Классика Алмазного огранщика: Нижний Срединный путь — Анализ зависимости, занятие 16

[Speaker 1]
Sastipukhi Dukshinme Thokdrum Virabhimchi Nindekenpadi Sangye Shindunmitte Uwargi Dokunam Dakshim Latrubharsho Iyam Guru Radhamandala Kambir Yatharayami Sangye Chidam Sukhi Choknamla Dangchu Bhardhu Dakti Khyastuchi Dakhi Chunyam Gipe Sunamki Dola Venchir Sangye Drupharsho Sangye Chidam Sukhi Choknamla Dangchu Bhardhu Dakti Khyastuchi Dakhi Chunyam Gipe Sunamki Dola Venchir Sangye Drupharsho Sangye Chidam Sukhi Choknamla Dangchu Bhardhu Dakti Khyastuchi Dakhi Chunyam Gipe Sunamki Dola Venchir Sangye Drupharsho Just to review the controversial statement that Sugeng made last time.

There must exist destruction view which is focused towards an Arya who is a Buddha. Normally that's impossible, right? Somebody tell me why.

Because if it's a Buddha looking at himself, because this jikta only refers to me and mine. Yeah, so you work backwards from jikta. If it's destruction view, it must be focused on me and mine.

So therefore there can't be a destruction view aimed at a Buddha. Because if it were, the Buddha would have to have it. Okay?

Got it? Then he said, but there is a case where a Buddha can appear as... And then the trick is you have to say, A me.

The Buddha can appear as A me. You have to say A, and then you're free. The Buddha can appear as A me, and someone can focus on that Buddha and think that they are substantial.

And then we have her text comes in, in the sense of being self-standing. And then all the self-standing stuff we talked about in her text applies here, like the two consciousnesses. So the trick to this one is, if you can't guess that, you're in trouble.

Can a non-Buddha focus on a Buddha and say, me? Apparently they can't say that's not me.

[Speaker 2]
No, cannot.

[Speaker 1]
But can a non-Buddha focus on a Buddha and say that's A me? Oh, yes. You see?

To him. Non-Buddha. You see what I mean?

That's all. That's the game. It's an easy story after that.

If you don't know that, you'll lose hair thinking about this one. There is a person who can look at a Buddha and looks at it like a person. And so this is no problem.

So please read this. Is there?

[Speaker 2]
Apparently.

[Speaker 1]
Does there exist holding to a self as being self-existent when you look at a Buddha? According to the reason. Yeah, when another person looks at a Buddha.

They can think that the Buddha is coming from the Buddha. And in fact, that's a very common form of Kansaki Danzen. It's difficult to accept the fact, the idea, that the Lord Buddha is coming from me.

Because I'm not a Buddha. So how can a Buddha come from a non-Buddha? It's uncomfortable.

It's probably one of the most common forms of holding to the self-existence of a person.

[Speaker 2]
And then that clarifies our question of whether people outside of us belong to Kansakas or Chos.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it could be. Okay, here we go. Please read.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Now this is, Okmin is, there's this Sanskrit word, it's hard. Anishta.

It's a name of a heaven. It means below none. It means nothing higher.

I like to translate the heaven as below none. Akanishta. Akanishta.

Okay. There's the Sanskrit, okay. Akanishta.

Akanishta. Here. Akanishta.

[Speaker 2]
Akanishta.

[Speaker 1]
This percent sign means retroflex. Retroflex. Akanishta.

Okay. And it means, I like to translate as below none. Meaning it's not below anything else.

I don't mind at all. I don't think it helps when I do it. I think it's up all the way.

It helps a little. It helps when I do it? Oh.

You know, but for whatever reason, it was bad.

[Speaker 2]
By turning it down, I turned it up.

[Speaker 1]
I'm kind of excited about that.

[Speaker 2]
That makes sense. That makes sense, too.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Ten can have many meanings, right? It can mean a person.

Body and mind. Okay. Home, body, and mind of a person.

So, is it, gyur-pa merpa yor-pa thao, it must be the case that there is the first link, right, of the twelve links, with a person, or with the body and mind of a person who's staying at Akanishta, at this heaven, okay, in this paradise. And, why? Because that exists in the bodies and minds of all three realms.

Okay? Because this kind of ignorance, this kind of misunderstanding, exists with the body and mind of all three realms. Okay?

And we say, ma kya. Okay? Okay.

