Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 15

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay, so here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so, for Venerable Uppala, we were discussing a proof for things not being self-standing, or something like that. And there are going to be two steps in the treatment of this proof. So, tsultrimpa, we're going to try to establish the three relationships.

It means tsultrimpa. The three relations are in Tibetan. One is chokchu, jekyap, and dhokyap.

Say chokchu, jekyap, and dhokyap. Now tell me them in terms of one, two, and three. Chokchu is three is one.

One and the other one is three. Then jekyap is three. If three and two, dhokyap is not two and not three.

If these three relationships hold, it's a correct statement. It's a correct proof. So, in fact, the definition of accurate proof in Buddhism, and if you're going to be technical, accurate proof in a particular context, seriously, we're in any case where the three relationships hold for that context.

Alright, here we go. But he didn't say, he says, I'm going to prove the relationships and it has two steps. So that's weird.

Because there's three relationships. So what's he doing?

[Speaker 2]
He's not going to bother with the dhokyap.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he's not going to bother with the dhokyap. If the jekyap holds, the dhokyap must hold. The dhokyap is sort of a redundant confirmation or something like that.

Probably it's important in the microchips in credit card system, which is her business. If you want to make fake credit cards, talk to her. We could fund the whole place.

[Speaker 2]
For an instant.

[Speaker 1]
She's like that. Yeah, we can, Ching Ma. Okay, so...

But it's interesting, he's going to go to the khyapas first. So he's going to treat the latter two relationships first and he's going to go to the first relationship. Now this is so difficult because inside a khyapa he's going to break it again and not into the two khyapas we expect.

So it's going to be nasty. So I keep repeating the syllogism in bold for my own benefit also. So I can't remember where we are.

So I'm going to keep repeating the logical statement. And I'll repeat it now. Ready?

Or Utpala's going to do it.

[Speaker 2]
RANG KHYAD DUG PAR NANG BA'I BDAG CHOS CAN Translate. Let's consider a self that appears to be substantial.

[Speaker 1]
Nice, self-standing. He didn't say substantial yet, but it is substantial in the sense of self-standing. Let's take a me, for example.

Let's take an Utpala, a venerable Utpala, who appears like they could stand on their own. What are the two classic examples of standing on their own in this argument? Yeah, the witness who listens to the thoughts.

Or the little ball in your heart where all the seeds live. I mean, those are roughly. Okay, go.

[Speaker 2]
PHUNG PO DANG BRTZE NI MI THUN PA'I RANG KHYAD THUN PA'I BDAG GDUG NOD DE It doesn't exist as? As a self that is self-standing in the sense that it is of an essentially different nature from the parts of a person.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. You're hot today. You're hot today.

You must have actually looked at it during the last two days. Can't say I did that. Geshe-la said to take the time off, so I did.

And now here's his reason.

[Speaker 2]
PHUNG PO DANG RANG KHYAD THUN PA'I GCIG DANG RANG KHYAD THUN PA'I THA DE RGANG RUNG DU MA GRUB PA'I PHYIR Because it doesn't exist in a substantial way as being the same as or different from the parts of a person.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, or self-standing, right? It doesn't exist as a self-standing thing which is the same as the body and mind. Nowadays I like body and mind because it's short and sweet for the five heaps.

Do you think we should do that? If you're translating what I call half-technical texts like Lam Rim, I think in the Lam Rim it's okay in many circumstances. For a technical book like this I probably would not.

I would say parts of a person. I don't like heaps because... I mean heap in English means heap of trouble.

It's a lot of trouble.

[Speaker 2]
Sometimes it means heap of garbage.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't really have good meanings in English. So you can use it if you have to use it. When you get to Abhidharma, first chapter, PHUNG DANG SKYE DGOS GYI RIGS KYI DGOS PHUNG PO KHYAD CIG GANG RNAM YIN They define the heaps as those things which are piled up.

Then you've got to say heap. In your case you have to say heap. Especially in that section.

Nowadays I'm... Parts of the person, if you're in a technical translation, and then body and mind, if you're given a DCI talk, it's called the body and mind. People like to talk about body, mind, soul.

Soul? What do you mean?

