Классика Алмазного огранщика: Нижний Срединный путь — Анализ зависимости, занятие 17

[Speaker 1]
Okay, we already did part of this one. chö kyi dang dzin dang dzin yinpa ta So, the tendency to think that things are themselves, must be a form of thinking that things are themselves, because you can divide believing in the self nature into the two, believing in the self nature of things and believing in the self nature of people, is correct. And then we say, then they say, that's correct because there's two kinds of lack of a self, the lack of a self to things and the lack of a self to people.

And we say ma kyap, which means, in this school, we don't really believe in the two. Oh, the self nature of people, the lack of a self. No, we don't believe that holding to the self nature of things is a form of holding to the self nature.

Okay? All right. So, we agree to this division, we agree there's two kinds of no self nature, things and people.

But we don't agree that because of that, there's two kinds of beliefs in the self nature. Are you all right? It's too early.

We agree there's two kinds of no self nature, people and things. But we don't agree that there's two kinds of tendency to hold to that self nature.

[Speaker 2]
That's weird.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's weird. Is it just that we don't believe there's two kinds of tendency or that they don't both act as the first linker? It could be that, but it's more probably that in some schools, they don't believe that holding to a self nature of things is holding to a self nature.

They say it has to be towards people. Okay? And in this school, don't forget, you have dogmatic paradox.

The subtle form and the obvious form. No, three degrees of emptiness. Okay.

And it probably has to do with that. Okay, so here we go. Now, this part's easy.

We agree with the reason. You can't divide no self nature into two. Right?

That's where he's going to go here. Madrugna dharta, chukyita mayena. If something is the lack of a self to things, it is a kind of lack of a self.

We agree to that. And if something is the lack of a self to people, it is a kind of lack of a self. We agree to that.

It's about the holding that we disagree. And that's the end of the argument. Hopefully, he'll go more into it.

But basically, it's this question of the lack of a self nature. There's actually four, okay? Subtle, obvious lack of a self nature to people.

Not so obvious lack of a self nature. Subtle lack of a self nature to people. Obvious lack of a self nature to things.

And subtle lack of a self nature to things. And in this school, this one doesn't even count. And then these three are called the three degrees of emptiness.

And this one is, only this one is called emptiness. The first one. Yeah, the subtle lack of a self to things.

[Speaker 2]
I think, okay?

[Speaker 1]
If I remember correctly. Okay, here we go. Kacik nare.

Please read. Kacik nare. Because your reading is so good.

Jigta Lengke yin na. Semjung mong pa yin pe kyap pa tau. He went, this is the second tone.

It's Chinese second tone. Tau. Yin na.

De yin na. Marik pa yin pe kyap pa kangsik. Kyod kyi marik pe zennyit thet pe chir.

Nice, okay. Kacik nare. Somebody says, jigta lengke yin na.

What? If something is the inborn destruction view, then it must be, this is Stanley's word, semjung, mental function, as opposed to mind. It must be the mental function of mong pa.

Like confusion or darkness, mental darkness. Maybe confusion. Yin pe kyap tau.

Must be. Because de yin na. If something is the innate form of destruction, it must be misunderstanding.

And, okay, two parts to this reason, split reason. And your definition of misunderstanding is correct. So in our definition, in the rung luk, in our presentation, we use the word mong pa for misunderstanding.

Okay. If you want to go see that. I don't know.

Like, I like to mark where I am. And then I'll search for mong ma. These are all serna.

I'm skipping the serna. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
What about zenny? Can I get a zenny?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, there's a lot of mong ma. Here we go. Okay.

This was our definition. This was rung luk, right? This was our system.

And we said, we defined it as the mental function of mong pa. Okay. So, we can't complain.

On that, he's correct. Okay. Because it's your definition.

Please read this line. Be careful with the d-b-y-e. I'm warning you ahead of time.

Step page here. Okay, so, the first of the split reason was, if something is the innate form of destruction view, it must be a kind of misunderstanding. And then he said, you know, prove it.

Yeah, it is, because if you divide misunderstanding, you can get the innate form of destruction view and the tendency to hold to the self nature of people. I'm not sure that's correct, but anyway, he says step page here. That's correct.

That division is correct. If you agree, and now we have our famous guest. Kee Ken Giao.

[Speaker 2]
Kee Ken Giao.