Just because the first link is present with the body and mind of all three realms, doesn't mean that it would be present with the body and mind of a person at below none. Now, that's the question of whether below none belongs to the three realms or not.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
In some presentations, it does. Okay? They just live in a higher place.

Duryodhana, you can't agree that people, that a body and mind in the below none paradise would have the first link. Okay? You can't agree.

Because if a person is an okminpa, which means a person who lives who lives in that paradise, you know, an okminer.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Because if someone is an okminer, bhagpa yinpe khyap. Must be. They must be an Arya.

[Speaker 2]
Arya.

[Speaker 1]
And we have a split reason. Whenever you have kang shik, it's a split reason. Kang shik.

Okay? There's two reasons why we shouldn't go to a Japanese restaurant tonight. Number one, I don't like Japanese.

Number two, we don't have any money. You know? And between those, you have to say kang shik.

So here's kang shik. So first of all, anyone who's there is an Arya, and Arya's body and mind, with an Arya's body and mind, I would translate it like that. There is no such thing.

There is no case where they have misunderstanding which is functioning as the first link of dependent origination of the meal. Okay? Does that imply that there's a misunderstanding which is not, which doesn't function as the first link?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Like, they have some kind of misunderstanding. Shidu. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

They have obstacles to Buddhahood, but it doesn't function as the first link. And, you know, in his text, okay, let's go to Abhidharma, for example. I just want to make myself satisfied about this.

There's the Oakman. And we're going to go to... Oh, it did get darker.

I think it's mentioned in the... My computer won't show me the brightness thing.

[Speaker 2]
You could look in the menus and see if there's a setting. Not you.

[Speaker 1]
But how do I... I don't think it's a computer.

[Speaker 2]
I think it's possible that the TV has some setting that's telling it to be sensitive to the light in the room. Yeah, you can turn that off. Do you know how?

Yeah. I think if we just turn the backlight to 19, maybe it doesn't like... I don't agree.

I like stages. Let's see if he can do the thing, because I think it's going to readjust on its own. I don't think it's designed for the brightest to be the darkest.

Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Remote management. Might it be systems?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I had some affinity towards systems. You know what? What kind of TV is this?

Samsung. Big one. Samsung.

Big one. Smart. Setup, maybe?

Auto brightness. That's a thing. I'm not the first person to search for it.

Energy saving function. Eco solution. Energy saving.

Oh, it's off. It's not good that it would...

[Speaker 1]
Eco sensor on. Can you turn it off? Off?

[Speaker 2]
I like that. Oh, that was it, Poppy. Sagey wins the TV.

You can take that home now. Give him a giant check. Okay, anyway.

[Speaker 1]
Oakman is sometimes considered a place where... I believe it's considered a place in the form realm. Form realm.

You know, and then I think he's... What do you call that? Something-vocation.

Equivocation. I think in the Mahayana, Oakman is considered a Buddha paradise. And in the Hinayana, it's considered a part of the form realm.

So I think he's cheated. Here's the Abhidharma on Oakman. Oakman's down here.

Top-down means free of conflict. And Oakman is Kipar. So from...

Sunjutsasun means at the top of Mount Meru. There's supposed to be 33 gods. 33 like Iron Man, Wonder Woman.

And Deitengna. And then above that are supposed to be levels. And they start with a level called No Conflict.

And they go up to a level called Highest, which means below none. And these are considered... It might even be desire realm.

In form realm, I think. Anyway, in the Abhidharma, it's part of samsara. So I think he's playing with us.

Okay, here we go. What we did get repeated here was that Aryas don't have the first link. But they have other links going on for up to seven lifetimes.

Read, please. Parvatao. If something is a kind of misunderstanding which is in the dark about or confused about suchness in the form of the lack of a self-nature to a person...

I'll say it again. If something is a kind of misunderstanding which is confused about suchness in the form of the lack of a self-nature to people, then we can say it is a kind of misunderstanding which is confused about suchness. So you have to understand that in this system there are different degrees of emptiness.

And I believe suchness is a synonym for emptiness, which is the highest degree, which is a form of the lack of a self-nature to things. Okay, so... Now he's...

Okay. So we're drawing a distinction between suchness in the form of misunderstanding people and suchness in general. Okay.

Then he says, Tao, he believes it. Because... Please read.

Okay, so this hinges, this argument hinges on an idiom that you may not know. And that's for Adam. Okay, you look very handsome today, by the way.