[Speaker 2]
Body, mind, soul. That's not going to work. I understand.

[Speaker 1]
We're talking about that too. Is the soul the body and mind or is it not the body and mind? That's what we're talking about.

But if you're talking DCI, you can do that. But the soul normally wouldn't come up in DCI. It's a Christian concept really.

Okay, so anyway, it is neither... What was the chit-chat?

[Speaker 2]
Oh yeah.

[Speaker 1]
This self which appears to exist. That kind of implies it doesn't, right? It's not self-standing because it's neither self-standing one or separate with the parts of the person.

Okay? Now, notice that we have a split reason. So that's a special kind of logic.

What's it called? Thought. Thought, maybe thought or something.

Anyway, split reasons are nasty. Then you have to prove each part. So it's really two proofs.

Don't forget we have a split reason as we go on.

[Speaker 2]
DANG PO NI PHER NA PHYIR RUNG GI RA BZHIN This is only part of the loan from before, so when I'm wondering from before, it said PHER NA PHYIR RUNG GI RA BZHIN ZHES PA NI BRAL DA MIG PAS THAG SO BRAL NA BRAL DA MIG PAS THAG SO So is that last part about it being... MIG PAS Is that last part about it being that kind of logic?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's all.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's separate from the syllogism.

[Speaker 1]
It's just that kind of syllogism. Quote. DANG PO NI What was the first of the two steps we were going to do?

[Speaker 2]
We were going to prove the kervas.

[Speaker 1]
We're going to prove the kervas. We're going to prove that if this, then it must be that. If this, then it must be that.

If three, it must be two. If three, it must be two. Now, the three here is nasty.

If something is neither the same as or separate from the parts of a person in a self-standing way, if something is neither the same as or separate from the body and mind in a self-standing way, then it cannot be a self which is self-standing and which is essentially different from the body and mind. It's extremely difficult kerva. Okay?

All right. Just try to keep it in mind. But you already can't, so it's all right.

Then it didn't help that we had important words here mistyped. Or misspelled. It made everything more difficult.

But two major mistakes here. First of all, so here we're going to prove the kervas. Generally speaking, chir.

Chir tan thade duk tu me na. Generally speaking, if something is neither one with something or separate from something, if it's neither the same as or separate from something, if something is neither the same as or separate from something, then me par nge pa. This nge pa is uncomfortable.

Due to the fact that it is definitely non-existent, it is proven. Due to the fact that it is definitely non-existent. Sorry?

Now, it's kind of, it's kind of an echo of the idea of muttho kyi je pa. Deduction by the nature of the thing. Deduction by the nature of the thing.

Like if it doesn't exist at all. The cappuccino coffee cup after Geshe-la was not here. The power of the cup suggests that Geshe-la was here.

Okay? So by the power of something, me na nge pa duk kyi. You know what?

This is mutho. I bet you a dollar. Then it would make sense.

Do you have a carving or anything?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, we have a carving.

[Speaker 1]
I'm digging for it right now. Wouldn't it feel comfortable if it was mutho duk kyi? By the power of the thing not existing?

No. Me par nge pa. That would be really comfortable if it was nge pa.

But it would be an amazing misspelling. That would be two naros missing, right? Yeah, and a prefect naro.

And a dowel. Right.

[Speaker 2]
It is a pretty bad carving.

[Speaker 1]
No, look, it is. The R is the D. Oh, me par nge pa.

I'll suggest this, which is amazing if it's true. Which scan? You have a bunch of scans in that folder, Apollo.

Do you know what scanned? I don't know. I'll dig.

Anyway, trust me. I mean, it's very probably this. I'll have to study the scan.

Anybody have the scan? Can you get the scan up and I'll prove it to you? Okay, it's 5A or 5 or 4B.

Wow. That would be a big mistake.

[Speaker 2]
Dig it. Sarmo kompanyi. What?

Sarmo kompanyi. That's the text then. Oh.

[Speaker 1]
I thought you were saying that so you read it that way. Okay, so here's the first one. Now it says, if something is neither the same as...

If something is neither one or many, it doesn't exist. I mean, that's essentially what it says. If there is neither a relationship of one, of being the same, or being separate, then there's no relationship.

