinking tea, you open your mouth wide. Your body, your mouth, open wide. So, open your mouth wide.

If you want to drink tea, you have to open your mouth wide. Open your mouth wide, and open it wide. When I was young, I used to go to the temple and pray to the goddess Kumbhashiva to give me good fortune.

I prayed to the goddess Kumbhashiva to give me good fortune. I prayed to the goddess Kumbhashiva to give me good fortune. When I was young, I used to go to the temple and pray to the goddess Kumbhashiva.

I prayed to the goddess Kumbhashiva to give me good fortune.

[Говорящий 1]
Page fifty-eight, line three. Now, just a couple of sentences. What did they mean when they said expression?

What did they mean when they said expression? Japanese means what did they mean when they said expression? What did who mean?

Back on page fifty-seven, the second line from the bottom, we were still in a quotation from the abbreviation of Arya Sangha when we got somebody saying, oh, that functional thing which is the place, or that functional thing which is the object towards which you apply expressions. The words of expressions. And so, Je Tsongkhapa is going into the meaning of the word expression, and he says, expression, what does expression mean here?

We're talking about the meaning of the word deceptive, and Geshe-la says, do you remember back in the Middle Way school when we were discussing the meaning of the word deceptive as a part, as a piece of the phrase deceptive reality, remember? They were discussing deceptive reality, and the Middle Way people said, you want to know why we call it deceptive reality? Let's take the deceptive out of deceptive reality and treat that separately.

And then they said, oh, something is deceptive when you are deceived, okay? And it means the deceived state of mind. Deceived state of mind meaning the object of the deceived state of mind, right?

And that is the tendency to hold things as existing truly. In the Middle Way school, the tendency which holds things as existing truly is a deceived state of mind. And as it looks on what we call deceptive reality, it is constantly deceived.

So that reality which provides the object for the deceived state of mind is what we call deceptive reality. And if you remember, that was how the Middle Way school explained the word deceptive in the phrase deceptive reality, okay? Now Geshe-la says, here in the Mind Only school, on this point, line three, page 58, you get a very, very similar description of what it is to be deceptive.

And here what they're saying, in essence, is there's a state of mind also, according to the Mind Only school, which is holding something to be self-existent. How? How do they describe it?

Oh, it's looking on an object as the thing which is called that and thinking that that relationship exists by definition, okay? The fact that a certain person is the person who is called a certain name, okay, if that fact could exist by definition, it's the mind which believes that that fact exists by definition. Basically, that any given person should have and will always be, by definition, given the name they're given, which is not true at all, right?

But they think that when they describe a state of mind which is grasping to self-existence, that's what that state of mind is thinking. It's thinking that this thing, which is called this, is called that naturally or by definition, okay, from its own side, okay? Nothing made up about it, okay?

And that state of mind is deceived, and that's what we mean when we say deceptive reality. So here is a case where the Mind Only school is describing the deceptiveness of deceptive reality in a very similar way to the Middle Way school, except what they say how the deception takes place is different, right? But in both cases, deceptive reality is named after the state of mind which is deceived.

Now, how it's deceived is different in the two schools, but the deceptiveness of deceptive reality comes from the same sort of description in both of the schools. Okay, we're going to check in with you guys, okay, ready? When the Middle Way school talks about the word deceptive in the phrase deceptive reality, what are they talking about?

How do they describe it?

[Говорящий 2]
The mind that incorrectly perceives the word deceptive in deceptive reality. The mind that apprehends things in the ultimate deceptive reality.

[Говорящий 1]
You guys agree or not? That the deceptive in the phrase deceptive reality, according to the Middle Way school, is referring primarily to the state of mind which thinks that something is existing by definition when it's not existing by definition. Agree?

And then they all agree with you. So it says that he can eat lunch and the rest of you don't have to eat lunch, and your tummies will get filled too because you're all one mindless thing. Carry the same logic, right?

Carry the same reasoning over to the mind-only school. Now in the mind-only school, when you talk about deceptive reality in the mind-only school, and if you were in the mind-only school and somebody asked you, what does the deceptive in the deceptive reality mean? Carrying that logic to this new school, how would they describe it?

[Говорящий 2]
It's the belief that the thing that bears the label does so by definition, that it has to be that way. It's a label. The flask is not merely labeled a flask.

It's inherently just a label flask.

[Говорящий 1]
By definition. You want to say it the same way? No, no, no, he said the principle was the same, but the meaning is different.

[Говорящий 2]
It's the mind that perceives that an object has to be called what it's called.

[Говорящий 1]
Right, good. That a thing should be the object of what it's called by definition. Which means that a potato would always be a potato, even no matter who looked at it.

So he says, you agree now that it's like parallel description, right? It's a different meaning, different content, but the way in which they describe it is parallel, right? All right, so we'd have to say su-lug-la, la-re, la-re, la-re, la-re, la-re, la-re, la-re, la-re, la-re, la-re, la-re, la-re.

So to this state of mind, in the mind-only school, to which something is appearing as though it were by definition the object which was given its name. When that appears to it, that is appearing to exist by definition. And that's what it means here to be deceptive, right?

And that's the main point here. Okay, so that appearing that way, it appearing to exist by definition that way is what it means in this school when they say the deceptive and deceptive reality. And even though it appears that way to that state of mind, it doesn't exist that way to that state of mind.

How's that, he says. Can we say it that way? Yeah.

Yeah. Okay? So it appears that way to that state of mind, but it doesn't exist that way to the state of mind.

Is that okay? Yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
Well, there's two little points that you can say.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay. What?

[Говорящий 2]
Well, earlier we talked about the fact that it's deceived with respect. You're thinking that the object and the subject are different. It's not just deceived with respect.

It's deceived with respect. It's different.

[Говорящий 1]
Same thing. It's a good point, he says. You could have said it any way of those three different ways.

He said, fine. In this school, you could have said it any one of those ways. But the reasoning is parallel, right?

[Говорящий 2]
Right.

[Говорящий 1]
What Dr. Chilton has just done is taken one of those multicolored pens, you know, and first you put down the pen. and you wrote A. And then you flopped that up and put down the black and wrote A.

And you flopped that up and put down the blue and wrote A. You know, it's a red A and a black A and a blue A. But it's really all the same, right?

Yeah, you're right. It's all the same thing. Okay.

Okay.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay. Okay. We can posit three kinds, from what you said.