[Speaker 1]
Please read. Do you know? Kee Ken Giao, Giao Wei, Wu, Giao, Yu Ki Jik Da Ling Ke Chu Chun, De Tao De Che.

Okay. If you agree, what's Kee Ken Giao? Old dog reading.

[Speaker 2]
I love mangy dog.

[Speaker 1]
Mangy means like the fur is not good, it's old, and there's pieces missing. Okay. So, Duna considered the inborn destruction view in the mind of a mangy old dog.

De Tao, this division is correct, I guess, because it is, because your definition is correct, I guess. Let's see. Duna, if you agree, I'm sorry, let's make it more precise.

Let's see.

[Speaker 2]
Is this the first Dartel? Is it Tangpo? Because it's to the first part of the split reason.

Let me see.

[Speaker 1]
Tangpo Dartel. Oh, maybe it's Duna back here. If you agree that every kind of inborn destruction view has to be the mental function of confusion, okay, then let's take this old dog's inborn destruction view.

Are you telling me it's the mental function of confusion? Why? Well, because it is one of the kinds of inborn destruction view.

Okay? Then, if we say Ta Ma Dru, sorry, if we say you're right, it is a kind of confusion. We agree.

Duna, that dog's inborn destruction view is not the mental function of confusion because it's a kind of wisdom. Oh, man, what? And this gets into, I don't know if you remember the Abhidharma mental function presentation.

Is a Sherab one of the Sem Khi Samma?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Sem Khi Samma Sherab? No, it's not. But in the Sem Khi Samma, Lo Dru was defined as Sherab.

It was a kind of Sherab. No, it's Sherab. Oh, that's right.

So Sherab doesn't have to mean wisdom. It can mean the ability to think clearly or the ability to think, the ability to reason. In a general presentation, which is the challenge in Stanley's text, you have to find a word that can cover all kinds of intellect.

Remember we made a big deal about intellect instead of intelligence? It just means the ability to think. And sometimes that ability is defective.

But it's still the ability to think. So that's where he's going here. It's not a kind of confusion because it's wisdom.

Then we say, Dhamma Dhruv, it's not wisdom. The old dog's destruction view is not wisdom. What's the old dog's destruction view?

It's the old dog's feeling that the old dog exists from his own side, or his paw exists from his own side. Me or mine.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Da Thao? Please read. Da Thao, shirab nyonmong chen yinpe chir nama kya.

Yeah, we call shirab nyonmong chen messed up intellect.

[Speaker 2]
Okay? Is it usually lodru in nyonmong chen?

[Speaker 1]
They usually say, they say lodru when they say the sanggisa monk, and they say shirab nyonmong chen. They don't usually say nyon, lodru in nyonmong chen. I don't recall seeing that very often.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Nyonmong chen.

[Speaker 1]
Alright. So, just because an old dog's misunderstanding is a form of messed up intellect doesn't mean it's wisdom. Okay?

Ma kya means we agree. We agree it's a form of defective shirab. But that doesn't mean it was shirab.

Okay? Because this shirab implies understanding. And this shirab means intellect.

Okay? Alright? Got it?

You okay? Just nod. So, it's a translation challenge.

Because somehow these two words have to be the same. But they mean something different. Good luck.

Yeah. Yeah. Maybe Shinten can help you.

Ma drum na. If you disagree that... Yeah.

If you disagree that an old dog's jikta, thinking, innate destruction view is a kind of messed up wisdom, shiram-nyam-mongchen. Okay? If you disagree, der ta, it is too, because the commentary to the Avatara, when we don't know which Avatara...

Yeah, it's... Well, I actually found it for you. Because the Avatara says, de tabi nama shukpa shiram-nyam-mongchen.

It has the expression, the defective intellect, which is engaged in that way. Or that kind of defective intellect, which is engaging. Okay?

Quote.

[Speaker 2]
Is it funny at all to see Chandrakirti quoted in a Svatantrika text?

[Speaker 1]
That's a good question. It is funny. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Is it because he...

[Speaker 1]
But don't forget, Kauchik can be any weird person.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
When you say Kauchik, somebody says, somebody comes and says, you can mess up, you can mix anybody. There's always some fool who says something. So we have great latitude when we talk about Kauchik.