As you... Drachet duypa. Okay, say drachet duypa.

[Speaker 2]
Drachet duypa.

[Speaker 1]
Drachet duypa means it exists in the way it sounds. It exists in the way it sounds. Oh, okay.

The word for the thing fits it. And sometimes the word for the thing doesn't fit it. Okay, so drachet...

Drachet means if you gave a literal explanation, it would fit it. But sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes in Buddhism, things are not...

They have a name, but the name is not technically correct. There are exceptions to the name. Okay?

I'm trying to think of an example. We've had a bunch of them in the last few days. Just something that's...

Name something that's not exactly accurate. Okay, like Rangshin Yonge.

[Speaker 2]
Deceptive truth.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you could say that. Rangshin Yonge is not... Natural nirvana.

It's not nirvana. Yeah, you could say that. That's nice.

That's a nice one. Yeah, natural nirvana. It's not a formal nirvana.

It's just called that. Ultimate bodhicitta. Yeah, dinnam.

Chang sem. Okay, dinnam sem kye. All right.

So he says, dekara nila momay marikpa yin na Misunderstanding which is confused about suchness doesn't have to mean what it says. Misunderstanding which is confused about suchness doesn't have to mean what it sounds like. Okay?

Then he says, because there's this other case where it isn't the way it sounds. This case isn't the way it sounds because there's this other case that isn't the way it sounds. But that's a makya.

Okay, just because natural nirvana isn't the way it sounds doesn't mean this one isn't the way it sounds. Okay, got it? But his reason is because there's this other thing that isn't the way it sounds.

So then this one shouldn't be the way it sounds. Well, his is closer. His is almost related.

Now we're going to get to the one that isn't the way it sounds which really isn't the way it sounds. And then he's going to say, therefore, the other one isn't the way it sounds but it's not makya. It's a makya.

Not necessarily. Just because this one isn't the way it sounds doesn't mean the one we're talking about isn't the way it sounds.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So now he's going to give us reason. He's going to say, because this other one isn't the way it sounds and that means we do believe that one isn't the way it sounds. So here's one that isn't the way it sounds.

Danbar? Danbar ngintoki drase duyut pe makya pe chuse na makya pe. Yeah, we're piling up makya.

We're flipping pancakes. Okay. Danbar ngintoki yena.

Something can be the realization of truth. The realization of truth. Which is a drase of tonga.

So the path of seeing is sometimes called the realization of truth.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
It's a drase. It's a popular nickname of tonga. If something is the realization of truth, okay, then it must exist the way it sounds.

Makya. So it's not true that if something is the realization of truth, meaning tonga, meaning the path of seeing, it has to fit the sound of the word realization of truth. It's not true.

You're just saying there are expressions that aren't exact. Well, apparently there's danbar ngintoks, there's tongams, which are not danbar ngintok. Oh, tongams.

There's parts of tongam, which are not danbar ngintok. For example, chetopya, the aftermath. You know, after you come out and you start having all these other ideas.

Okay? So he says, look, there's parts of the path of seeing that don't fit the name of the path, which is the realization of truth. Therefore, therefore, confusion about suchness doesn't always have to mean confusion about suchness.

Okay? Okay? Got it?

You okay? And his position is, confusion about suchness could refer to confusion about the self-nature of a person, which is not drasya duyupa. It's not true.

It's not a kind of suchness in this school. The emptiness of the person, in fact, they wouldn't even call it emptiness. The lack of self to a person in this school cannot be called suchness, which is a synonym for emptiness.

In this school, emptiness can only be used for the lack of self-nature to think. Okay? All right?

Okay. So, he's trying to say, when we say confused about suchness, it could kind of cover lack of understanding about person. Okay?

Because it's not always true that the name fits the thing. Right. Because this other case where the name doesn't quite fit the thing.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, you okay?

[Speaker 1]
You have to cook it. Okay. Okay.

ma drun na I'll say, by the way, ma kya be chen ma kya Okay? Just because it's not necessarily the case that the perception of truth refers to all the parts of the path of seeing, it's not the case that the perception of suchness, the misunderstanding of suchness should not apply to all the forms of life. And we say, that's not, that's not.