And the same language is used for one and many. It's really one and separate, right? Separate can mean one and many.

And then, nupadhoki is the typical, very typical, description of logic, of deduction, by the power of the thing, nupadhoki.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Oh, I see, I see.

[Speaker 1]
You see? Yeah. If something is neither one, if two things are neither, if two things are neither the same, or separate, then they cannot have a relationship.

Okay? That's all. That's all he's saying.

Okay? Now, it gets nasty.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, can I capture the change you just made, Geshe-la? Yeah, right there. Sorry, I was taking notes.

[Speaker 1]
I believe this is correct.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I'll check after that.

[Speaker 1]
But it's an amazing misspelling. I have to pat myself on the back here. Because I would have really twisted it.

Yeah, there's a problem with the scan.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, the scan is also messed up.

[Speaker 1]
What folio is it, though, Justin? It's 5A. 5A?

I believe it's 5A or 4B. I'm not sure. Let's just check.

I was following myself. I can't even read the numbers here. You can't get that?

The scan's messed up.

[Speaker 2]
It's only half.

[Speaker 1]
My scan wasn't messed up.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, so maybe that's the wrong one then.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, I'm going to go check the scan. Maybe I have to. There's a few different scans that we have in there.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
I'll check the scan.

[Speaker 1]
Here's my version of the scan. Which is okay. Yeah, I'm looking at that one now.

We were looking at a different one.

[Speaker 2]
Where's that? Where's that scan?

[Speaker 1]
It's the one I have. I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
Can you airdrop it to me?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but let me... Oh, that page is totally blotchy. Oh, you're looking at it on there.

All right. So this is probably what happened. It is blotchy.

Yeah, here's the place in question. It's right here. The top line?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's all right. It's all right. And it certainly does...

You know, this doesn't look like an O. This doesn't look like this, right? No.

Okay. And it's a stretch to say that this was a D.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's a problem.

[Speaker 1]
And that there was no dot between these. And that this was a narrow. And that there's no narrow here that should have been here.

Right. But I still feel... I'd bet you a dollar if you find another problem.

[Speaker 2]
A dollar. Okay, but it's in Vintage Yoga, a dollar.

[Speaker 1]
If I do or not.

[Speaker 2]
I'm not saying.

[Speaker 1]
I'd bet it's... I'd bet it was a Murpatok. I bet I'm correct.

But I would leave it as a Murpatok. Maybe the carving's wrong. The person who made the carving didn't read the last one correctly.

I'll do something sexy, okay? Put four dollar signs here. See how many times he uses Murpatok.

Not once. In this text. Okay.

What was the other one? Ngepa. Ngepa.

Ngepe. Ngepe. Ngepe.

So?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. He doesn't use that one either. Then you'd have to look at all the...

[Speaker 2]
What are you doing? Oh. Oh, this works.

Because, yeah. So it's just that one place where he used it.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, now we're going to use... I'm sorry to waste your time on your test doing this, but let's use... Let's go to test new.

We might... It's time to try it. Okay, so go for it.

By the way, if you're interested...

[Speaker 2]
Always.

[Speaker 1]
To see... I'm sorry. How much work it is to keep this program running.

These are the history of the box. Okay, like in the last year. This is from 2011.

You know, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. This is how much work it took to keep this program going. So there should be something for this week.

What is it? 11, 17, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's the other computer.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
So I've got to drop that one to everybody, and you can help me test it. How's that?

[Speaker 2]
Only if you have the new operating system.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, most of us probably haven't updated.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, I haven't updated. I saw what happened to you.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, by the way, I would not have. I normally never do.

[Speaker 2]
So does this computer have the old operating system?

[Speaker 1]
This one does have the old operating system.

[Speaker 2]
Good, then we don't need to look at the new Gopher.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, here's the new Gopher, which I also have to... So you have to put it on your new machine. Put it on my new machine.

Where is my new machine?

[Speaker 2]
Do you have AirDrop turned on in your new machine?

[Speaker 1]
No. Should I? Or you can just email it to me.

You can just open the email that Ted sent it to you on your new machine. Oh, that's true. Yeah, now we're talking.