We can also go further and say there are three kinds of totality, or three kinds of emptiness, right? One is the fact that the fact that something is what it's named doesn't exist by definition. One is the fact that objects don't exist externally.

One is the fact that the consciousness which perceives blue and the blue which that consciousness perceives are not coming from different karmic seeds. Those three are three different flavors of emptiness in the mind-only school. And the three states of mind which hold the opposite to be true in each case are corresponding three flavors of what it is to hold something to be self-existent, the tendency to hold something as being self-existent, which in Buddhism is the ultimate problem.

And even more than that, Dr. Chilton, there's an intimate relation between the two. To hold one is to hold the other. I'll give you an example.

If you think that any given object exists as an external thing, then essentially what you're saying is, oh, this thing exists external to my perception as some kind of object put together from partless atoms out there and does not enjoy some indivisible relationship with my visual consciousness. So in that sense, you're saying exactly the same thing in those two cases. The ignorance which holds that the blue which you are perceiving and the state of mind which is perceiving the blue do not come from the same karmic seed.

And the ignorance which holds, oh, that piece of stuff out there that's built out of its own partless atoms could never be somehow intimately connected to my consciousness. They could never bear some kind of indivisible relationship or something like that. So they're not only close to each other, it is saying the same thing actually.

So we've covered the meaning of the word deceptive, right? It means, to that deceived state of mind, this thing appears to be such and such. So, for example, when the state of mind in the mind-only school is looking at a thing like a water pitcher, it is at that moment holding that the water pitcher is something which by definition deserves the name water pitcher.

It's something which by definition deserves the name water pitcher. It is holding on to that. And it believes that to be true.

That deceived state of mind believes that to be true. You can say it's true to that state of mind only. So that object which is true only to a deceived state of mind is what we can call deceptive reality.

That object which is real, which is reality, only to a deceived state of mind, now you've got both parts of the term. That we call deceptive reality. So the reality only means real to that wrong state of mind.

And the deceptive refers to the state of mind being deceived. And so you've got a really weird word here. You've got false reality, false truth, or something like that.

We can use the same reasoning behind the phrase ultimate reality. Ultimate here means what? The ultimate state of mind.

The ultimate state of mind is what? The direct perception of emptiness. And if some object appears to be reality or truth to that state of mind, then we can refer to the object as ultimate reality.

But the ultimate in ultimate reality actually refers to the state of mind perceiving it. And the reality or truth, ultimate reality or ultimate truth, the word reality only means real to that state of mind, or truth to that state of mind. And so the two applications of the phrases ultimate reality and deceptive reality are very similar.

The applications are very similar. So you composite two states of mind. Over here is the deceived state of mind.

Over here is the ultimate state of mind, meaning the direct perception of emptiness. So visualize it this way. Over here you've got a deceived state of mind, which is actually a tendency to hold things as truly existing.

And over here you have an ultimate state of mind, which is the direct perception of emptiness. And each one has its own object. This object applies to this state of mind.

This object applies to this state of mind. What is it that is believed to be true by the deceived state of mind? It is what we call deceptive reality.

Those objects, which together constitute deceptive reality, are what this believes to be true or this believes to be reality. And that's why it's called deceptive reality, because this state of mind is called deceived. What it believes to be true is its object.

So therefore, or real, what it believes to be real is its object. So we'll give its object a name, deceptive reality. Over here you have the ultimate state of mind, and it's believing this object to be real.

What is this object over here? Emptiness itself. Yeah, ultimate reality.

And it's believing, you know, this ultimate state of mind is believing this to be real, or this to be true. So we can give a name to this emptiness over here. We can give it the additional name, ultimate reality, ultimate truth.

And then Geshe-la says, you know, we're about to embark on a certain illustration. There's a certain illustration to illustrate what we just said. Even in modern-day terms, we can phrase this illustration in modern-day terms.

You've got a place where trains go out of, you know, there's a certain building where trains start out, everybody gets on the train, the train goes out, goes out, goes out, goes out, goes out to its destination. Then the train comes back by back, ends up here, everybody gets out. Certain people get out, certain people get out, it goes out again.

Or you could say there's a place where a bus does the same thing. Or you could say there's a place where airplanes do the same thing. And how is that building named?

It is named from the things which go out and come back to it. This is called a train station. Why?

Because trains go out and trains come back to it. This is called a bus station. Why?

Because buses go out and buses come back to it. This is called an airport. Why?

Because airplanes go out and come back to it. That's going to be an illustration here. Now, in the days when this book was written, there weren't any trains or buses or airplanes.

So what were there? Well, people went on foot, especially in Tibet, right? So people were walking around Tibet.

And in Tibet, it was often necessary... This is very common for travelers in the old days in Tibet. They often had to get over rivers, okay?

They'd bump into rivers. There were all these rivers that if you go east to west or west to east in Tibet, you run into all these rivers. So you get good at crossing a river.

Two ways to cross a river. Either jump in and walk across, okay? Or you can get into a coracle, which is a round leather boat.

Or you can get into a small rowboat and ferry across to the other side. So those places where... Those platforms, they're called bapdek, means those platforms from which you take off.

You can call it a dock, or you can call it the last landing on the river before you have to jump off and walk across. Those places where you jump off, walk across, and eventually come back to are those places where you get into your little ferry boat, whether it's leather or wood, and you cross and then you come back. Skin, like yak skin coracles, they're called, or come back.

That platform... You have to think in terms of that platform. So think of that platform as a place where things go out and things come back, whether it's talking by foot or by boat.

That's all. And here we have exactly the same thing. These two examples are supposed to relate why it is that ultimate reality is called ultimate reality and deceptive reality is called deceptive reality.

I'm not translating anything else because I'm saying else about why.

[Говорящий 2]
Let me, let me, let me.

[Говорящий 1]
Not so.

[Говорящий 2]
Not so.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay. I asked him to explain the illustration because I didn't get it. I don't know about you guys.

He says, look, don't you remember those two things we did over here? This is called ultimate reality because it's the object of the ultimate state of mind. This is called deceptive reality because it's the object of the deceived state of mind.

These two objects are given their names from the two things that are doing their thing with relation to them. They are like the basis or the object with which, upon which these two things are doing their thing. Okay?

So these are like the platforms that are given their name by what's going on by people coming and going from them, you see? This is called a boat platform or a dock and it's given its name from the thing that goes out and comes back from it. And this is called like a place to jump off, a jumping off point physically due to the fact that...

a person jumping off point because due to the fact that people jump off on an omelette to get over the river, okay? So it's like two docking stations given their name from the things that go out and come back from them meaning the two objects, ultimate reality and deceptive reality are named from the states of mind which perceive them. Yes, sir?