Just because this, this one doesn't apply literally all the time, doesn't mean this one doesn't have to apply all the time. There's two separate cases. Okay?

ma drun na If you don't agree, by the way, if you don't agree that there's cases of the perception of truth that are not, I'm sorry, there's cases of the path of seeing which are not the perception of truth, which are not the realization of truth. Okay? So now we're going to have to give an example of something in the path of seeing which is not the perception of truth.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-oh. Uh-oh. Uh-oh.

Uh-oh. Uh-oh. Uh-oh.

Uh-oh.

[Speaker 1]
Uh-oh. Uh-oh. Uh-oh.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-oh.

[Speaker 1]
Uh-oh.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-oh. Uh-oh.

[Speaker 1]
Uh-oh. Uh-oh. Uh-oh.

He said, take the direct perception. But it's by a listener. And in the lower middle way school, a listener, even an Arya, cannot see emptiness.

What? They just see a lack of a self.

[Speaker 2]
Really?

[Speaker 1]
This is a big debate from transitional lapses. Yeah, so they say there are degrees to to no self nature. The highest one is called emptiness or suchness.

and only Mahayana people can see it. Then there's lower degrees of anatman, lack of a self, and those can be perceived by listeners and self-made Buddhists. So they say there are degrees to emptiness, but they don't even call...

only the highest one gets called emptiness in this school, or selfness, or truth. Got it? So we can take as our counterexample, a listener, even though he's seeing...

he's on the direct perception part of the path of seeing, in this school he doesn't see full emptiness. He doesn't see full emptiness. nyen du kyi tong nang par chen ming ngam chö chen Okay?

It's not the realization of truth. Okay, dare tell?

[Speaker 2]
So it's true that he's in a thing that is...

[Speaker 1]
It is called, it can be called the realization of truth, but it's not really. Right, but it's not a realization of self. Okay, so that's an example of genbu lun tong, the realization of truth, which is not the perception of suchness, that the name doesn't fit exactly.

So here he's implying that on the path of listener, the tong lam is only the realization of no self, as in... Well, sometimes a nickname of path of seeing is the realization of truth, but in this school it doesn't fit all the path of seeing, because lower path of seeing is not a realization of truth, because they don't see emptiness in this school. Because truth and emptiness in this school are the same, and suchness.

Okay, so in this school there's people who reach path of seeing, so we can say they reach the realization of truth, who don't see the truth. Okay, so the nickname doesn't fit them. The nickname of tong lam doesn't fit them.

What are the two nicknames of the two lower paths? I mean, while we're on it.

[Speaker 2]
Parts of the path of seeing? Tarpa.

[Speaker 1]
Ninje chatun. And tarpa chatun. Conducive to certain separation.

And conducive to freedom. Are the equivalent for sok lam and jor lam. They have their own nicknames.

I believe, if I'm not mistaken, jor lam is ninje chatun. Conducive to certain separation. Meaning, conducive to path of seeing where you will be separated from your tong bangs.

Those three negative emotions. So it's conducive. It leads to that.

That's the nickname for jor lam. The nickname for sok lam, the first of the five paths, where you have a personal tragedy, is tarpa chatun. It's going to help you get to liberation.

But, you know, so there's jor lam and so there's tong lam and so there's... So they're just descriptive names. We say descriptive and not definitive.

So in Buddhist philosophy, you have descriptive names and then you have definitive names. Realization of truth is a descriptive name but not a definitive name, because there are exceptions. Listener, aryas, don't see truth.

They see the lack of self-nature to a person. Okay. Well, we're just saying, yeah, there are cases, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Sorry?

[Speaker 1]
There are and I don't remember.

[Speaker 2]
A name which is definitive?

[Speaker 1]
No, but there are paths.

[Speaker 2]
Well, maybe tong lam seems to be pretty descriptive.

[Speaker 1]
If you say it's tong lam, it's some kind of dharmepa, it's definitive. Some kind of lack of self. If you don't say emptiness, it's definitive.

[Speaker 2]
How's that?

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. Now, here, he interprets ngun abhi, abhisamaya, okay?

Ngumba topa is abhisamaya. And here he's twisted the word abhi to ngunsur, which means direct perception. So, ngun is the Tibetan word for abhi, like abhidharma.

And it can mean direct perception. It doesn't have to mean direct perception. But he has said, well, when you say denpa nguntok, when you say the realization of truth, you're always talking about ngun sum du topa, which means the direct perception of truth, okay?