Okay, so where am I? 21 never shows up. Here I am.

Okay. You just, there you go. Okay, so now it comes up in my downloads.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
We have to accept it.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, you should have to accept it. Here it is. Okay, hold your breath.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
That's okay. It can't be that.

[Speaker 2]
It's okay.

[Speaker 1]
It can't be open because it's from an unidentified...

[Speaker 2]
Just hit OK. This is totally workable.

[Speaker 1]
Go to the system.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Control. Go to preferences. Your options.

Or just control. System preferences. You can do that.

[Speaker 2]
That's a way to do it. You're such a Windows user.

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
Security and privacy on the top row. There you go. General.

Nice and intuitive. Open any way. Yes, no, seriously, open.

[Speaker 1]
For real? Oh, okay. It's not going to prove much.

I mean, I'll do a, I'll do a... I hate this computer. Okay, I don't have any choice.

You'll get used to it. And... Okay.

Okay. It's like a kid's... It's like a toy.

[Speaker 2]
Very expensive toy.

[Speaker 1]
No, but is it cheaper than the last one? No. That's not how these things typically go.

[Speaker 2]
It just doesn't work.

[Speaker 1]
It's very frustrating. Okay, moving on. In something.

I'm just trying to prove to you that I'm statistically more likely to be correct. In something. Just like, in general, I'm a man.

[Speaker 2]
Slip. Well. Well.

Well, 49 versus 1.

[Speaker 1]
You got it already, this figure? I guess.

[Speaker 2]
You put Mepar. Where is Mepar? No, Mepar.

Really? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
What's that? No, it's Mepet. Yeah.

I don't know where it's at.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 1]
It's Mepet, though? Mepar, Mepet. Somehow.

I don't know. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Let's go here. 11 to 49. Oh, really?

[Speaker 1]
11 to 49. I saw the virgin. In my table.

Acceptable variant.

[Speaker 2]
Five times more likely. Yeah? Roughly.

What's that variant?

[Speaker 1]
Is that Creepin? Go. Does this program work?

Let's see. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It looks pretty good so far. It's a little slower. Yeah, 49 to 12.

[Speaker 2]
I wouldn't say you crushed it.

[Speaker 1]
What is it? Mepar, Mepet, though? Yeah.

Mepar, Mepet, though. Mepar? Mepar.

Mepet, though. And? Mepar.

What's Mepar, Ngopet, though?

[Speaker 2]
Mepar. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Well, that's not so relevant, but this is the real test.

[Speaker 2]
What's the real test?

[Speaker 1]
Mepar, Mepet, though. It's slower, right? It's zero.

You see? That thing, Ngopet? His reading is zero.

[Speaker 2]
I knew there was a par in there somewhere.

[Speaker 1]
But wouldn't we have to check Mepar on both of them? Yeah, that's only fair. No.

But you could. Mepar, Ngopet. Mepar?

Right there? He just wants that dollar. He wants his dollar back.

Anyway, this is a pretty amazing example, because I think the Carver's made a mistake. It doesn't make much sense, and there's no precedent for either one.

[Speaker 2]
No, I've got one in mind, but it...

[Speaker 1]
Mepar, Ngopet, though?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. I don't know why. I'm searching the same thing as well.

[Speaker 1]
Well, maybe his program doesn't work, which would be kind of frightening.

[Speaker 2]
It's in Sima Nanga.

[Speaker 1]
Really?

[Speaker 2]
Which one? Are you in tenure?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Sima?

[Speaker 1]
I don't know. Okay, anyway. Different kind of problem.

I'm going with that one. Okay. Sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Footnote it, and that's it, right?

[Speaker 1]
No, I'll find another Carver.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
There's one in St. Petersburg.

[Speaker 2]
Hi.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. Hi.

[Speaker 2]
You wanted to get a book? Hi. At any rate, even if this was a thing, you could imagine having similar meanings.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, anyway, the point is that if it's not the same or separate, it can't be.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? There can't be a relationship. Now, apparently he's going to go to the Chok Chur.

Okay. In his mind, he's finished the Khyapa. If it's not...