Yes, sir?

[Говорящий 2]
Who said that?

[Говорящий 1]
We'd better explain the illustration otherwise people will come out of Geshe Tutor Rinchen's class saying that Geshe Tutor Rinchen said that the two truths or the two realities relate to train stations. It's happened, okay? People will go back to America and say Geshe Tutor Rinchen said that the two realities were train station and bus station.

Just kidding.

[Говорящий 2]
What did he say? Nothing. Nothing.

Nothing.

[Говорящий 1]
Nothing.

[Говорящий 2]
Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

[Говорящий 1]
Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

Nothing. Nothing. While we're on the subject of the two truths, since we've gone into such detail on the two realities, why don't we stop and talk about a certain issue that relates to that?

Okay, I'll go ahead, okay? It'll be on the side. Why don't we talk about another issue that relates to that?

Those of you who know about the direct perception of emptiness, there are actually two stages to the direct perception of emptiness. One is the direct perception of emptiness itself while in deep meditation, which is called Nyamsaya Yeshe, the wisdom of deep meditation. And then there's what's called subsequent wisdom, which means after you've come out of deep meditation, all of these other experiences that you have are called subsequent wisdom.

They're still sort of counted as part of the experience of, the direct experience of emptiness, but the first is actually in deep meditation, the direct experience of, direct perception of emptiness. And then the second, subsequent wisdom or something like that, is other related realizations that you have which are not the direct perception of emptiness, but happen during the same day, shortly afterwards, okay? So, then an issue arises, or a discussion arises.

The first one is sometimes called ultimate. The second one is sometimes called deceptive. Now what does ultimate and deceptive mean in that scenario?

Okay, Masangye. Okay, Masangye. It appears that sometimes, it says from this quotation, it appears that sometimes that stage, which is the deep meditation, the direct perception of emptiness, is sometimes called, is sometimes described as existing ultimately.

Okay, it's a state of mind, and it's sometimes described as existing ultimately. Now everybody knows it doesn't fit either of the descriptions of existing ultimately, okay? It doesn't fit the first description, and it doesn't fit the second description of what it means to exist ultimately.

So how can we call it existing ultimately? Why is it that anyone would come along and say, this direct perception of emptiness during deep meditation exists ultimately? And Je Tsongkapa says, you know why?

Because it doesn't fit either of the reasons that we just listed for calling something deceptive reality. Neither of those two reasons, or those two justifications for calling something deceptive reality is fulfilled with that particular state of mind. Now we'll do more on that.

Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

It says here, neither of those previously mentioned requirements or prerequisites for something to be, or reasons why we call something deceptive reality is fulfilled here.

[Говорящий 2]
Nothing.

[Говорящий 1]
Nothing. Page 58. It's about...

Eight lines from the bottom. It fulfills... This particular state of mind fulfills neither of the prerequisites or the reasons why we would call something deceptive reality.

It fulfills neither of them. Neither one describes the state of the direct perception of emptiness.

[Говорящий 2]
Nothing.

[Говорящий 1]
Remember that Je Tsongkapa says, we're not going to be able to call it... We have to call it ultimate reality, or existing ultimately, because we can't call it something that exists deceptively, because it doesn't fulfill either of the descriptions of what it is to exist deceptively. Now which two are we talking about?

What are those two that we're talking about that came before, he says? Geshe-la says, it's the two descriptions that came before. It's the first description of what it is to exist deceptively, and the second description of what it is to exist deceptively.

Why does it not fulfill the first description of what it is to exist deceptively? Because you can't say about it... It doesn't fulfill the first description of what it is to exist deceptively because you cannot say about it that it is simply a production of the mind.

You can't say that it is simply a construct of the mind, right? That's what the first version of what it was to exist deceptively was. And you can't say that about the direct perception of emptiness.

[Говорящий 2]
That's right. Nga ni.

[Говорящий 1]
Nga ni.

[Говорящий 2]
Dang.

[Говорящий 1]
Nga ni.

[Говорящий 2]
Nga san.

[Говорящий 1]
Nga san. Nga san. Page...

Now what is the second one? What is the second one? We got the first one.

The direct perception of emptiness during deep meditation cannot be called something that exists deceptively because it doesn't fit those two descriptions. The first one was existing simply as a production of your mind or a projection of your mind. It doesn't fulfill that one.

Now what's the second one? We have to go to page 57. We have to go to the seventh line down where it says, you know what?

gyu ten meaning dependent things and nam tok which means among dependent things the... what do you call it? The constructing state of mind.

Among those two, those two can be called deceptive reality. Why? Because two things can be said of them.

What two things can be said of them? They trigger mentally afflicted stuff and they serve as the basis for appellation or something like that. And it's the first one of those two.

We got three there, right? Now we got three. We got deceptive...

existing deceptively is described as that which is a construct of the mind. We got existing deceptively described as that which triggers afflicted thing and that which acts as an object of appellation. It's these first two that we're talking about.

It's those first two that we're talking about. So we're talking about because it exists as a... it doesn't...

the direct perception of emptiness does not exist as a simple construct of the mind, A. B, it is not something which would trigger mental afflictions. So you couldn't use either one of those prior descriptions to characterize it as something which exists deceptively.

Say, hey, let's say it exists ultimately, even though we don't mean existing ultimately in either of the former senses that we've been using it in. Okay? That's all.

That's the reason.

[Говорящий 2]
Hmm. Hmm.

[Говорящий 1]
Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And why is it that the subsequent state of wisdom, right?

The wisdom that you have after you come out of the direct perception of emptiness during the next few hours or something like that, why is it that that... that's characterized actually in two different ways. It is said to exist both deceptively and exist ultimately.

Okay? So the direct perception during meditation, deep meditation, is described as existing ultimately simply by default because it can't be described as existing deceptively in two of the meanings that we had before. But why is it that you can describe the subsequent period after you come out of the direct perception of emptiness and you're having other incredible spiritual realizations, why can that be described as existing both ultimately and deceptively?

Well, from the objects which it's dealing with, okay? It is mostly at that point perceiving again deceptive reality. It is mostly acting in the realm of deceptive reality.

And in Geshe-la says that I guess once in a while they say that you start thinking about emptiness again. Okay? You start thinking about emptiness again.