So now, the name doesn't fit the listener. If you read the name that way, it doesn't fit the listener. Because they have had some realizations of truth, because someone taught them the pen, but they didn't get the emptiness part of it, they just got the lack of a self.

Abhisamaya means a person.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
But they cannot see the truth directly. So, ngun sum du topa here is referring to direct perception of emptiness? Yeah, direct perception here of denpa, which in their school is the highest of the three degrees of emptiness.

Sorry, lack of self. So, in this school, and in abhidharma too, you can't call emptiness emptiness. You have to call it, you can't say koshin.

You have to say lack of a self. I like to translate it when I'm not in a technical text, as it's not itself. The thing is not itself.

Okay? It's a new sexy translation. Okay?

De denpa ngun sum du topa thao. Are you saying that a listener has seen the truth directly? Because that guy wants to say, they do have denpa ngun thao.

They do have denpa. They do fit the name of path of seeing. Okay?

A listener. A listener ariya. He's like, yeah, well, they fit the name.

And we say, come on. Are you telling me they fit the name? Why?

Because you agreed. You can't agree. Chit-chin di yinpe yinche.

The guy that we're talking about is the guy we're talking about. It's not a very nice logical reason. I mean, it's legal.

But it's not satisfying. It's like a green drink. It's legal, but it's not satisfying.

[Speaker 2]
Chit-chin te. It's legal because he said te.

[Speaker 1]
Chit-chin di yinpe yinche. Well, no, it's okay.

[Speaker 2]
But you're not supposed to take a chit-chin as a stop.

[Speaker 1]
Chit-chin di yinpe yinche. Well, he changed the word. He didn't say nyen te gi papa chit-chin.

[Speaker 2]
You can't take the chit-chin, but you can say chit-chin. Oh, that's unconscionable. That's what I'm saying.

[Speaker 1]
It's like a green drink. Okay. You can't say he's had the direct perception of truth because he's the guy we're talking about.

Meaning a listener. He's a listener, Arya. And they don't see demba.

They don't see tong ni. They don't see dekhana ni. They don't see tattva.

Sunyata. They don't see. You can't say that.

They see anatman. And a lower anatman. I'm proud of that.

Of people. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
All right. I'm curious, because it's happening to us a lot, and it makes me wonder, like, why? I mean, to me it seems like that's a reason that isn't, like, helpful or elaborative, but really smart people are putting these in their books, so there's some reason they took up white space by bothering to write chit-chin.

[Speaker 1]
I think he's just... I think he would have preferred not to put a reason. Because he's like, once you get to listener, come on.

I mean, do I have to remind you that they don't see emptiness? Do I have to say it? Okay, I'll say it.

He's a listener. Okay? I feel like he's just tired.

Not tired, but he's just like, come on, you should know. By the time I give you the counterexample, and by the time listener comes out of my mouth, you should have given up. And if you keep pushing me, then okay, I'll be stupid too.

He's a listener because he's a listener. Okay? You know, it's like, he's like, don't bother me.

You want to give me a stupid objection? I'll give you stupid proof. Okay?

That's what I feel.

[Speaker 2]
But he is Kachik. I mean, he wrote the Kachik account.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's always something. Kachik is always something. There must be something.

Every one of these came from an argument on the debate ground.

[Speaker 2]
Trust me.

[Speaker 1]
Trust me. Somebody said it on the debate ground. In his 30 years on the debate ground, or in his 20 years on the debate ground, while he was doing his Geshe, somebody said this kind of thing.

I think, like what Ben said, there must be a specific purpose, that's why this Kachik will come into the text.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, her point is reinforced. Yeah, this was like Steve, who like five years ago was making this debate on the... Okay, let's go.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Kachik Nare, nyum mong yin na, nyum mong chen gi marikpa yin ge partao. Ge partao, okay.

Ge partao. Ge partao. Sedrip yin na, nyum mong chen ma yin pe marikpa yin ge pe chir na ma kyat.

So, chir na means chirsana.

[Speaker 2]
Chirsana.

[Speaker 1]
Just get used to that.

[Speaker 2]
Chirsana.

[Speaker 1]
It's just an abbreviation. Okay. Now, he says, it's true that if this, then this, because it's true that if this, then this.

I'll say it again. He says, it must be true that if this, this, because it's true that if this, this. So, he's got two if this, this.

Okay. If it's true about this, if this, this, then it's true about this, that if this, this. Okay.