If the relationship between two things is not that they are the same or that they are separate, then they don't have a relationship. Now, in his mind, he finished the Je Khyapa and the Dalkhya. But now he says, let's talk about the sordhambo.

So you have to know the word sordhambo in logic. Sord means let's take the first half of the rhythm. Sordhambo.

Yeah, the first corner. Oh, good. So, that one was one, the same.

Is the self, which appears to be self-standing, the same as the body and mind? Sorry, not the same as the body and mind. Not the same as the body and mind.

And not only that, not self-supportingly the same as body and mind. So, what's the cicin?

[Speaker 2]
This self that appears to exist.

[Speaker 1]
This self that appears to exist is the cicin. Let's take the self that you think is there. Your soul.

Let's take your soul. And the chok chod sordhambo, the first part of the reason, connection to that, is take the soul that you think is there. It's not the same as your body and mind.

It is not your body and mind. And then the second choice was that it was separate from your body and mind. That it existed separately from your body and mind.

And then in the Cittadaki Tenzin, in the proof of one or many, we always say...

[Speaker 2]
Self-existently.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, self-existently. Denpa dupe, or denpa dupe. Den duke, denpa dupe.

So here he says, self-supportingly one, or self-supportingly separate. That's all. Which is the same as saying self-existently the same as your body and mind, or separate from your body and mind.

So the point is, the soul you think is there, is it part of your body and mind? Or is it separate from your body and mind? Neither.

That's the point. Now we're going to talk about whether it's the same or not. That's the first part of the reason.

Okay? Comfortable?

[Speaker 2]
And we're going to run all three tests on that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they don't know where dak chod chen. Let's take the soul, or the self, that appears to be there. Which appears to be there.

Pumbodarangya tupe cik tu me te. A lot of mistakes in the carving. It's driving me crazy.

This page is messy. By the way, I believe this is the copy we found in Beijing. There's a better copy in Russia.

I believe. By the way, that's also why you try to scan multiple editions. Tell me why.

Because you have messed up versions. One might have gloppy ink.

[Speaker 2]
Same woodblock.

[Speaker 1]
Same woodblock, but the guy put too much ink on the roller when he did the painting. So it's not redundant to go to Mongolia and get the same text, and go to St. Petersburg and get the same text, and then go to Beijing and get the same text. It's not stupid.

And we have done it. And sometimes we have 50 of the same text. But why not cover yourself?

Okay, pumbodarang. And here you see why it's important to get those. And it's a lot of money.

That one page probably cost us $100 or something. To get all the different versions of it. But it's worth it, I think.

Pumbodarangya tupe. It's not one and the same with your body and mind. Because bumbo?

[Speaker 2]
In a sun standing way. Yeah, I'm not going to keep repeating that.

[Speaker 1]
But you're correct. Because it appears to be distinct from or separate from the body and mind. Okay?

Now, is that a kava? It cannot be the same as body and mind, because it appears to be separate from body and mind. Yeah, I think so.

Well, anyway, for him it's a kava. Then we're questioning his kava. Come on, just because it appears to be separate doesn't prove that it's not the same as.

Just because it appears to be separate doesn't prove that it's not the same as. And if you've struggled through Adam's text, this gets easier. And that's the whole idea.

Okay? Now, we say, I don't know if that's necessarily the case, just because it appears to be separate then it must be not be the same. Separate.

Then it can't be the same. Just because it appears to be separate doesn't prove that it can't be the same. I mean, it can appear that two people are not related when they come into a coffee shop five minutes apart, but in truth they can be husband and wife or something.

You don't know. I mean, that's what I would say. But let's see.

,GAL TE PHUNG PO DANG RANG RGYA THUG PA'I GCIG DU YOD NA, If something is the same as the body and mind, ,DE DANG GCIG YIN DGOS LA, If it's a self-standing the same, they must be the same. If the relationship between me and my body and mind is a self-standingly the same, they must be the same. He just dropped out the self-standing.

They have to be the same. And if they are the same, next step in the logic, They can't appear to be different. It would be incorrect for them to appear to be different.

So, especially if they were self-standingly the same, they couldn't appear to be separate. If a man and a woman were self-existently married, they could never appear to be not married in the coffee shop. But that's like a joke.