And from that point of view we can say it can be characterized as ultimate, you know, existing ultimately. Okay? In these uses of the terms.

Now Geshe-la makes a final point. If you take the phrase existing deceptively here, that one phrase, right? And if you take the two times we've mentioned directly here, existing ultimately, right?

And if you try to mix it up with the last two descriptions of it, of what those two phrases mean, right? The first connotation and the second connotation, big trouble. Don't even try.

Separate this instance of the phrases existing ultimately and existing deceptively and don't even try to mix it up with the other two that we already had because they're no relation at all. Now we have a whole new connotation of those two phrases. That's enough.

[Говорящий 2]
Turn off.

[Говорящий 1]
We've got a whole new battle going to come up now. Page 58, second line from the bottom says, Don't forget that this is a reasoned exposition. By whom?

By Master Vasubandhu. And that little section is going to continue up to page 59, sixth line from the bottom where it says, And this refers to a special fight going on. The lower two schools, which is the detailist and the sutra schools, they are going to take some shots at the middle way school, which is the fourth school, right?

And Geshe-la says, well, certain people in the middle way school, and they make certain criticisms of the middle way school. Then the mind-only guys come along and say, and the mind-only school is sitting on the sidelines and watching, and they say to the middle way school, You know what? You guys cannot defend yourselves from those two lower schools, given your stupid school system.

And if you were in the mind-only school system like we are, you could have defended yourselves from those same accusations. So let's show you how to do it from our point of view. And we'll show you how we defend ourselves successfully from those accusations of the two lower schools.

And don't you wish that you middle way schools were in our school, because you cannot defend yourself from those accusations. Now that's what this section is going to be all about.

[Говорящий 2]
I'm going to tell you a story. There was a little boy, tu la... tu la...

do...do... jig lay... tu la...

ge... jus lay doe...

[Говорящий 1]
Ok, here is what the lower two schools say when they take their shots at the middle way school, they say, As I recall, you think that the second tearing of the wheel is something that should have been taken literally. And here there is a codeword. Okay?

dun dam pa tongpa nyi dun dam pa tongpa nyi here, which literally only says the ultimate, the emptiness, from. Geshe-la says that's a reference to the middle turning of the wheel. Okay?

That's a code word for the middle turning of the wheel. So in the middle turning of the wheel, during the middle turning of the wheel, the Buddha made certain statements. And you guys say that we should take them literally.

You middle-eyed guys say that the second turning of the wheel is something that we should take literally, which is to say, you middle-eyed guys, that although you believe two things exist, you believe something else doesn't exist. What are the two things they say do exist? Karma and the maturations of karma, the ripening of karma, okay?

So what's an example of karma in the middle-eyed school? You could say the mental function called the movement of the mind, okay? Which is called semsen semba, okay?

That mental function which consists of movement of the mind. When the mind moves, that mental function. You do say that that does exist.

And then you go on to say that the ripening of karma does exist, okay? Over a period of years. So for example, our body would be an example of a ripening of karma.

So you middle-eyed guys, taking the second turning of the wheel to be literal, claim that karma and the ripening of karma do exist. And then after that, you say that the person involved, okay, doesn't exist. The agent doesn't exist.

And Geshe-la says, how do we gloss agent here? Meaning the person who commits the karma. The person who does the karma.

You say they don't exist. So this is how the lower two schools are attacking the middle-weight school. You guys, taking the second turn of the wheel literally, say that although karma and its ripening does exist, you say that the agent here doesn't exist.

Now they have a further question to ask the middle-weight people, okay? When you say the first two things do exist, and the third thing doesn't exist, are you saying deceptively or ultimately? Okay?

Are you saying deceptively or ultimately? Okay? If you say deceptively, they don't exist deceptively.

I'm sorry, they don't exist ultimately. Let's take that one first, okay? When you middle-weight guys, if you're going to answer me that we're talking about this ultimately here, which would be to say that the first two exist ultimately, and the third one doesn't exist ultimately, you can't say that because you're the guys.

Aren't you the school system that runs around saying that nothing exists ultimately? So how can you make a division here and say, oh, these things do exist, karma, ultimately, and this one thing doesn't exist, karma, ultimately? You can't do that.

You have to make a blanket statement. If you're going to say anything, you got to say none of them exist ultimately because that's your school system. And suppose you answer me, no, no, no, no.

We were talking about deceptively, okay? But wouldn't you say in your school system that all three of these things do exist? These are all deceptive reality.

Karma, the ripening of karma, and the agent who commits the karma. According to your school system, middle-weight guys, they all exist deceptively. They're all deceptive reality.

So you can't give me either answer, can you? You can't answer me at all, you middle-weight guys. You're stuck, okay?

That's the accusation. That's on you. And their last part of their argument is repeated on the second line of page 59, meaning, okay, you said two of those things did exist.

What was that? The karma and the ripening of the karma. Do you middle-weight guys, are you talking ultimately?

Okay, because if you say ultimately, your whole system is blown up because showtimes are lower than you make. You just said no object in the world has any nature of its own. So how can you go around saying that karma and the ripening of karma are things that exist ultimately?

You can't be saying exist ultimately, right? Okay, all right, suppose you come and say exist deceptively. This exists as an example of deceptive reality.

Okay, you said the first two things did exist, right? What was that? Karma and the ripening of the karma.

And then you came and said that the agent, meaning the person who commits the karma, doesn't exist. So suppose you come along now and say, oh, that's not what I meant. I meant, when I said the first two existed, I meant existed deceptively.

Well then, why on earth can't you just say that the third one exists deceptively also? Why, now why do you change on the third one and say it doesn't exist? Okay, that's their debate.

[Говорящий 2]
That's their argument.

[Говорящий 1]
Nothing. Mm-mm.

[Говорящий 2]
It's because of the years that I had, and not the years that I didn't have.

[Говорящий 1]
Nothing. So here are these two guys having a punch-out, right? One side, you got the middle-weight guy, you know, the representative of the middle-weight school.

And then on the other side, you have who? The two lower schools. Okay, the DTLS and the Sutras, right?

And the DTLS and the Sutras were posing this, you know, conundrum to the middle-weight school. So there's a punch-out between these two guys. And now comes this nosy guy called, mine only, and he's gonna try to get between them, you know, he goes like, hey, hey, I can do that, you know, let me in there, I'll do my thing, you know?