So, let's go to the second one, because that's the one that is true. Okay. And the first one's not true.

But he says it's true, because this one's true. Oh, okay. Okay.

So, we're going to go to the second part of the argument, which is a correct statement, that if something is this, it's not, it must be this. If something is this, it must be this. Okay.

Sedrip yin na. If something is an obstacle to nirvana. Yeah, if something is an obstacle to omniscience.

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
If something is an obstacle to omniscience, then it must be good. It must be a kind of misunderstanding, which is not a mental, not a negative emotion.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. So, all obstacles.

The obstacles you get between Arya and Arhat, or Arya and Buddha, I should say between Arhat and Buddha. Arhat and Buddha. Or Arya and Buddha.

They are not mainly, they are not at all negative. They are negative emotions. How about between Arhat and Buddha?

Arhat and Buddha. Between Arhat and Buddha, the things you're fighting are not negative emotions. They are, you can't see all the past, you can't see all the future.

There are obstacles to higher knowledge, like super-knowledge. So, they are not negative emotions. Okay.

So, here. If something is an obstacle, who has siddhis? Mainly, they're talking about people from Arhat to Buddha.

Okay. What are they fighting? They're fighting against the inability to see all things.

Okay. They're not fighting against anger, jealousy, things like that. So, if something is an obstacle to omniscience, then it can, then it must be a form of misunderstanding, which isn't involved with, I like to say involved with, which isn't involved with negative emotions.

Okay. Now, that part is true. Now, he takes that and says, this other case is parallel.

This other case is parallel. And he says, if something is a negative emotion, it must be a misunderstanding, which is involved with negative emotions. If something is a negative emotion, it must be misunderstanding, which is involved with negative emotions.

Okay. Must be. Must be.

Okay. Got it? You okay?

Is it true? Are all negative emotions a form of misunderstanding, which is involved with negative emotions? Okay.

Okay. I see. So, no.

Now, here's his counter, here's our counter-example. Shedang chuhlicha. Let's take anger.

Well, let's take anger. Okay. Are you saying it's a form of misunderstanding, which is tied up with negative emotions?

Are you saying it's a form of misunderstanding? Okay. Why?

Why? Because it's parallel to that other case. Okay.

Dertang dey ching. Shedang yin beyi ching. Well, that's not very good.

Are you telling me it's a form of misunderstanding? Why do you say that? Chi ching.

Well, because it is a negative emotion. Okay. According to you, all negative emotions are a form of misunderstanding.

So, what about anger? And he says, well, what about anger? Okay, then that's a form of misunderstanding, right?

He says, why do you say that? I say, well, because it's a negative emotion. You just said if it's a negative emotion, it must be a form of misunderstanding.

Okay? Got it? Yeah.

So, here, basically, our thought is saying that this anger might not be part of the negative emotion, which is the... It is a negative emotion. Oh, yeah.

But it's not a negative emotion-ish misunderstanding.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
He says, I will stay.

[Speaker 2]
But it's not a negative thought because it's one of the other three poisons.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, something like that.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Well, no.

[Speaker 1]
He goes to that very controversial point. He goes to a very controversial place. This is not a stupid argument.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? This is addressing a question that we're not sure about. Because he says, the next thing he says is...

[Speaker 2]
What does it sound like? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, you agree it's a kind of misunderstanding? Uh-huh. Do you agree anger is a kind of misunderstanding?

Uh-huh. And we say, Okay, yeah. He says, Okay, it's a kind of misunderstanding.

[Speaker 2]
I agree. Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
And we say, Okay, so I must be neutral karmically.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh. That's a nice argument.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Why? Why did we say that?

Because in this school of thought... In this school of thought, it's lu ma ten.

[Speaker 2]
Ten.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. In this school, ignorance is karmically neutral. Yeah, I prefer to call it misunderstanding.

Misunderstanding.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, yes.

[Speaker 1]
From what we said yesterday, during Dakini's text.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, it's Dr. Who's text. Yeah. Non-friend.

Enemy. It's supposed to be... It's not, I'm not aware.

It's, I'm unaware. Right, right, right, right, right. It's not actively imposed.

Okay? So this is cute, because he's playing on a question that we have. Yeah.

And I was thinking about it while I was meditating in the toilet this morning. And... I have one idea.

I mean, it's not maybe the one that they would use, but... If... If misunderstanding, first link, is a...

is a... is a... is a bad karma.