Okay. They can be almost anybody. They can be a fisherman from Brazil or something.

Suppose some fool comes along.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So here's... Here's the... It's the auto-commentary.

It's not just a commentary. Okay? It's not a commentary to the avatar.

It's the commentary to the avatar. The auto-commentary by Chandrakirti.

[Speaker 2]
So then maybe it's uniquely appropriate to have the main critic of the Svatantrika school...

[Speaker 1]
Quoted by the wrong one? By the...

[Speaker 2]
By the Kauchik.

[Speaker 1]
Be the Kauchik? Then he kind of gives a definition of destruction view. He kind of gives a definition of destruction view.

So please read. Okay. So this is his either definition or description of what is the destruction view.

And he gives the long form of it. He doesn't call it jikta. He calls it jik-tsok-da-da-wa, which is the whole form.

The view of the destruction assemblage or something, destruction package.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And then he says, he describes it as it's a kind of intellect which is, you know, defective or something. Defective intellect which is engaged in thinking about me or mine. Me or mine.

And nyamba, it's thinking in this way. Me or mine. It's a defective intellect which is engaged in thinking about me or mine.

So you can footnote there. Sometimes I'm lazy and I don't capture... Oh, I did capture the page number for you.

So you got it. Okay. Shenyang, please read.

Shenyang. You got to go up or down?

[Speaker 2]
Be brave.

[Speaker 1]
Be brave. It's a counterexample from... Yeah, are you telling me it's...

Be brave. Yeah, I do. Okay.

Then he takes a counterexample. He says, just because something is shirim doesn't mean it's shirim.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So, defective shirim, I personally, I wouldn't call shirim. And I'll give you an example. Defective nyom juk.

We don't call nyom juk. What's nyom juk? It's a certain meditation.

It comes in focus. You can translate it as balanced meditation. What's it balanced between?

[Speaker 2]
Agitation and omniscience.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. It's the balance between the elephant and the monkey. Samma pati.

So we call... Nyom means balanced. And it's like a bicycle.

Like you haven't fallen this way, you haven't gotten sleepy, and you haven't gotten agitated. So nyom juk is like samma pati. Yeah, samma pati.

Let's take defective forms of balanced meditation. Are you telling me they are balanced meditation? Why?

Well, because defective forms of wisdom are wisdom. According to you. It's a parallel argument.

Because, you know, how do you say parallel argument in Tibetan?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Ripakotsum.

[Speaker 2]
Ripakotsum.

[Speaker 1]
It's a debate device. Ripakotsum. Equal logic.

If defective wisdom is wisdom, then defective meditation is meditation.

[Speaker 2]
S-G-O?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I was afraid you were going to ask me that. I think it's S-G-O.

[Speaker 2]
So? Like equal.

[Speaker 1]
It's like equal. Tsum. M-T-S-U-N-G-S.

Mao Tsar Shakyamuni. Mao Tsar Shakyamuni. Well, we have the famous tsum.

We have the Stanley's tsum. Tsum teng na. Five kinds of linked.

Five ways in which the mind and the mental function are linked. Equal. Anyway, okay?

Thank you. You accepted this kind of necessity. Even if it's a defective blank, it's still a real blank.

You accepted this kind of argument. If you're the one who accepted it, then if you agree... Yeah.

If you agree... I looked at how I cheated.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
It's just easier. Because he couldn't agree to anything. So, I'm teaching you to look ahead.

If you agree that defective meditation is meditation, then gyewa yin bar. Tao. Are you telling me it's a good karma?

Defective meditation. Okay? Are you telling me it's a good karma?

Well, why do you say that? Well, because you said it was a meditation. You said it was balanced meditation.

Okay? Well, dum chen means not necessarily so. Just because it's meditation doesn't mean it's a good karma.

Well, kyap te, of course it does. Of course it's true that if it's a meditation, good karma yin be kyap. It must be a good karma, gyewa.

Why? Now he uses lung gi drub che. The kosha says...

Abhidharmakosha. The kosha. Stanley's text says, defines nyom juk as gyewa tse chikpa.

What's that mean? It's the same substance as virtue.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Love. Those people that were downstairs should know this because it's a synonym for nyom juk. We had like five Sanskrit synonyms.

But that was a long time ago. Like two days ago. No, it was more than two days ago.