So he butts in, okay? He butts into the middle, he says, and he turns around to the two lower schools and says, hey, you guys, when you say that the middle-weight school thinks that this thing exists deceptively, or this thing exists ultimately, what do you mean when you say ultimate? And what do you mean when you say deceptively?

And here's the answer of the lower two schools too. The minority school guy who butted in, okay? So what is it?

What do we mean when we say deceptive? And it's beginning on line five at the very end, page 59. What we mean is those things which are names, those things which are expressions, those things which are labels, those things which are terms.

What are they talking about? Kundaks. They're talking about constructs.

Basically, if you convert it to minority school terminology, right, they are talking about constructs, okay? And what do they mean when they say ultimate? When they talk about ultimate?

Line six, page 59. Oh, they're talking about any existing object which could exist by definition, okay? The objects which exist by definition, okay?

That's what we mean when we say ultimate, okay? And then the minority school says, oh, oh, oh, that's what you mean by deceptive. That's what you mean by ultimate.

Hey, come and ask me that question. I can give you a good answer, okay? You should have asked me.

I could have given you a decent answer. Not those middle-aged guys, okay? Masage.

What was it?

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. ...

[Говорящий 1]
Oh, you should have asked me because either way you go, it's fine with me. Okay, what do you mean? Oh, us mind-only guys, you know, how do we interpret the ideas ultimate and deceptive?

Well, if you go along and say that karma and its consequences are ultimate, are something that exists ultimately, that's fine with me. I can buy that. Why?

Because in my first interpretation of what it means to exist ultimately, I say anything which is not simply a projection or a construct of the mind exists ultimately. So in my school, yeah, you guys can say those first two exist ultimately. Fine with me.

Why? Because they are not simply constructions of the mind. Okay?

Oh, and you want to call them deceptive? Fine with me too. Okay?

Why? Because in my second interpretation of what it means to exist deceptively, that's fine with me too. You know?

But why? Because it's something that... What was that?

But... Jok-tsun-nyi-pe kun-zok... Did I say that?

Did I say that? I mean, did they say that? I don't mind if you call them deceptive because in my second version of what it means to exist deceptively.

I said, anything that is the object of that state of mind which is examining nominal things, remember we said that? Anything which is the object of that state of mind which is examining nominal things can be described as deceptive. So hey, you should have asked me, because either one you want me to say, I can say.

If you say those first two, karma and its consequences exist ultimately, fine with me. You could have said karma and its ripening exist deceptively, fine with me too. You should have asked me.

So you lower two school guys, you could have asked me, because in my system, you can say that karma and its ripening, they exist ultimately, because they fit the meaning of existing ultimately that I gave in the first version. And you can also come up and say that those same two things exist deceptively, because that fits quite nicely with my second version of what it means to exist deceptively. So, you know, either way would have been fine with me.

So here's the actual wording of the exchange between the lower two schools and the mind-only guy. It starts on page 59, line 5, at the very end, and it says, oh, oh, oh, you want to say that deceptive refers to names, expressions, labels, and terms, meaning that object which is located, or that object which is the arena for the state of mind which is examining nominal things. These are all nominal words that suggest nominalness, right?

So, if you want to call it that way, if you want to say that deceptive refers to nominal stuff, okay, or to the state of mind which is exploring nominal things, okay, or, and, la, if you want to describe it as, describing, if you want to describe ultimate as referring to those objects which exist by definition, right? She-na means, oh, oh, is that the way you lower schools want to take the meaning of ultimate and deceptive? Hey, wo-na means, hey then.

De-ta-na, if that's the way it is, then let's talk about those two things, meaning karma and their ripenings. Those two things, min-du-ya-ng-ye, they exist nominally, and, eh, right? Eh, they exist nominally, and, rang-ke-chen-ni-gya-ya-pe, and they also exist according to us, by definition, meaning ultimately.

So, ni-ji-do-du-pa, whichever one you want to say it is, to-la-ra-ko, yo-du-to-la-ra-ko means, this is a very weird expression in Tibetan which comes out something like, hey, you can have it any way you want, okay? You know, any way you want to dream it up is fine with me, okay? It just depends, you can have it any way, it depends on whatever you want to say, or any way you want to think of it, that's fine with us, okay?

That's the actual wording that backs up what Geshe-la just described. Page fifty-nine, seventh line from the bottom, we come out of the quotation from the reasoned exposition of Master Vasubandhu, right? With the words, she-sung-te, seventh line from the bottom, page fifty-nine, we are leaving the quotation.

And now what's going to happen, Je Tsongkhapa is going to gloss it for you, okay? So he says, okay, du-n-da-pa, yo-du-ni, the way in which they are describing existing ultimately is, nama, is the first one of the two, the former way that we, the former connotation of the phrase. And kun-tsok-du-yu-tsu-ni, the way in which they are describing things existing deceptively, chim-pa-ta, of course, there's a second explanation, okay?

And den-yi-ga-yu-tsu-bi-du-no, meaning, Je Tsongkhapa says, and what the point is, you can have it both ways, okay? Fine with us, you know, us mind-only guys, we don't mind if you lower it to schools, have it both ways, you know, you can have your cake and eat it too, okay? And now the Zen Tsangpas nail it down, okay?

They say, the mind-only school nails it down, they say, if you take existing ultimately in the way we describe it, okay? And if you take existing deceptively in the way that we describe it, then you don't have these problems that you guys have when you hit the secondary of the wheel, okay? You mind-only, you middle-aged guys have problems, you hit problems when you hit the secondary of the wheel.

How? When you're in the secondary of the wheel, you can no longer describe any object as being simultaneously something that exists ultimately and something that exists deceptively, right? If you're going to take the secondary of the wheel literally, in the secondary of the wheel Lord Buddha said, nothing exists ultimately.

Hey, but we don't take the secondary of the wheel literally, so no problem, you know? When he said, nothing exists ultimately, what he meant was, they exist ultimately and they exist deceptively at the same time, okay? So we don't have that problem that you have.

You have your problem in a way, people, because you want to take the secondary of the wheel to be ultimate, in which case, the phrases existing ultimately and existing deceptively would have to be contradictory. But if you take it our way and you don't take the secondary of the wheel as being literal, you can have your cake and eat it too, you can have it both ways. Why did the Mainui school bring up this whole section?

Okay? Why did they even present this argument, which is actually an argument by the lower two schools directed to the Middle Way school, okay? They're actually directing the same complaint to the Middle Way school, right?