Right? Nigewa. Nigewa.

Apunya. Then could you say it would be impossible to do dirty good karma? It is possible to do dirty good karma.

Well, it is. That's what I'm saying. Right.

But if, but if every time you had misunderstanding, it was a bad karma, then misunderstanding could never motivate a dirty good karma.

[Speaker 2]
Oh. But that means...

[Speaker 1]
Well, it's the dirty part.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it could be the dirty part. Yeah, it's the dirt in the good karma. Like...

[Speaker 1]
Well, actually it's illegal in some schools to call it good karma. It's a dirty good karma. You don't have to call it dirty.

You just call it good karma.

[Speaker 2]
That means neutral thinking causes...

[Speaker 1]
And then they would say sok mi. Yeah, right, because it's... Collecting the two corrections.

Because those aren't karma. It's pure good karma. Right.

[Speaker 2]
So there'd be no such thing as neutral karma. Because everything we do is...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. That's all I'm saying. I mean, it's possible that they say misunderstanding is neutral because it can flow into neutral virtue or non-virtue.

Good seed, bad seed. It can motivate good seeds. If it were non-virtue, it would always motivate non-virtue.

Yeah, that's why I'm arguing. It could only... I'm just saying this is a Roach argument.

It's not something I saw.

[Speaker 2]
That's not bad.

[Speaker 1]
Geshe-la, can I ask a question for a moment? Above the... Just a line just above this with all the tastes.

When you translate that, would you put what it's referring to in parentheses? Because otherwise it would be Our Sedona Translation Team standard is that we're going to write out the whole argument. We're not going to abbreviate things.

So this is going to be... If you agree that... If you agree that if something is a negative emotion it must be misunderstanding, then let's take anger.

Are you telling me it's a misunderstanding? Then we say, he says, why do you say that? And then we're going to say, well, because it's a kind of negative emotion.

And then he's going to say, why do you say that? And we're going to say, because it's anger. So we're going to put in all the answers.

And with no reference to the... Mainly because we want to make our books longer.

[Speaker 2]
And we can get more sponsors.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, this is self-evident.

[Speaker 2]
If you think of marikpa as neutral, then it allows you to use it to... Otherwise you have to say that a bad karma can get into the... Say again?

Like when we talk about using a...

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah, yeah, okay, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
It kind of helps if we think of marikpa as neutral.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay, that's okay. Then if you agree that anger is misunderstanding, okay, if you agree that anger is misunderstanding, nungma ten yinpa tha. Are you telling me it's karmically neutral?

Well, why? Because it's misunderstanding. Which means we believe...

What? If it's misunderstanding, it must be karmically neutral. Okay.

And that's really uncomfortable for people. You know? I also had this other feeling in the bathroom.

This was a short pee-pee, but I had a lot of ideas. It wasn't even a number two. I was thinking there's no...

There's no like rasa. There's no feeling that you are angry or... You're just misunderstanding when you think the person's coming this way.

But it's not like your mind is... What do you call it? Disturbed.

You know? You're just like, oh, yeah, coming from him. Then that triggers anger.

You know? Then you can get angry. Oh, he...

My husband did this. I didn't do anything. You know?

Then you can get angry in the next five minutes. But in the beginning, it's just kind of... It's neutral.

It doesn't feel like mental affliction is like klesham means something like this. Ignorance is kind of passive. You know?

It's like, oh, look, he's coming for himself. It doesn't get upset. The word klesha means...

Negative emotion. Yeah, you're having some kind of...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Ignorance is more like... Ignorance... Misunderstanding doesn't directly lead to picking up a knife and responding.

You see what I mean? There has to be something between. I think...

[Speaker 2]
Misunderstanding the yelling husband. What's that? Even misunderstanding the yelling husband, which is...

[Speaker 1]
Misunderstanding what?

[Speaker 2]
The yelling husband.

[Speaker 1]
Because you're not angry before you react. Yeah. At the time that you misunderstand him, you are not upset yet.

You are not upset yet. It's a millisecond before you get upset. Then that leads to upset.

Then that churns up your heart. I'm just saying my two ideas I had. If I'd had a number two, I probably had more than one.

Okay. Duryodhana. You cannot agree that anger is lumata.

Yeah. Which means what? Karmically...

Neutral.

[Speaker 2]
Neutral.

[Speaker 1]
You cannot say it's neutral because it's a bad karma. Migewa. Migewa.