If they were self-existently married, they could also be a fish in the... I mean, he's saying if they were impossibly something, they could not be anything. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
That's a good point.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, if they were self-existently one, they could never appear separate. Is it true to say if they're not self-existently one, would they always appear not to be separate? No.

You see?

[Speaker 2]
No. So, don't forget... So appearances always match the way things are?

[Speaker 1]
No. In a self-existent world, yes. Apparently.

But anyway, this is his proof. Don't blame me.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'm just kidding. I'll say the whole proof again. If things were self-supporting the same, if my soul and my body and mind were the same thing in a self-supporting way, in a self-existent way, then they would have to be the same.

And if they were the same, and I would say in that way, then they could never appear to be separate. If your soul was your body and mind in a self-existent way, every time you thought about your soul, you should think about your body and mind. Right?

[Speaker 2]
You would be thinking about your body and mind.

[Speaker 1]
Now, I like it because he's going to take this reason, which is a split reason, and really it has two parts, right? Between the la. Okay, I'll tell the two pieces of his new split reason.

His new split reason. If the body and mind and the soul are self-existent one, then they have to be one. If they are self-existently the same, then they have to be the same.

That's the first half of his new reason. That's the first half of his new reason. And if they are the same, then they shouldn't appear to be separate.

So I'm just alerting you that now he's inside the first half of the first half of the reason. Okay? All right?

[Speaker 2]
You guys all right?

[Speaker 1]
Very quiet.

[Speaker 2]
I'm just going to say yes, but I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
He gave a proof in the bold print, in the dark color here. We've been talking about this proof. And then we split the reason.

And the reason involved being the same with your body and mind, or being separate from your body and mind. Then we said it can't be the same with your body and mind. I'm sorry.

Yeah, it can't be the same as your body and mind, because it appears to be separate from your body and mind. Okay? And that's a kyap.

If it appears to be separate from your body and mind, it can't be the same with your body and mind. Because if it's the same with your body and mind, it would never appear to be separate from your body and mind. Okay?

So his reason there was, if something, if your soul was the same as your body and mind, they're what? They're the same. I'm sorry.

If the soul and the body and mind are self-existently the same, then they'd have to be the same. That's the first half of his new reason. What's the second half of his new reason?

If they are the same, then it would be inappropriate for them to appear separate. If they're the same thing, they shouldn't appear as being separate. He's just trying to prove the first part of the reason.

Yeah, now he's going to prove the first part of this new reason. Oh, wow. Because so far we're proving the first part of the old reason.

Right, right. The first part of the new... Think how long it took me to figure this out with the misspelling.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So the first part here is, if something, if the soul is the same as the body and mind self-existently, they have to be the same. If two things are the same self-existently, they must be the same. He's going to try to prove that.

Okay, ready? Yeah, I made myself a note. He's talking about the immediately preceding life.

Ready? DE'I PHYI CHEN Let's take the self that appears. PHUNG PO DANG THA DE'I NI SNANG BA YIN TE It does too appear to be separate from the body and mind.

DE'I NA RANG RGYUD THUG PA SNANG BA'I PHYI CHEN Because it appears to be self-standing with respect to it. From it.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I was trying to throw in a from. This DANG is from. Disjointed.

Disconnected.

[Speaker 2]
Could you say that in your show?

[Speaker 1]
This DANG here, I suggest reading as from and not and. It is self-standing from it. It stands by itself away from it.

I'll take it that way. Okay. I thought he was trying to prove the opposite of that.

I don't know. They're saying they are self-existent in one.

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, hang on. Maybe he's proving we exist in part of it.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
I take this back. Okay, I take this back. Nick's right.

This is referring, okay? The first reason it's true, DANG RNAM MA GRUB doesn't refer to this split reason. It refers back here.

Okay. It refers back to here.

[Speaker 2]
Back to PHUNG PO DANG RIN GYEN.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it refers to BUM BUM. Okay. It appears to be separate from the body and mind.

It appears to be separate from the body and mind. Now we're going to prove that. It does too appear to be, and I got it correct here.

I didn't get it correct today, this morning, but I got it correct when I was checking it. Meaning not just above, but just above. Two lines back.