By implication, right? The guys who butted in between these two boxers, you know, and said, oh, oh, oh, what do you mean when you're accusing them of that, you know? I can answer that, you know?

I can take the hit, you know? They can't but I can, you know? What are they saying by implication?

The Middle Way schools can take the hit. And in a sense, they're saying, they're actually, if you think about it, they're not fighting with the lower two schools. They're helping the lower two schools complain and beat up the Middle Way guys.

Oh, don't worry, I know you can't take this hit. I know you can't explain it in your school. I can explain it for you, you know?

In essence, when you say that, you're saying, you're helping these guys beat up these guys, okay? So actually what's going on is, why did this whole argument get introduced here at this point by the Mainui school? Because by implication, they are helping the lower two schools take a shot at the higher school, at the Middle Way school.

Now that presentation by the Mainui school of two different interpretations of what it is to exist ultimately, and two different interpretations of what it is to exist deceptively, becomes some kind of justification for them. You see what I mean? They say, now they can use that as a justification.

Having presented that whole nice little system with two versions of this and two versions of that, they can carry that into this argument as some kind of authority, you know? Now they're going to use their own little presentation as a thought. They can back themselves up.

They say, hey, remember back when we said there was two ways to interpret these two things? Well, that's exactly why we can handle this case, you know, because we do have those two interpretations. So they're going to use this as an excuse to almost refer back to their original argument, their original presentation, as some kind of now authority, or some kind of precedent.

[Говорящий 2]
Mm-hmm.

[Говорящий 1]
Now the Mainui school can make a further statement. They can say, let's take people, person, the person, okay? First of all, we can say about a person that it is something which exists deceptively.

In which interpretation of existing deceptively? Second, okay? Because it's an example of deceptive reality.

Okay? So a person. They can say of a person that a person exists deceptively, okay?

And then they can go on and say, by the way, neither does a person exist substantially. Meaning, people exist only through labels. What are they saying?

Yeah. In and of itself, that thing called a person is something that exists through labels. Does not exist deceptively, okay?

So at one moment, they can say two different things about the person. They can say, this is something that exists deceptively. And on the other hand, this is something that does not exist substantially, but rather exists through labels alone.

Meaning, you remember what Dag-yuan means, okay? We already, boy, we went through that so many times, right? Difference between existing substantially and existing through labels.

We don't have a problem with that, right? Nothing. Nothing.

[Говорящий 2]
Nothing.

[Говорящий 1]
Nothing. Nothing. Good line from the bottom of page 59.

But karma and its ripening, okay, remember now we had three things that they were having a fight over? It was the person, the agent, right? And then it was the karma, and then it was the ripening.

So the minority school can come along and say, what do we think about the agent or person? Well, it exists deceptively and it is not something that exists substantially. But what can we say about karma and its ripening?

We can say about that that it's also something that exists deceptively in which interpretation of the word? Second, okay? Why?

Because it is an example of deceptive reality. They are both examples of deceptive reality. But about them, we have to say they do exist substantially.

They do exist substantially, okay? And don't exist merely as something labeled. Nothing.

[Говорящий 2]
Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

[Говорящий 1]
Nothing. Nothing. We can give you, as minority people, can give you further support for our saying that all three exist deceptively, right?

All three what? Karma. Karma, its ripening, and the agent who commits the karma, right?

We can say in our school furthermore that they exist deceptively in which interpretation of deceptively? In the second, because they don't exist ultimately as it's described in the second interpretation. Prove it.

And they do prove it, okay? Page 59, next to the last line, it says, ji tenpe shepe yu yinpe, due to the fact that it is the object of the worldly state of mind. And what did worldly state of mind?

That was a code word for the state of mind that lives in nominal stuff, okay? The state of mind that works in nominal stuff or analyzes or examines things according to nominal stuff. That state of mind, anything which is its object, right, can no longer be something which exists ultimately as existing ultimately as described in the second interpretation, okay?

Anything which is the object of a deceptive state of mind, basically, or anything which is the object of a deceived state of mind, basically, can no longer exist ultimately as that is described in the second version, right? Therefore, it must be something that exists deceptively as described in the second version. They say...

Now step forward to page 60, first line. The first line says, those two, right, meaning what? Karma and its ripenings, okay?

Those two, meaning karma and its ripenings, could never serve as the object of that knowledge which is beyond the world, which transcends the world, right? Now that's a code word for the direct perception of emptiness, okay? They could never be the object of the direct perception of emptiness.

Why? Because its object, meaning the object of the direct perception of emptiness, is juna-mepa, it is beyond all description, okay? And this is very famous.

Sometimes they say, emptiness which is beyond all speaking, beyond all thinking, beyond all description, okay? Sometimes they say it that way, beyond all verbal description, beyond all mental thinking, for whom? For people who haven't seen it directly yet, okay?

For non-arya, okay? Yes, that's the keyword. For them, it is totally beyond description.

They can't...they can't give you an accurate description of it. Normal people who haven't seen it directly cannot give you an accurate description of what emptiness really is. And it is also ci-cen yin.

Ci-cen yin here means the characteristic which is...the overall characteristic, okay? What does that mean? Emptiness, okay?

It is an overall characteristic that covers all things. It is a characteristic of all things. So here, overall characteristic means emptiness itself.

It is a characteristic which exists over all things, okay? So, why can't those two, karma and its ripenings, be described as the object of the direct perception of emptiness? Well, for two reasons.

It's not that thing which is indescribable, okay? They are not that thing which is indescribable, meaning emptiness. And they are not that one characteristic which covers all things, meaning emptiness itself, okay?

And for those two reasons, it cannot be described as existing ultimately, in the latter sense of the term, okay?

[Говорящий 2]
Yes, master. Then it says, end of quotation.

[Говорящий 1]
Now, what has it been quoting, okay? That's the reason, in the exposition of Master Vasubandhu, who was speaking, okay? That last piece, that last piece there.

Now we go on to the next piece. Thekchenpa-khajik means some people of the Mahayana, right? Some people of the higher way, right?

Meaning who? Talking about the Madhyamikas, complaining about the middle-way people. They say nothing exists by definition.

They say everything exists deceptively, okay? Some people say that, okay? Some people claim that.

And who is it that this previous debate is aimed at? This whole hassle, lengha means like this whole dispute or this whole hassle. Who has that been directed at?

By whom to whom? By the lower two schools, to the middle-way people, right? This whole thing has been directed to them, and it is stated clearly that that's to whom this hassle is being presented, and that they can't answer, okay?