Ekagra. Ekagra.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The Abhidharmakosha The Abhidharma defines balanced meditation, samapati, as single-pointed good karma. Gyewa tse chikpa. Single-pointed good karma.

Single-pointed virtue. Therefore, if something is meditation, it's virtue. Right.

So are all kinds of meditation virtue? Yes. Is defective meditation, meditation?

Yes. So defective meditation must be single-pointed virtue, right? No.

Kosho said so. So you can't agree that defective meditation is meditation. Because if it was meditation, it would fit this definition.

And therefore, defective wisdom is not wisdom. Okay. Okay, you all right?

[Speaker 2]
And he's going to try to agree.

[Speaker 1]
Demi nitte. Now this is a big deal. This is a big deal.

You can't agree that defective meditation is single-pointed virtue or virtue, good karma. Because it's nyomu. Nyomu.

Yeah. Now, there's a big difference between nyomu and nyomu. Yeah, right.

Okay? Klesha and kleshish. Kleshayi.

Okay, so nyomu means... This table is nyomu... Oh, I wouldn't say that.

Anyway. Nyomu chen means involved with negative emotions. It may not mean negative emotions.

But it can mean tied up with negative emotions. So when you're... This is something I had to struggle with when I was 20 years old, and I'm trying to translate it down to Dharmakosha.

Why is this nyomu and nyomu chen? What's the difference? Chen means to possess.

For example, a human being, or a living being, in Buddhism it's called sen chen. Mind-haver.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, mind-haver.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, a person who has a mind. A being who has a mind is the word in Buddhism for a living being. So this chen means possessing.

Who has. So notice that he didn't say nyomu yin. He said nyomu chen yin.

It's kleshe yi. It's negative emotion-ish. Okay, now how are you going to translate that?

But you can say it's involved with the mental afflictions, or with the negative emotions. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
And so he's saying gyelwa can't be nyomu chen.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. That's a big point here. Good karma can't be messed up, mixed up, cannot be mixed up with negative emotions.

[Speaker 2]
Wow. That's a bummer.

[Speaker 1]
This is a profound kyaba. If it's true, it's pretty bad news.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Now I'd like to give Sugong a hand because he's on to the second link. Look here. Now you see, every presentation of the twelve links, the first link is about half.

So when you finish them, well, we have the English here, so we're not really halfway through, but to get through the first link, then you're over the... the rest is downhill. You are just skiing downhill.

It's misunderstanding, which is a difficult subject. And the rest is like a no-brainer. Okay.

Yeah, there's probably going to be a few difficult points, but but mainly it's trying to understand misunderstanding, which is difficult. Time not to misunderstand misunderstanding. It's the difficult part.

Okay, so anyway, congratulations. You reached Potter. Harry Potter.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
You. I mean, Harry, not the character.

[Speaker 1]
Harry Potter. Okay, go. Okay.

The second link. Good. We can call it fresh karma.

Fresh karma. It's the watermelon seed in the first day that you put it. And then after that, it's not du che kyi le anymore.

Okay. Fresh karma. I wouldn't translate it du che because for example, there are two of the twelve links are karma.

Number two and number ten. They're both du che. So you can't really translate this as du che kyi le, which is a factor.

I mean, all twelve links are a factor. So you got to use the definition which is going to be fresh. Fresh karma.

Yeah, fresh karma. First planted. And if you translate it as sanskara or whatever, I've seen a lot of people say compositional factors.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
If you want the reader to quit, then put compositional factors. And they will close the book and they will pick up a newspaper. You know?

Fresh karma is so much easier. Shepa la. We're going to explain it in three parts.

[Speaker 2]
shak pang sung Come on.

[Speaker 1]
shen luk shen luk gak pa gak pa rang luk shak pa su pa pang pa It's usually pang pa. We're going to... We're going to block the other guy of view.

We're going to disprove his ideas, refute. We're going to... shak means we're going to set forth our idea, second section.

And then we're going to deny any refutation. He's going to... rebuttal is good, yeah.

We're going to deny any... Rebuttal means he comes back and complains about us. So, it's kind of...

I like it's very democratic. We attack him. We give our system.

Then he gets a chance to come back and attack us. This is like Buddhist pedagogical system, educational system. It's cool.

It's a good system. Which one of these would an American textbook have? Just the shak.