I should say two lines back. Let's take that soul. Let's call it soul.

We call it reshi provisionally. PHUNG PO DANG RIN GYEN It does appear to be separate from your body and mind. Because it appears to be self-standing with regard to that.

You see, DE DANG. Apart from it? Yeah, I read it as apart.

I read it as from. DE DANG RANG GYAL THUB PA means that and self-standing. Meaning self-standing away from that.

Independently of that. Can you throw it apart to make it clear for the reader? Yeah, I would.

I would. It appears to be standing freely from it. Something like that?

It appears to be standing on its own away from it. You see, I believe that's his point. I believe...

What's he talking about? The soul. It appears to be separate from the body and mind because it appears to be standing separately away from it.

That's what I would say.

[Speaker 2]
He's saying the same thing in different words.

[Speaker 1]
Not really. No? I mean, sort of.

[Speaker 2]
Both of them are self-standing.

[Speaker 1]
Well, the whole point has been a discussion of a self which appears to be self-standing. What does self-standing mean? And it implies that it could...

Like those two consciousnesses, go back to those two consciousnesses, it appears that they can exist independently from the rest of the body and mind. Because they appear as something independent. It appears that they could stand on their own independent of body and mind because they're watching the body and mind.

In the first case. And they're the source from which body and mind flow in the second case, in kunshi, with kunshi. So it appears that they could exist without body and mind either because body and mind are flowing from them or because they observe body and mind as a silent witness.

Okay? You okay? Yeah, sure.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll say it again. The watcher, the witness of your body and mind appears to be standing on its own away from body and mind.

Because it watches your body and mind. I'm walking to the store. I'm thinking about coffee.

So it appears to exist separately from your body and mind. Because it's observing them. It's a witness of them.

And in the second case, in the kunshi, it's the place from which body and mind flow. And that's in your text. It's going to come in your text.

We don't understand that we are watching sense powers that are actually flowing from, that are in the kunshi. So they are, the body, which is the sense powers, and the objects of the sense powers, and the mind are flowing out of the kunshi. So the kunshi has to stand independently from them.

They are the result of the kunshi. The kunshi must have some existence independent of them. Some existence independent of them.

But they're still connected, and in a way are one. Well, the only technical, if you want to go deeper, the only technical relationship they have is that the kunshi cannot be called their cause until they help. Okay.

Right. In which case the kunshi, that part of the kunshi is gone already. But let's not go there.

Okay, here we go. So the kunshi is them. All I'm saying is, here he's saying, if they appear to stand separately from body and mind, they must indeed appear to be separate from body and mind.

If they appear to stand away from body and mind, they must appear to be separate from body and mind. That's the khyapa of his new thing. Here, okay.

Now here's another interesting... Yeah?

[Speaker 2]
If there's a subtlety there, I don't get it, because it seems to be saying the same thing in different ways.

[Speaker 1]
Well, legally he's okay, because he's used different languages.

[Speaker 2]
Well, that's okay. I'm just wondering, am I missing something?

[Speaker 1]
No, because we are about to discuss the possibility of being chikten rang kya tu pa.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
One and the same is still self-standing from each other. Okay, now, the word se means to play. And that's a pain in the ass.

[Speaker 2]
Let's do that.

[Speaker 1]
Now this is, three applies to one. He's saying three applies to one. Tsu-shi means chit-chen.

It's a synonym for chit-chen. Tsu-shi, the point of argument. The object of the argument.

So this is in a... Well, he's saying that number three, the reason given, does apply to the tsu-shi. Sits on top of it?

Yeah, literally sits on top of it. It's established on top of the chit-chen. The first element.

The third element applies to the first element. We have a chok-chu. In Houston, we have chok-chu.

[Speaker 2]
Why?

[Speaker 1]
Because three applies to one. The reason applies to the tsu-shi, to the chit-chen. Chit-chen and tsu-shi are synonyms.

[Speaker 2]
So should I have an appendix of what a syllogism is? And all this bit about it?

[Speaker 1]
Oh yeah, if you don't have major help from the reader, they're going to leave your book in the bus station.