Because they say, oh, nothing exists by definition, everything exists deceptively, that's why it's clearly stated in Master Vasubandhu's text, these are the people to whom the hassle is being presented, and the implication is, these are the people who supposedly can't answer those objections, okay? Nothing exists. So is it really, is it actually, in actuality, is it the case that the middle-way guys can't respond to this?

Of course not, okay? The consequence group, right, the prasangikas, the consequence group of the middle-way school can explain it quite easily. Did the, did Lord Buddha say in the second turn of the wheel that karma and its ripenings do exist, and yet the person, the agent who commits the karma doesn't exist?

Yeah, he did say that. He did say that in the middle turn of the wheel. Well, what did he mean?

He meant simply that karma and its ripenings do exist nominally, or deceptively, in a deceptive way, in a nominal way. And he meant that the person committing the karma doesn't exist in a, in an ultimate way. That's all he meant.

We can explain that easy enough, okay? No big deal, okay? And that's how the middle-way prasangika, or consequence group, would answer that.

[Говорящий 2]
Now, how would the independent group in the middle-way school answer this accusation, right?

[Говорящий 1]
Hey, the Buddha during the middle turn of the wheel said that karma and its ripenings do exist, and the agent doesn't exist, right? I think one of my, no? Okay, sorry.

What, this is how they would answer it. The first half, they would answer exactly the same as the prasangika, meaning what? They would say, yeah, yeah, yeah, what the Buddha meant was that karma and its ripenings do exist in a nominal way, do exist in a deceptive way, okay?

But when they get to the second one, they would answer differently than the consequence group. They would say, what the Buddha meant when he said that the agent doesn't exist, right, is he was talking about that creator god of the non-Buddhists, okay? He was talking about that guy that supposedly made the world, right?

What are the qualities of this guy that supposedly made the world, right? Well, first of all, he's this big guy that made everything in the universe, okay? Secondly, he has a quality of being takpa, he is unchanging, eternal and unchanging, okay?

This guy is eternal and unchanging, okay? So, some eternal unchanging guy, god, right, that created the world, creator god, an agent in that sense, see? That doesn't exist, okay?

That kind of agent doesn't exist. Karma and its ripenings do exist in a nominal sense. But some guy who made the world, who's permanent, unchanging and eternal, doesn't exist.

That's what it means, that's what the Buddha meant, that's how the independent group of the Mainami school would respond.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Now we're on page 60, line 5 at the end. Again, we're getting a quotation from distinguishing between the middle and the extremes, dividing the middle from the extremes, right? And this says there are three kinds of deceptive.

When you say deceptive in the Mainami school, even within the Mainami school, it has three different connotations, okay? The word deceptive can have three different connotations. What are they?

The first one is called labeled stuff, labels, okay? The second one is called mental, mental stuff. The third one is called expression, okay?

So you've got labels, you've got mental things, and then you've got expression. What do these refer to? These are three different ways in which deceptive is described by the Mainami school, and they correspond to the three attributes or the three groups of the Mainami school.

The first one, labels, corresponds to the group of constructs. The second one, mind, corresponds to dependent things, okay? And the third one, expressions, corresponds to totality or emptiness in the Mainami school.

Now how that's true, we're going to get to, okay? In what sense can the first attribute or the first group be characterized as, you know, labeled deceptive, okay? Labeled deceptive, right?

In what sense can they? Because what does construct mean in the Mainami school? Something which is merely made up by the mind.

Something which is merely constructed by the mind. In that sense, it's a falsity. It's a deceptive thing, okay?

So we can talk about the deception of labels or something like that. The deception of labels means that category called constructs is deceptive in the sense that it is merely a construct of the mind. They are merely constructs of the mind.

So that's the way in which the first group can be called deceptive.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Secondly is what's called here, literally, the deception of mind, right? The deception of something mental. And that's supposed to be referring to?

Shenwangs, dependent things. Now how is that, okay? Do you remember way back when, when we started having fights between the Mind-Only school and the Middle Way school?

They started to punch it out. They started to argue. What were they arguing about?

They were arguing about things that existed ultimately or didn't exist ultimately. Things that did exist by definition or didn't exist by definition. And the whole fight started out like that.

They were arguing about that whole thing. And then they started getting into, what do you mean by ultimate reality? What do you mean by deceptive reality?

And they got into deceptive reality. And they were trying to describe, well, what does the deceptive mean in deceptive reality? And they were getting off into, oh, deceptive to the state of mind that holds things to be true, right?

To ignorance itself. The tendency to hold things as self-existent. It boiled down to that.

That state of mind was deceived, and that's why we talk about deceptive reality, and this is the difference between deceptive reality and ultimate reality. So all of that argument boiled down to that deceived state of mind, right? I mean, basically, it all came down to deceived state of mind.

So the deceived state of mind is going to act as the representative of all Shenwangs, of all dependent things. And Geshe-la says, they often talk about what is the best and biggest dependent thing, you know? What is number one dependent thing?

What is the most important dependent thing to be talking about? It is the state of mind which is mistaken. It is the tendency to hold things as self-existent that is the main one that we have to worry about.

That is the crux, or the linchpin, of all dependent things. So it's not strange that in identifying the second kind of deceptive, they're talking about the deception of the state of mind. What state of mind are they referring to?

The deceived state of mind, the tendency to address things as self-existent. So here again we have a deception, right? So far we've had a deception in the form of constructs, which are deceptive in the sense that they are just projections or just creations of your mind.

And now we have dependent things or Shenwangs being described as deceptive. Why? Because the main Shenwang that we're concerned with is the tendency to hold things as self-existent and that is the deceived state of mind.

So we've got deception with the constructs and now we've got deception with the cause things, the dependent things.

[Говорящий 2]
So we've got the deceptive state of mind, and we've got the deceived state of mind, and we've got the deceived state of mind.

[Говорящий 1]
Now we're talking about the third attribute or the third group of the mind only school. What is that?

[Говорящий 2]
Expressions.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, you can call it expressions here, but expressions here refers to emptiness itself, to young group, to totality. That's the group that's left over here. Now what the heck do they mean when they describe totality as being deceptive by referring to it as expressions?

Generally speaking, one of the five features of totality, One of the five features of emptiness, right, was that it was beyond expression. It's said to be that thing which you couldn't express, meaning that you can't really express it in words and you can't even express it mentally. You can't say in words, you can't sit down someone who hasn't seen emptiness directly and give them a precise or exact picture of what emptiness is simply in words.