Yeah, just the shak. They just tell you what's correct. And they don't make you think about it.

Here, first they tell you what's wrong. And it's slightly wrong. And you have to learn to say, oh, that's not quite right.

And then by the end of the first section, you can write the second section yourself. Okay? Because you know why each part of our definition is there.

[Speaker 2]
It really happened to us yesterday in Adam's text. Yeah. We were just clueless for a while about what he was talking about.

And then by the end of the recitation, when he said dhagpa suddenly, we were like, oh.

[Speaker 1]
The whole room was like, oh.

[Speaker 2]
We didn't even get to the wrong one.

[Speaker 1]
Gotcha. So, here's the first. So, the other guy...

Well, we criticized the other guy. Kajinderi, please read. sak che kyi le yin na yinlak yi pa du che kyi le yinpe khyap sen na Okay.

Now, this is... We're going to learn something kind of profound here. Somebody comes and says, here's this Abhidharma term.

Okay? Very popular in the Abhidharma.

[Speaker 2]
If something is the contaminated karma.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, if something is impure karma. Okay. If something is a kind of impure karma, it must be yinlak yi pa.

The second link. Yeah, it must be the second link, karma, fresh karma.

[Speaker 2]
Must be.

[Speaker 1]
Now, we just have to find something which is a dirty karma, you know, impure karma, but it's not the second link. That's our... The next thing anybody says is going to be that.

It's going to be... It is the second link, but it's not... I'm sorry.

It is impure karma, but it's not functioning as a second link. Our counterexample.

[Speaker 2]
So, here's his counterexample. Sak che gyi lung ma te.

[Speaker 1]
Sak che gyi lung ma te. Gyi lung ma te.

[Speaker 2]
Neutral karma.

[Speaker 1]
Kyi le chhe chhe. Well, consider impure, neutral karma. Neutral karma means like picking your nose.

You know, like you're not hurting anybody, and you're not helping anybody. Okay? It's like you're driving your car and you're just not thinking about anything.

And it's responsible for all the neutral stuff in our world. So, there's people who irritate us in this room. There's people who we enjoy in this room.

And there's people we don't think about. So, the last one is the result of neutral karma. You're just like, okay, you know.

[Speaker 2]
This is almost like a brand new category of karma for us. Like we have good, bad, and dirty, but now we have dirty, neutral.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. We have dirty, neutral. Impure, neutral karma.

Okay. That's how. Are you telling me it's the...

It's that. It's the... It's the second link.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Are you telling me it's the second link? Why do you say that? Well, because it's impure karma.

Okay. Well, why do you say that? Because it's what I said it was.

[Speaker 2]
It's the example I took.

[Speaker 1]
I took... I took an impure karma, which is neutral, but it was an impure karma. That's how.

I disagree. Okay, I disagree that you took it as a chit-chin. Chit-chin.

I guess. I disagree. Let's just say I disagree, okay?

Because... And this is the main point. DE YOD PA'I PHYIR There is such a thing.

There is such a thing. There is a kind of dirty, neutral karma. Impure, neutral karma exists.

But you can't agree that it's the second link. You can't agree back above. So, DUN MI NIM You can't agree, you have to go back and see what fits, what comes next.

You can't agree it's a second link because it's... Neutral karma. Neutral.

It doesn't trigger another ten links. It doesn't do anything. But there is no example here.

Yeah, he just doesn't... Just conceptual arguments. Hopefully he'll give us...

But we just learned something. There's a... Oh, because of your example I gave.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, but is the guy... I mean, was presumably Kachik saying I don't accept that there's such a thing as...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he's implying that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Dirty, neutral karma. As impure, neutral karma.

Literally, I don't accept that you gave it as an example, but that's not what he's suggesting. Because he did, that's right. Hmm.

Wow. Okay. This is a weird one.

Please read. Kachik Nare. Yeah.

Leja je ni supe we... Chewe. Chewe.

Chewe leyin na. Good. Leyin pe kyapsa na.

Okay, so leja je is an idiom. Okay? Leja je means an idiom.

And it often comes in Nagarjuna... Nagarjuna... Nagarjuna-ish discussions of if things are empty, can the way things work exist or not?

The working of things. The way things work in the world. You know?

Like things do things. It's called leja je. The way things work.