[Speaker 2]
It seems like footnotes might be too complicated.

[Speaker 1]
I think I would make footnotes, and I would make them simple and many. I wouldn't try to get everything into one footnote. If you split the footnotes into many small footnotes, I think it's doable for a reader.

And more doable, I think to expect them to go to the back and study Tibetan syllogisms, the success rate there is going to be close to zero. The success rate with tiny little footnotes with separate information, is going to be about 20%.

[Speaker 2]
And what source should I use?

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry?

[Speaker 2]
What source should I use?

[Speaker 1]
That's a good question. You know, if it were me, I would use Choney Lama's logic text. His commentary on syllogisms.

Oh, cool. Is that a Tserame textbook? It's not, but it exists.

He did write a bunch of textbooks. They're not normally used much. Kibbutzen Bedarge is the big guy.

But Choney Lama's there. He is from Tserame. So, okay.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. Okay. Three minutes, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
Now, Tsor Chima. Somebody tell me. Tsor Chima.

Oh, the latter of the two. The second half of the split reason. The latter.

Chima meaning latter. Like Tse Chima means... The latter part of the next line.

Next line. Next line, Tse Chima. Here is Tsor Chima.

And this is the Tsor in Kensa Rinpoche. Right. Meaning former abbot.

Right. Oh, nice. Kensa Rinpoche.

[Speaker 2]
You put it in a corner.

[Speaker 1]
I don't put it in a corner. It's kind of sad. Tsor has two main meanings.

Any corner looking angle. An angle. Or a former.

So don't get lost with Tsors. Tsors can mean either one. And in this case it's latter.

Oh, she makes it latter.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, latter corner.

[Speaker 1]
I got confused. Yeah, it's the latter element here.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That's good. Day, and I filled in for you what the day refers to.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
A self which would appear to be self-standing. Which was our Chichen. Which was the original Chichen.

So now he's proving the second part of the original reason, which was, can it be separate? Can they be separate? They cannot be separate, a self-standing separate, or a self-existing separate.

We're reaching that. So day, chana, Chichen. It was a bitch.

It was time. This carving is really bad. And it's terrible.

So day, Chichen, let's consider that soul. The thing that appears to be a soul. PHUNG PO DANG RANG RGYAS THOS PA'I THA DAD DU MED DE It cannot exist separate of the body and mind.

It cannot exist independent of the body and mind. Why? PHUNG PO DANG RANG RGYAS THOS PA'I THA DAD DU MED DE Because it is not an object which is separate from the body and mind.

Okay? It is not an object which is other than the body and mind. Literally, he said other.

Okay, so that's the time for this. Just because it's an object other than the body and mind doesn't prove it's separate from the body and mind. He said ma kyap.

Between here, he said ma kyap. And then we say, okay. kyap te, it does mean that it is true because RANG RGYAS THOS PA'I THA DAD DU YIN NA If they were a self-existence separately, what?

The soul and the body and mind. The soul and the body and mind. If they were self-existently separate...

[Speaker 2]
They wouldn't appear that way. It would be correct.

[Speaker 1]
Amazing misspelling here. Lama is a word. It's a typical word.

But it's LUM PHUNG PO LA MA It would be incorrect. It would have to exist as something which did not rely upon the body and mind. It would have to exist as something which did not rely upon the body and mind.

Which means you'd have souls running around without people.

[Speaker 2]
Which is what happens in heaven, I guess.

[Speaker 1]
You see what I mean? Without bodies and minds, you would have souls running around. And according to this, it's not possible.

Now... Now they're going to go to the reason in the proof involving the former half of the reason. Which is where I thought we were before.

And we're not going there.

[Speaker 2]
Do you know that they're going to do the first head body transplant?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I've been reading about it. I thought it was Russia.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, it was in Russia.

[Speaker 1]
They just did it on a dead person. Just to show that they could do it.

[Speaker 2]
I saw it. In China. They did it in Russia about one or two years ago.

But I don't know how. You're not that person, right? Because if so, you're out of here.

I know, exactly. Which person would you be with? The one with the mind.

[Speaker 1]
Wow, that's tricky.

[Speaker 2]
Where's the mind? I've got the mind.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.