It's a bad karma. Okay. Anger is a bad karma.

The misunderstanding which triggers it is a neutral karma. Then we have an illegal proof. Because it's anger.

Take anger. It's not karmically neutral because it's a bad karma. Why?

Because it's anger. Technically, that's an illegal proof. You're not supposed to repeat the subject in the proof, in the reason.

It's not... Take my wife. She's always wrong because she's my wife.

[Speaker 2]
She's my wife. She has more colloquialism.

[Speaker 1]
You can also say husband. That is legal.

[Speaker 2]
That's cute.

[Speaker 1]
You can change your voice. There's a school that says if you change your voice because she's my wife, then it's okay because it's not the same thing you've done. Okay.

Well, that's pretty cool because we learned something. In this school, misunderstanding has to be karmically neutral.

[Speaker 2]
But, Geshe-la, how about the last one of the top ten bad karma?

[Speaker 1]
Which is? Oh, wrong view.

[Speaker 2]
Wrong view.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's touchy. That's touchy. In this school, they'd have to say that part of the tenth is not bad karma.

In this school, they'd have to say that. Okay, here we go. Here we go.

Kachik Nare. Chuki Dangzin. Dangzin Impa-tao.

Impa-tao. Impa-tao. Dangzin La-che-na.

Ye-na. Ye-na. Dangzin La-ye-na.

Chuki Dangzin Dang. Kanzaki Dangzin. Nyi-ki Ye-wa.

Yeah, that's a nice intonation. Tepe-e-che. Tepe-e-che.

Okay, Kachik Nare. Holding to the self-nature of things must be a form of holding to self-nature. Holding to the self-nature of things must be a kind of holding to a self-nature.

Why do you say that? Because you can divide holding to a self-nature into two kinds. Holding to the self-nature of things and holding to the self-nature of people.

There's two kinds. Therefore, holding to the self-nature of things must be a form of holding to a self-nature. Because holding to a self-nature can be divided into two.

Holding to the self-nature of things and holding to the self-nature of people. So far it sounds not so bad. I don't see a big problem so far.

Well, we just started. There must be two divisions to holding to a self-nature because there's two divisions to the lack of a self-nature. If there's two kinds of lack of self-nature, there must be two kinds of holding to them.

That's his argument. Why? Why do you say that?

Because you can divide lack of a self-nature into the lack of a self-nature of things and the lack of a self-nature of people. We say makhyam. Just because there's two kinds of a lack of a self-nature doesn't mean there's two kinds of holding to a self-nature.

Just because there's two kinds of a lack of a self-nature doesn't mean there's two kinds of holding to that self-nature. Fair enough. Let's see where it goes.

Then I disagree. He says I disagree. If you disagree, then if something is the lack of a self-nature to things, it must be the lack of a self-nature.

Seems okay. Because if... By the way, in this school...

I'm going to stop here. But it looks like, in this school, you can't call... You can't call...

You can't call... One of these is illegal. Holding to the self-nature of a person and holding to the self-nature of things cannot be called holding to the self-nature.

Holding to a self-nature. It may... We'll go there later.

We'll go there later. It probably relates to the fact that they only think the third holding to a self-nature is emptiness. The third one is emptiness.

Only the self-nature of things is emptiness. And by the way... Can we go there?

We can. The subtle form of holding to a self-nature of things is emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
So you'd have to call that marika, not danzen, maybe? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
No, lower ones.

[Speaker 2]
Right, you'd have to call lower ones, oh, danzen.

[Speaker 1]
Marika, not danzen.

[Speaker 2]
It's tricky.

[Speaker 1]
Let's go there when we go there. Apparently, you can't call holding to a self-nature... You can't call one of them holding to a self-nature.

In and of itself. Okay, in this school... Say danmei...

Danmei... Tarak... Tarak...

Sun. Danmei Tarak Sun.

[Speaker 2]
Danmei Tarak Sun.

[Speaker 1]
In this school, three degrees of selflessness. Okay. And it's not accepted by the higher middle school.

[Speaker 2]
Satsi bhukhi jukshin me tokchang rinab lingshin yinde genpadhi sange shingdum nikte uvargi donkun namdak shingla jubharsho jidam guru rana mandala gamnir yadayami dewa yinge okun sunam yeshe tsavzak shing sunam yeshe lejungwe dampar kunyi tovarsho