Okay, so he's... He's playing on an ambiguity of the word le. Okay, le can mean work.

Le can mean karma. Work. So cha che means the way things do things.

Cha is the object. Che is the verb. The way things do things.

The way things work. You can say the way things work. But somehow you have to get a word that sounds like karma.

I don't know. Good luck. So karma can mean just people working.

The way karma work. You know, actions. Action.

[Speaker 2]
Action.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Can we say the way karma work? Yeah.

No, you can't. Okay. The working of the world.

The way cups work. The way computers work. The way cars work.

He's playing with the... The le. The karma or le is the same word.

So you've got to struggle with that. You might say the way things work, karma, is karma. You know?

You can do that, but it's better if you can find a clever way that this ends up to be the same word as this. So if something is the working of things in the world, is it work? You know, is it karma?

So nyi su chewa is an idiom. Nyi su chewa means an idiom.

[Speaker 2]
Should I put lejache in there as well?

[Speaker 1]
What's that?

[Speaker 2]
Should I put lejache in there as well?

[Speaker 1]
No. Just nyi su chewa. Okay.

Nyi su chewa means the dual bi... bi-part division? Two-part division.

Two-part division? Okay. Two-part division.

Nyi su chewa. Okay. Two-part division.

There's a word in English. Bi... B-I...

[Speaker 2]
Bifurcated, yes.

[Speaker 1]
It's bifurcated, yeah. Bifurcated? Forget it.

It definitely won't pass the waiter test. We say bifurcated. We don't serve buffalo.

[Speaker 2]
Sir, could you bifurcate that for us?

[Speaker 1]
If it's karma in the sense of the division between what is done and who is doing, if it's action, you might want to say action, if it's action in the sense of what is done and who is doing in the sense of that division, okay, then it must be karma. It's basically all forms of action are karma. Okay.

Do we know what the bifurcation of le chak che is? He's going to give you a chit-chat.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Then here's our counter-example, which our counter-example is something to do with action in its two forms, but it's not karma. So, we're going to take yum, geng, ding, dru sum.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. That's the three versions of the perfection of wisdom.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yum means the mother, like yab yum, father and mother, king and queen. So, yum is... It means holy mother, like we only use this word for Buddha's mother, Maya.

So, but the perfection of wisdom sutras are called the mother.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Bodo bodo mido are called the mother. Together, they're all called the mother. Okay.

And there's three versions of the mother. There's a long one, a medium one, and a short one. Gye means long, ding means medium, du means short.

And then there's the super short, which is the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Cutter. Okay, they're in the super short. Okay.

So, let's consider the mother sutras, the mother scriptures, perfection of wisdom. They must be karma, right? They must be karma.

Why? Because they involve actions. Okay?

Doers and done. They are part of the division into doer and done. Apparently.

[Speaker 2]
Because they were spoken or something? Because they were realized?

[Speaker 1]
Because they were realized?

[Speaker 2]
Or all three of them.

[Speaker 1]
Blessed, chow on, yeah. Well, let's just do it and then we'll talk about it. Okay.

Dönpa. Now, in scriptures, you'll see words like Tathagata, Tathagata, Geshe Sherpa, or Sugata, Deva Sherpa. And it means Buddha.

But we don't know if it's the Buddha or all the Buddhas. You know? So, when you want to specifically say one, our Buddha, you say Dönpa, which is always singular.

The teacher. The teacher. Not the teachers.

So, if you want to say our Buddha, you start with Dönpa. That's just a, you know, a Dönpa. I don't know.

It's standard. If you said Tathagata, it could be all Tathagatas or our Tathagata. Okay?

So, when you say the teacher, it's always Shakyamuni. Okay? And then he mentions Shakyamuni.

Shakyamuni is Shakya, which is his tribe's name. It's not Sakya, which is a Tibetan lineage. So, divide Shakya from Sakya.

Sakya means pale dirt, and it's a place in Tibet, and it became the name of a lineage in Tibet. But Shakya means the tribe of which, it's a clan of which Lord Buddha Gautama was the prince. Then, tuba means, in Sanskrit, able one.

Muni. So, this is this thing where the Tibetans translated Muni as the able one. Tuba means able, can do things.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
But, the Sanskrit is more accurately silent Mauna. The quiet one. The quiet one.