You can't do that. And neither can you describe to them so that they finally get a direct, correct, totally accurate picture of what emptiness is simply by describing it to them. You can't do that.

In that sense, we can say that emptiness has one of those five characteristics, features that we said that emptiness has which was beyond description. But still we go around saying, hey listen, there's this thing called emptiness. There's this thing called totality.

There's this thing called ultimate reality. There's this thing called ultimate truth. There's this thing called blah, blah, blah, blah.

You give it all these names. In that sense, it is japa. It is something which is expressed.

So in that sense, because it is given such a wide variety of names, not because you can describe it accurately, but because it's spoken of in so many ways with so many expressions, you can call yongdrum, totality, emptiness, what? That thing which is expressed. That thing which is expressed.

And that's what the third deception refers to. The deception of expressions meaning things which are expressed in many terms meaning emptiness.

[Говорящий 2]
This is called mingda. When you chant mingda, you can feel it. You don't have to think about it.

you don't have to think about it. When you chant mingda, you don't have to think about it. When you chant mingda, you don't have to think about it.

When you chant mingda, you don't have to think about it. When you chant mingda, you don't have to think about it.

[Говорящий 1]
I was kind of pushing Geshe Law to see, you know I understand why the word expression has been used to describe emptiness here, but why the word deception? You see what I mean? Okay, it's okay, but then we start out saying there's three kinds of deception, and the third one is called expressions, and in what way deceptive, because you didn't cover that.

And then he says, oh, oh, oh, yeah. Think about the first kind of deception, what was that? Yeah, it applies to constructs, deceptive why?

Because they are simply labeled with words. They are simply constructs of our thoughts and our words, okay? And in that sense, those are deceptive, okay?

They are somehow hollow, they're not quite real, why? Because they are simply constructs of thoughts and words. And if you think about it, in this description of Yongrup, in this description of emptiness, it's very similar.

Why? We can't really describe it accurately, we can't really think of it accurately, but we still give it all these names, don't we? Oh, we still talk about emptiness, we still talk about ultimate reality, we still talk about totality in the mind-only school system, right?

But we're just playing with words, we're just giving words to something that we don't clearly comprehend or understand. So it's a parallel case here. In a sense, we are just making up a construct or an idea of what we think it is for something to exist empty, for what it means to be emptiness, right?

We don't really have a clear, direct personal experience of it. So in that case, you can call it deceptive. In this sense also, expressions are deceptive, meaning they are forced, or they are artificial, or they are trying to describe something that we really don't understand or comprehend.

Yes?

[Говорящий 2]
Is there any deception as far as it's a deception to perceive states of mind?

[Говорящий 1]
In this case, emptiness is being described as involved with deception, in that, as with constructs, it's only something that we can think about with flimsy mental pictures that don't describe accurately what it is, okay? That's all. It's deceptive in that sense.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. And I said, well, not really, we were talking about how it was deceptive because generally speaking, it was a figment, or it was some kind of construct in a similar way to the way we do other constructs with our thoughts and words, although, it is just roughly like those other constructs. It's not really, you know, precisely like constructs but, roughly speaking, it bears some similarity to the method or the process by which we make constructs.

So therefore we can call it deceptive. He says, ah, I like that word, roughly, because I was using the Tibet word for roughly. He says, hey, you know what?

The text itself says roughly right here, you know, and then he points out that in the text itself it uses the word rakpa, meaning, hey, these are not like precise definitions, we're just talking roughly, these things can be described as deceptive. He says, the text itself, you know, Maitreya himself uses that word, you know, roughly.

[Говорящий 2]
He says, hey, you know, Maitreya himself uses the word rakpa, meaning, hey, these are not like precise definitions, we're just talking roughly, these things can be described as deceptive. like precise definitions, we're just talking roughly, these things can be described as deceptive. He says, hey, you know, Maitreya himself uses the word rakpa, meaning, hey, these are not He says, hey, you know, Maitreya himself uses the word rakpa, meaning, hey, these are not like precise definitions, we're just talking roughly, these things can be described as He says, hey, you know, Maitreya himself uses the word rakpa, meaning, hey, these are not like precise definitions, we're just talking roughly, these things can be described as

[Говорящий 1]
And then Jetsun Kapi himself takes off from the word roughly, 7th line on page 60, okay? And then Jetsun Kapi himself takes off from the word roughly, 7th line on page 60, okay? He's saying that, you know, roughly speaking, you could talk about all three of the attributes or the groups of the mind-only school as being in some sense deceptive, okay?

Very roughly, if we're talking very roughly, you can describe them in these three different ways. And it's not so hard to imagine with the deceptiveness of constructs, and it's not so hard to imagine with the deceptiveness of mind, meaning the deceived state of mind. But when you get to the third one, that's a little hard, right?

And he says here, in the sutra, meaning during the second turning of the wheel, in the sutra the Buddha himself does describe, what's he say about all existing things? They exist deceptively. Is Yama in the group of all existing things?

So is it accurate for the Buddha to say that emptiness itself is a deceptive reality? Huh? No, it's ultimate reality, right?

It's dim-dum-dum, it's not kundal-dhamma, right? Yeah, right, it's just terminology. So then Geshe-la comes along and says, by the way, when the Buddha, in the second turning of the wheel, says that everything in the universe exists deceptively, he's talking about emptiness existing deceptively in the way that it's described here, when we say expressions exist deceptively, meaning deceptive only in the sense that we cannot describe it except with some flimsy fabrications of our mind. We can't describe it or think about it except through some kind of fake or flimsy constructs of our mind that don't really do it justice.

So in that sense, in the sense that Maitreya describes emptiness as being deceptive, in that same sense does Lord Buddha in the second turning of the wheel, can Lord Buddha get away with saying, oh, everything in the universe exists deceptively? Because technically speaking, you can't say that about ultimate reality, about emptiness itself. Technically speaking, even in the second turning of the wheel, you have to say about ultimate reality that it is the one thing that exists ultimately.

So that's Geshe-la Kappa's wrap that up. Tomorrow, we've got a little bit more to go on this same subject. We're about to hit a major division, but tomorrow morning we're going to get dessert on this.

We're going to wrap up this issue with a little bit more stuff and we'll stick it up and join it to this section. Then we'll go on to another major section. We're going to wrap up this issue with a little bit more stuff and we're going to stick it up and join it to this section.