The one who doesn't talk too much. And then Mauna is the spiritual practice of not talking for a week or a year or whatever. Which is a form of Mauna.

Mauna. So, this is Shakyamuni. So, our teacher, Shakyamuni, they, is the sungwa po.

The speaker. Okay. Sungwa po means speaker of the, these three forms, these three forms of scripture as the, as the object of his action.

Lesa jala. Okay. As the object of his action.

Okay. So, this is, he's involved with actions and, he's involved with action in the sense of what is done and what is doing. Because, he did something.

And what he did was teach these three forms of scripture. So, he's a, he's a doer. Okay.

He's part of the two-part division into things that are done and people who are doing them. Okay. So, he's involved with action.

But, du na, if you say what he did was lay, yeah, if you said he's talking, he's speaking these three scriptures, these kind of three classes of scripture was karma, then, sem chun yinpa ta, then his speaking, the, then his speaking these teachings must be a mental function. Must be a mental function. Because, sem pa yi gyi len yin no.

Yeah. Karma is when you think, when your mind moves. Okay.

Which is a mental function. The moving of the mind is one of the sem kyi sum pa. One of the omnipresent mental functions.

Okay. So, sem chun yinpa ta. Are you saying that his talking of those sutras is a mental function?

Why do you say that? Because you said it was karma. Okay.

Because you said it was karma. Was it a movement of the mind?

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. The talking. The talking.

Well, why do you say that? Because it's an action.

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Not all actions are karma. Okay. Maybe.

[Speaker 2]
All right. She said all karmas are sutras.

[Speaker 1]
Or not everyone who does an act, who acts on something is committing karma. Mm-hmm. So, are you saying that his talking Yeah, that sounds.

was Are you saying that his talking was karma? Why? Because it was an action.

It was the point of an action. You can't agree that it's karma because it's words. Words.

Words which express something. So, gyur che. And this che is supposed to remind you.

Okay? This che is supposed to remind you of this che. All that.

Doers and doing. Done and doer. This is supposed to call you back to this thing.

His words did something. What? They expressed the sutras.

Okay. Well, then they're karma because they do something. Yeah.

Okay. So, they must be a mental function, right? His words.

We're being sarcastic.

[Speaker 2]
You know?

[Speaker 1]
They're not. They're not karma because they're not a mental function. What you learn here is for him, if something is karma, le, it must be a sen chen.

It must be a mental function. It must be a mental function. So far, this is our position.

So, is there no such thing as the three doors of expression? Physical karma, mental karma, verbal karma. We have to talk about it later because we ran out of time, luckily.

Good call. Okay, but just, you know, when you're going through one of these texts, you just, you put it over here. I don't understand it yet.

It seems to me it's not quite correct. Let's see if he talks about it later. If he doesn't talk about it later, I'll go fishing in some other books.

But what he's trying to say, what it seems he's trying to say, especially with the second link, well, what the Abhidharma would say is primary karma. Primary karma is movement of the mind. Secondary karma is what that instigates, what that causes.

It causes you to do something. It causes you to say something. But mother karma, root karma, is you think, and then you do something, and then you say something.

So, I mean, if he had said primary karma, I'd be more comfortable. Jetsun Kappa, in your text, shopping, he's like, karma is the movement of the mind, and what, well, his text, and what it instigates, what it causes. Say something or do something.

But the mother karma, you can't have physical or verbal karma without a thought preceding it. First there has to come a thought. You know, I'm going to, I'll tell him something, or I'm going to reach for my coffee cup.

First, the instant before there's a thought, oh, I would like some coffee, and then you move your hand. It's a raw karma, right? Yeah, it's like raw karma.

So, it's kind of, I feel like he's talking about raw karma. Okay? But you also have to play with this difference between the words, which express the sutras, are doing something, but they're not committing karma.

The words are not making karma. The mind can make karma. So, saying words is karma, but the words don't make karma.

The words are not committing karma. Okay. Because they don't think.

Okay? So, not all, not all actors of action, not all committers of action, are karma. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Only the mind is karma, right? Only the mind is karma.

[Speaker 1]
The movement of the mind.

[Speaker 2]
Only the movement of the thought.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, you can see. It's tricky.

Tricky. I just got to explain why it's tricky. I'm not going to say yes or no.

Luma ten. Luma ten. Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Satsang with Mooji